Reviews

The Big One is an absolute classic in political comedy. There are many memorable scenes in this movie, including celebrity cameos, standup, landmark interviews, and quick-witted hilarity. Backed by a new successful book, Michael Moore traverses the political and physical landscape of America in a search to understand the coexistence of massive record profits alongside surging unemployment.

Today this film has also become an important piece of archival footage itself. Moore collects the thoughts and feelings of Americans during the mid-90s when outsourcing of jobs became the "American way" after NAFTA.

What sets this movie apart from Michael Moore's other films is its incredible pacing. The Big One doesn't have a dull moment or a flat joke in it. I recently watched it for my 3rd or 4th time and was absolutely hooked all the way through. I laughed my ass off! A must-watch film and I'd argue the best American documentary of the last 30 years.

Michael Moore has come along way since his "Roger & Me" days. Aside from his groundbreaking work in The Big One (1997), Moore spent most of his career appealing to Democrats and liberals that want to stir things up...somewhat. However, Moore comes from a strong union background and is one of the few progressive commentators these days willing to tackle issues of economic hardship in addition to the social revolution going on in this country (LGBTQ marriage, metoo movement, blacklivesmatter, etc).

Moore's progressive humor, interspersed with archival footage and rock and roll songs is a breath of fresh air. There is always something so very American about his movies. No matter how or what he's criticizing you feel like this is the guy you want to go grab a Big Mac with at the local Cineplex. He's the muckraking everyman.

Where To Invade Next? is like a European history and contemporary events course rolled into one (and I mean that in the best way possible!) Through some unique play on ideas, Moore takes us on a trip through several countries, "borrowing" key ideas and policies that have proven to be very effective. The end result is that we not only believe a better world as possible, we see it unfolding before our eyes as Moore brings us solutions to problems that can feel insurmountable. In a way, he plays a sort of political "Puff the Magic Dragon" - giving wings to our imaginations for progressive ideas we simply thought were impossible. Through that process I found many tear-jerking moments that swelled my heart an extra shoe size (yeah, my heart could wear shoes...psshh!)

The film oscillates between a positive contemporary dialogue of European policy, and intense archival footage of the problems here in the states. While I can see this being an important reminder for audiences, I did find it jarring at times. There is one segment in particular where "uplifting" music is being played over scenes of prisoner abuse that I found unnecessarily triggering, and somewhat manipulative. I don't personally feel like Moore is deserving of the propaganda label that gets shoveled in his direction at times. However this segment was an exception to that, and fortunately only a small bit in the film.

My only other critique of this film is that Moore himself looks like a raggedy old hitchhiker throughout the film...even when meeting the president of a country(!) This comes off as pretty disrespectful, and makes me wonder why a shower and a haircut would be such a bad thing for our lovingly persistent political gadfly. Now that he's internationally famous, he can get away with dressing however he wants but I felt like he took this a bit too far when so many of the places he visits are showing him gratitude and hospitality.

I found this movie to be surprisingly uplifting, and incredibly educational. It feels strange to enjoy learning so much from a film, like I took a class I didn't even notice it! I especially enjoyed the history of Iceland and his careful attention to the role of women in different countries.

A very solid film you won't regret watching, it will make you laugh, cry, and learn. What more can you ask from a movie? 8/10

On the surface Notting Hill may present itself as fast food for the broken heart: a harmless piece of feel-good cinema fluff that might double down a night with the Ben & Jerry's in pajama bottoms. However there's much more to this nineties formulaic screwball comedy than meets the eye.

The far-fetched plot of Notting Hill draws its inspiration from previous fantasy driven screwball comedies such as Frank Capra's It Happened One Night (1934) and Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936). These pioneering films in screwball comedy capitalized on the glamorized fantasy of the average Joe (or average Jane) living the unthinkable: an actual romantic, meaningful relationship with a bona fide world-famous celebrity.

Capra's timeless classics however, were developed in the shadow of the Great Depression, addressing the social issues of inequality amidst the fairytale-like courtship of its protagonists. This was a crucial element to those films; it gave context and grounding for a romance that would otherwise feel completely unreal to the audience. Notting Hill seems to allude to this fictionalized awareness, with both Grant and Roberts repeating the line "it was surreal, but nice." This line in particular felt like a wink to us in the audience, since the filmmakers of Notting Hill are unable to make their picture entirely believable. It's as if they are telling us that we should just go along for the ride.

Capra's films on the other hand, fully immerse us in their world because the celebrity and "everyman" meeting scenarios are not entirely serendipitous. Quite the opposite, in fact, they meet through carefully developed character motivations and fully established locations. Notting Hill has us take an almost religious leap of faith into believing that one of the worlds largest superstars casually buys books without a chaperone or bodyguard in a working-class district of London. When Hugh Grant spills juice on her shirt it requires a second major leap of faith to believe that she would enter a strangers apartment, again without any sort of bodyguard or chaperone, to clean up. To that effect, Kevin Costner and Whitney Houston present a far more believable couple in the action romantic drama The Bodyguard (1992).

However, I have no problem turning off my inner critic and push myself to enter the world of the film which isn't drawing me in on its own. I enjoy many cheesy romantic comedies and have no problem defending less believable plot lines like 2001's Serendipity with John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale. Notting Hill however, has far worse writing and a weaker supporting cast. Its comic timing is always a bit off, and even has Hugh Grant saying outlandish lines like "Ill stabbed him to death later", meant as a joke early in the film when his roommate doesn't pass along a message left by Julia Roberts (Anna Scott).

The supporting cast in this film fulfill the role of a cliché group of British pub crawlers and middle-class domesticity. The one twist in this, which could have been a very interesting character, was a paraplegic woman named Bella played by Gina McKee. However, instead of fleshing out her dialogue she is left as the inspiration p**n for Grant and Roberts' hardships. What's worse, the director actually has her leveraging her disability in order to grant Grant (no pun interned) access to a press conference with Roberts. It seems that Gina McKee's character exists in the film only for this, which is a tragedy of filmmaking in and of itself.

The worst aspects of Notting Hill lay in it's character development and completely unhealthy relationship dynamics. Julia Roberts plays an almost pathological narcissist: someone who lies and cheats on Hugh Grant and is completely incapable of any heartfelt apology. It's interesting to note that she never says once in the film that she loves Grant's character, William Thacker. Instead, after breaking his heart twice and lying to him, she asks for him to love her (after a little time has passed, of course).

The film sells the relationship on the chemistry of Hugh Grant and Julia Roberts and the celebrity fanaticism that it expects from its viewers. In fact, almost every character is enamored with movie stars (even if they don't know which film Anna Scott is in) and plays the everyman role as some sort of stupefied stooge drunk at the alter of celebrity worship. I couldn't help but feel somewhat offended, as if the filmmakers see the public as dribbling idiots who want nothing more than autographs. Even Grant's character, who perpetually "plays it cool" is shown in movie theaters gazing upon Roberts in a bizarre peeping-tom like obsession. Six months after she cheats on him he is still lost in his daydream of Roberts, replaying her films. Some of the scenes are a little reminiscent of Stockholm syndrome in the way that Hugh Grant is portrayed as the non-functioning sad sop who can't get over this femme fatal.

Perhaps to combat this state of events, the producers of the film have laced every montage and establishing shot with the most unbelievably saccharine soundtrack I've heard in years. Once again, it's as if the filmmakers don't have confidence in the script they've made to draw us into a world of actual romanticism. They need to create that romanticism artificially with a score of Al Greene and other musicians that created songs which far surpass the material they are being used for.

The most painful part of the "Notting Hill experience" has to be the way Hugh Grant's character is written. Obviously aimed at an unintelligent and emotionally stunted audience of People magazine readers, William Thatcher is portrayed as the ultimate non-believable hunk: He's handsome, charming, unassuming, self-effacing, and yet always has the first two buttons of his shirt open and just enough confidence to say the right thing. In addition to this, he's inexplicably lonely and unattractive to the outside world, despite his undeniable good looks and charm. As a character he has no depth, his past marriage is explained away in one sentence we can see no reason for him to be the suffering hunk that he is, aside from the necessary role that he plays in his "accidental" meeting with Anna Scott (Julia Roberts). The script reminds us that he was put on this earth to please her narcissism and "treat her right" while she is there to reap the rewards of an undiscovered handsome ball of charm.

Ultimately this film was a commercial slam dunk and for somewhat obvious reasons. It gave a somewhat interesting peek into the life celebrities and lets us bask in the glow of our adoration for Julia Roberts, not unlike Busby Berkeley did for Ruby Keeler in his 1930's musicals. Julia Roberts was at the zenith of her career in the 1990's. She has always been a magnificent actor and a terrific beauty, so I was not spared from the spell myself. However, I cannot be sold entirely on a film based on respect and attraction to a single celebrity. The characters need more substance and definition, as well as motivations that extend beyond the codependent and unhealthy dynamic presented to us.

While the film has an admirable switch in gender roles, it takes this too far in certain respects as well, with Julia Roberts trying to buy off Grant's character with an expensive painting. It hits all the right notes for the lonely middle America working woman. It has moments of defiance, gender reversal, and a completely submissive and buttery hunk, mastering in the art of spinelessness. The film ends with an ultimate montage of wish fulfillment, overlaid with sappy music to show the good life of marriage, pregnancy, and happily ever after. A final reminder that the script itself is void of any real identity.

I can't recommend this movie as a good piece of screwball comedy fluff. However, it is a pretty fascinating look at our culture's fanaticism over celebrities, the way the movie industry views us within that fanaticism, and our skewed complexes for dating fantasies. it seems that we can find any romantic comedy decent enough when codependence and narcissism are normalized by attractive actors and a half-baked script. A forgettable, yet not wholly purposeless movie.

I just learned more about the South Asian-American experience in 49 minutes than I have after hundreds of hours watching the Simpsons.

Hari Kondabolu and Michael Melamedoff did a tremendous job creating this enthralling documentary. There is at least one white American who is going to be less ignorant now (me) and I will be recommending this to all my friends. The Problem with Apu is funny, quick-witted, personal, and filled with great special effects. The music and production values are very high as well.

It's worth noting that Hank Azaria has done other questionably racist roles, including his supporting role in Along Came Polly (2004). I think Hari did a great job addressing the systemic issues as well as holding Hank accountable (like he should be).

Only 1-star off because I think it could have been about 10 minutes shorter. It drags a tiny bit at the end and could have been storyboarded slightly better for pacing. Consciously or not, this film follows a similar framework to Michael Moore's docu-classic, "Roger and Me" (1989). Moore's pacing was a little better but still, this holds up with the best of em. Highly recommended.

8.5 out of 10 I had the privilege of seeing this at the Castro Theater in 2015 for the public world re-release at the Silent Film Festival there. I had no idea what to expect since the film had been lost for nearly 100 years, and I have never been a huge Holmes fan (but I don't dislike the character at all). As we know, silent films can sometimes move at a snoring pace, so I kept my expectations low.

This film really surprised me with its Mystery Comics/early Noir kind of feel- splitting the film into "to be Continued...!" type of segments, since it was originally a serial. I imagine it can be enjoyed watched in 3 separate parts as well (it wasn't meant to be a 2-hour sit-down affair).

The pace is great overall, only a little sluggish at first with the introductory part of the plot (a letter scandal or sorts?) being very outdated. After the first part of that serial you will feel right at home (or Holmes!) with all the booby traps and laughs. William Gillette absolutely steals the show every time he's on screen and it is no wonder that he was adored for his portrayal of the character at the time of release.

I won't give away any of the gags or trickery, but they are top-notch and this film has Chaplin-inspired hoodwinking all over the place. If you enjoyed Chaplin's Essanay work like "Police" or his work on "The Adventurer" then this will be right up your alley.

Going deeper, this film also provides a fascinating insight into the development of the modern "Super Hero." Sherlock Holmes was in many ways the world first superhero, his intellect being the primary superpower. It's kinda neat to think of how this protagonist archetype has developed over the last 100 years! A fine gem to be preserved for future generations :)