Change Your Image
SmartAlx
Reviews
Never Let Me Go (2010)
Stupid concept.
Everyone in this world is so compliant. There's no way this is possible. The only way you can get a world like this is if you have previously rid the world of people who are willing to fight against evil.
Brooklyn Nine-Nine: The Set Up (2021)
Yet another political episode where they literally promote defunding the police.
In this episode your favorite character is guilty of being the bad cop. Obviously a heavy handed attempt to make you the audience member feel guilty for being a bad cop.
Fun with Dick and Jane (2005)
Now THIS is crisis management for couples!
So Fun with Dick and Jane was my Christmas movie this year. I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised and encouraged. I heard some critics say that they found it difficult to root for a couple that would rob small businesses. But really the movie was so light hearted that it didn't take too much suspension of disbelief to excuse this minor slip-up. After all, they could have just as easily robbed big name gas stations and big name coffee shops. And in the end the robberies' role in the movie wasn't all that big. Besides, the couple commented that they would try to give back to society, which they did in the end, sort of.
I went into this movie thinking that it would be all about these two committing dozens of robberies, like a comedic Bonnie and Clyde duo. But it was actually more about how they coped with the Enron like situation they were in. I felt that this movie illustrated very beautifully how a husband and wife should cope with hardship. Now understand that I don't mean that couples today should start robbing neighborhood mom and pop shops. What I mean is that couple's should look to each other for strength. The beauty of this movie was that no matter what happened, the couple remained unified. Very refreshing for a Hollywood movie.
Everything that affected one spouse affected the other spouse. Each situation that came up, they handled TOGETHER. When Dick got his promotion he encouraged his wife to quit the job she hated. It was so beautiful. I felt such love when Dick brought this up. And she was so appreciative that he could provide that for her, even if it didn't work out in the end. Hmmm... Why couldn't she get her job back? They didn't explain that. But let's get back on topic.
The couple showed more and more love and unity the more desperate the situation got. The most disconnected the couple were was when Dick robbed the neighborhood lawns of patches of grass so he could have his own lawn back. But this event actually displayed an already strong sense of unity. When Jane woke up in the morning and Dick showed her their new lawn, he treated the entire grass crime spree as if it was a wonderful present for his wife. It was almost as if he did it all for her. It was a very touching moment.
And finally, later on when Dick decided to go rob a store for the first time, she jumped out of bed to tag along, jokingly saying, "I have to see this. You need a wheelman don't you?" Hilarious. It might seem a bit thin of an excuse to explain why the wife tagged along for a robbery when most wives would try to stop her husband. But really it wasn't so out of place. They really laid the groundwork... they spent good time to develop the desperation necessary to convince me that this couple WOULD resort to crime to pay the bills. It took only a small leap to force them over the edge. Granted, Dick's leap was a bit more dramatic and logical and Jane went over the line much easier when most wives would be more resistant, but really it didn't bother me all that much.
My only real complaint is that the bad guy didn't get it in the end. Yeah, he lost money, but he wasn't arrested or even embarrassed. He was actually a hero in the end. Not good. He's the bad guy for goodness sake! Oh, also Dick and Jane didn't really seem to make amends for their crimes.
To sum up, this movie was about a strong unified couple dealing with crisis. It used a rather Cliché device (Enron) to give the story some rather unnecessary relevance, but I'm sure many victims of the Enron scandal got a lot of release by watching it, and it did give a good backdrop for the story. The flaws were few and minor and overall the feeling I got from this movie was very positive because the duo and chemistry between Dick and Jane was very good. I believed that they were married. I believed that they loved being married to each other and I believed that they would grow through struggle. 7 stars from me. And that's pretty good for a comedy.
Shi mian mai fu (2004)
Pointless Movie.
Yes, it's beautiful. The colors, the framing, the choreography, all beautiful. But the whole story is pointless. We never find out what happens to the House of Flying Daggers.
The gist: One intricate plan by one group; another intricate plan by another who knows of the first group's intricate plan. They turn one good guy into a bad guy and make a bad guy seem like a good guy but is he really good? You don't know who to root for because everybody betrays one another. And when all the snow settles, all you have is some dead extras and one dead girl. Both intricate plans just fizzle out. No climax. No pay off. The plans just die. Evaporate, like the, uh... wind. (sheesh) And please don't waste your time watching the movie to get THAT stupid reference. I don't want to be the reason for you wasting 119 minutes of your life.
At least in Romeo and Juliet the Capulets and Montagues find peace.
Rashômon (1950)
Misses the point in this examination of good and evil.
In Kurosawa's examination of good and evil, he missed the point. So very few storytellers know what makes good or evil. Rashamon is very Eastern in its philosophy, so it doesn't quite get it. It's not what we do that makes us good or evil. Doing good isn't the cause of good or evil in us, it's the result. I cannot see anyone come to any accurate conclusion about the heart of man by watching this film. Still, it was interesting and it wasn't without its entertainment value. Seeing the 4 conflicting stories intertwine was interesting. Even after watching the film, it's difficult to figure out which tale is the true one. I give it 5 stars on pure entertainment value. But don't expect a morality lesson when you watch it.
Russkiy kovcheg (2002)
Without a plot, the one-shot device is meaningless.
I began with my scratch paper optimistically. Anticipatorily, 30 seconds into the film I wrote, "Takes a few minutes to get used to, but once you get acclimated you are in for a treat." Pfft. Boy was I wrong. Though I did lose the seasickness, I couldn't shake the oppressive "what's around the corner" feeling I get when I watch horror flicks like Alien. There is this cramped feeling like in a dream in which you cannot see the edges no matter how you turn your head. You just know there is so much just beyond your field of vision, yet you can't quite catch it. There is this overpowering tunnel vision feeling, as if you are watching the entire thing through a telescope. You see, to shoot the film in one take, they had to take great pains to HIDE most of the museum. They couldn't show much of the most probably spectacular ceiling because of the hidden lights up there, and they had to move slowly and show little of the periphery to allow a significant buffer zone necessary for the 8 people behind the camera as well as the hundreds of extras and crew.
The movie as a whole is extremely egotistical and pretentious. Though the Hermitage Museum commissioned the project to display the museum, the movie missed the grandeur just to display Sokurov's "film the whole thing in one shot" device. It's amazing to me that they could claim that their goal was to show the historic building when they went to such pains to hide so much of it.
There are several moments in which the camera stops between rooms and waits, apparently for the new room to be set up. Each grand scene seems to have a dark empty room designated as a buffer zone for this purpose. And we are to believe that the entire film is precise. Well, they couldn't fool me. I know it was more difficult than it appears, but if I can understand the magic behind the trick, the spell, no matter how difficult, is ruined.
The plot, what little there is of it, seems to be a pretext to allow the film to be shot in one take. It has a similar feel to the device in Memento, yet it is not effective at all. In fact, the device gets in the way of the point of this film, while in Memento, the device became a tool critical to the story. The events in Russian Ark seem very contrived. Example: The disembodied voice seems to be the cameraman wandering aimlessly around the building. He joins a group going up a stair and asks the audience why he is using the back stair, as if we made the choice instead of him.
For all the talk commentator Jens Meurer makes of precise timing, the whole thing seems very improvised. A "Whose Line is it Now" cast could have shot the film. But at least with them there would be some laughs. That said, don't bother watching the film as intended. Watch it with Jens Meurer's commentary. It is by listening to his commentary that you can appreciate the difficulty it was to shoot this mess. It's far more interesting than the film alone.
As a tour through the museum, this film is very poor: sacrificing the feel of the museum for the sake of Sokurov's egotistical one-shot device. As a story it's too muddled, clearly a pretext to give explanation to the hook. Like a pizza delivery in a porn-flick, the story is too thin and obvious. As a historic documentary, many of the events are of no interest to anyone except the museum director and the film-makers. It is otherwise of little use as a historic documentary because the genuine historic events are not clear unless you already know Russian history. I give it two stars on those details.
I will add one star on the astounding accomplishment of shooting the entire thing in one take. And astounding it is. But I refuse more because this gimmick is precisely the root cause of the rest of the film's mediocrity.
Saw II (2005)
Movie shouldn't have made it past the first 10 minutes.
Nothing past the first 10 minutes of this movie should have happened. I'll sum it up quickly so you can get on with your life.
A bunch of people are in a house. They are locked in and the same deadly nerve agent that was used in the Japanese subways is poisoning them. The doors are elaborate and cannot be used as an exit. But the windows are WEAKLY boarded up. They have plenty of tools to either go through the windows, or if those are barred, to punch through the wall. It doesn't take superhuman strength to break through plaster and bricks. It just takes a brain. They had 2 hours to punch through the wall and get to a hospital.
Do that and the movie ends.
And that is just an example of what all "victims" suffer in this series. They follow the rules given by this merely condescending and quite stupid villain. The victims NEVER think outside the box. They never search for traps. A trap might find them though. They know it's a trap, but they do the obvious thing anyway, knowing that it will kill them. How stupid do Bousman and Whannell think we are??? The victims NEVER think. For ONCE I would like someone to anticipate the tripwire and freaking STEP OVER IT!!!!!!!! AND STILL GET KILLED!!!! A good horror/suspense movie doesn't demand that they escape. It just demands intelligently thought out writing. You people who give this movie good ratings standards are way too low.