Change Your Image
averroes111
Reviews
Signs (2002)
Shayamalan repeats himself, and a worn out crowd pleasing formula in an expertly made bad film
M. Night Shayamalan has now made the same movie three times in a row.
It is basically use naturalistic film making techniques to walk the line between natural and supernatural until you spring the supernatural at the end. All his movies are excellent propaganda for religion, and little more.
They are well made, but ultimately empty exercises we have already been dragged through countless times.
Signs contains an annoying, offensive stereotype of an atheist in a foxhole that has been pounded to death in American culture. We didn't need Shayamalan to make yet another expertly crafted incarnation of this hackneyed formula.
I give it 5/10
I Am Trying to Break Your Heart (2002)
Self-Important, promotional, shallow dreck
I went into this film with expectations, from the hype, that it would be insightful and uplifting. Certainly something more than a cheap promotional for the band "Wilco."
Instead we get a lot of moping and whining about "the process," a dishonorable and no doubt one-sided portrayal of one band members who was kicked out by the prima donna lead singer/songwriter, a gut-wrenching confession by the fallen member's friend -- for like 18 years -- saying the "friendship had run its course," and this whiny, uncompelling story about how one record label "hurt their feelings" by dumping them, only so that the band could immediately get 50 offers from other labels (oh, the tension...not!) They tried their best to make it look like it was a strain, but I suspect it was all smoke and mirrors to generate a tragedy that didn't exist. This doesn't even take into account the long stretches where we get many of their newest songs shoved at us in full without any storyline, insight or even a decent job at cinematography. The strained attempts at emotional sincerity or reasonable perspective on life made me sick to watch.
From the film, this band sounds like a bunch of vile little babies who poke around to find a voice they don't have and think they're some kind of guardians for the art of music, which they most definitely are not. And I thought the music sucked, and I couldn't even understand the lyrics due to the mumbling style of the lead singer.
I give it a 2/10.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
Deceptively complex, full of implications and always sincere, this is Spielberg's finest film.
"A.I.: Artificial Intelligence" is one of those films that hang over you like a cloud for days after you've seen them. I have returned to A.I. in my thoughts several times since seeing it, grappling with it as both a film and as a collection of ideas and feelings.
I now believe that A.I. is Spielberg's most interesting film to date, on par with or even exceeding his achievement with "Schindler's List." I'm not at all interested in whether anyone liked it or not, or whether it went down well with their Skittles, M&M's and popcorn and made them feel personally validated on their drive home. This film truly has ambitions beyond that.
There are many images that strike me in this film. Mother Ocean at the beginning signifying birth, and Mother Ocean eating her young as the cities of the world drown (with the suggestion that she is ready to eliminate her mistakes and usher in a new era); a robot boy's laughter triggering fake laughter in real parents; David murdering a copy of himself; the permanently frozen expectancy in the face of the ceramic Blue Fairy and the image on celluloid of an artificial boy wishing an impossible thing of a dead object; The great pageant of mankind obscured and buried under a thousand years of ice; the `playback' of David's warped memory by the evolved mecha as if it were a cinematic experience inside a cinematic experience, or a copy of a copy of a copy losing more fidelity each time (this was especially effective); the look on clone-of-Monica's face as she is jolted outside of her programming by the cute but horrifying pictures drawn by the robot boy.
A.I. is fantasy, horror, the cinema, and even Steven Spielberg's psyche itself laid bare. It is a dialectic touching on the themes of dreams vs. reality, cinema vs. life, existence vs. non-existence, human vs. non-human, mother-love/birth vs. isolation/death, and the `primacy of emotion' vs. `emotion as a construct of multiple parts.' It is played along emotional, mythic and subconscious lines and not highly conscious and plot-heavy lines. It is supposed to get under your skin. The sometimes-astounding economy of expression and the resultant emotional/intellectual possibilities make this film a work of art, and not a didactic, literal treatise or a documentary about robots. It deserves serious consideration on these grounds.
It is about the equation of humanity with fantasy. To be a human in our human condition is to dream. Dreaming is a constant wellspring. It is an impetus to act. By contrast, A.I. also exposes the non-Spielbergian notion that we and our dreams, and our cinema, are nothing but artifice and wishful thinking. The Blue Fairy looms large and is an indelible image in this vein. The film explores with minor keys how we could, just as well as David Swinton, be our own worst nightmares merely `physical' beings with no supernatural soul, no God. We are a collection of instincts, needs and desires that need not be more than the sum of their parts, so to speak. The machinery underneath is exposed; the curtain covering the props supporting our myths is lifted. Our fantasies to the contrary may only be at best approximately real, with the distance between the fantasy and the reality being tragically vast.
The non-primacy of emotion is explored when we see cruel sibling rivalry and the impossibility of acting in an inclusive manner toward beings that are ever so slightly not part of our `tribe.' This is involuntary instinct unfettered by the intellect or the heart. It is a vexing part of our `nature.' At the films fever pitch of tear-inducing emotion -- the third and final act -- there are nothing but gears, bioelectronics, computer chips and `modified' clones. Witness that some of the kindest humans in the film were not human at all. Artificial emotion seems at least as valid and also as deeply flawed and `made of parts' to the film as real emotion.
And yet, despite it all, the amazing achievement is that anyone can read much of what happens to David as `cruel,' and not `necessary,' or `to be expected,' since we are reminded often that he is a machine. Why is this? Is it the robot boy's human form? Is it his actions? Our minds are sent back and forth in the volley of this philosophic ping pong.
Furthermore, all of this becomes highly complicated when we ask ourselves: Is it not tragically ironic for David to have allowed a clone of his mother to be created for HIS purposes, as was he in the beginning? Are the advanced Mecha doing this favor for David out of loving kindness, or out of pity? Or are they doing it because he is one of their own and, at long last, the mechas have the upper hand? They seemed to have qualms about re-creating Monica (they were repeatedly trying to give one reason of another why they couldn't re-create her, but it was always well within their powers) but, ultimately, they did it with thoughts toward David, not the human they constructed.
These questions and many more continue to haunt me, and they probably will for the rest of my movie-watching life.
Wonderfully shot, beautifully acted, masterfully conceived and very effective, I for one think this is the best film of the year, and probably among the most interesting and unforgettable films made in the last 10 years.
Many thanks to Steven Spielberg and the late Stanley Kubrick, who left us far too soon.
Dr. T & the Women (2000)
A very, very interesting, multifaceted mythic/psychological journey. I second Chris J's analysis.
This is an unusual movie, kind of in the same vein as "Magnolia" if only because it mixes some intense realism with mythic and manufactured simultaneity and fanciful elements. But it all comes together for me as an observation wrapped in a parable.
I didn't expect to like this film, but was pleasantly surprised. Like most good films, one must stand back and try hard to think about what is being done on the screen. You can't be intellectually lazy about this one. You have to work a little to put what seems to be an incomprehensible mess together. Maybe all you need to do is recall what you think about the sexes and about people and compare it to what happens. There are some very "graspable" things being presented beneath the layering and the hubbub.
What we have is both a brilliant contradiction of Hollywood formula (things just don't happen the way they are classically set up to) and an effective, if imperfect, slice through the psychological landscape between the sexes. The film is even more than this, but I won't try to explain it all here. You have to see it. And when you do, don't get too wrapped up in what the world and Hollywood have trained you to think. Your paradigm may be upset.
I cannot add anything more to Chris J's excellent comments from October 28, so I'll just say that if you want to know more, scroll down and read his fantastic review that clearly shows he knows something about Robert Altman's tendencies and purposes.
I give it an 8/10.
Blade Runner (1982)
An excellent sci-fi/noir film with transporting atmosphere and a successful explication of its metaphysical premises
This is probably my second favorite science fiction film, after 2001: A Space Oddyssey.
I can see how it may have gotten knocked around critically because it probably went against expectations for Harrison Ford fans, and for sci-fi lovers who prefer the adventure of Star Wars to the introspection of something like this. It doesn't always seem to try to be "entertaining" so much as "enveloping" or "involving." Not much "ride 'em cowboy" stuff here save a few combative scenes.
But I *was* completely enveloped, and I savored this film even the first time I saw it in the late 1980's (on HBO or something like that.) I've seen it several times since and I still love it (even with its occasional editing flaws.) I'll never forget Rutger Hauer's performance, which I think was one of his better ones (or, at least he seemed perfectly suited as the "Roy Batty" character.)
Besides the excellent atmosphere, the film handles its premises regarding aspects of being, consciousness, humanity and mortality quite well. It seeps into your pores as you become involved in the suffocating, oppressive and fascinating landscape. I think this is what film is for, as opposed to simply reading a book. It comes across non-verbally as well as verbally.
I really got a lot out of the interactions between Deckard and Rachel. I also was convinced by Roy Batty's (Rutger Hauer) transformation and his place as the defining throughline of the movie. Although I don't see why the "God of Biomechanics," Tyrell (Joe Turkel) would have such low security so as to be killed by one of what he must know are potentially dangerous creations of his, I was able to suspend disbelief and was very much affected by all of that and it still haunts me from time to time to this day. In a way, there is a side to many of us that might wish to ask the same questions of God (if you think he/she/it exists). "What a thing it is to meet your maker," says Batty.
Appropriately, the most defining scene for me was Batty's monologue near the end: "..all these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain." Hard to believe one could shed tears over science fiction, but I did. Then again, I'm prone to think about such things, but I'm sure this is what the movie was intended to do.
So, this film carefully treads territory that few sci-fi films have or could. Almost all are either adventures or horror movies. This was a dramatic and introspective sci-fi film and although the premises have been dealt with before it handled them with great aplomb. Hey, I like a good adventure like the next person, and I'm a Star Wars fan, too. But you have to know when to shift gears and evaluate something on its own merits. Trying to shove this film into some pre-defined sci-fi box just isn't very fair or very insightful practice. It is a fairly unique effort, and needs to stand alone and apart.
All in all, I thoroughly respect this multilayered, artful, thoughtful and interesting anti-utopian experience.
By the way, the "director's cut" is clearly superior to the "dumbed-down" original version where the studio thought that everything ought to be "explained" to the audience, among other things (like the "happy ending.") They were probably worried that the average (ticket buying) sci-fi fan would need spoon-feeding for such a langorous and contemplative movie. Judging by some of the comments here, they might have been right. But, thankfully, people have come around (maybe the sci-fi fans have grown up?) and we have not only more respect for this film but the director's original vision to enjoy.
I give it 9/10.
Pay It Forward (2000)
Wonderful acting, but "Pay it forward" concept and human insight felt under-explored
Right off the top, I do not think this is necessarily a "bad" film. But my feelings about it are mixed. I fully support the efforts made by the main cast to put truth and feeling into their roles. I think the acting was all first rate, and I did care about the characters somewhat. The young actor, Haley Joel Osment, appears to have a great career ahead of him. He was really quite good. Also, it must be admitted that the story idea, "paying it forward," could have been interesting.
Having said that, I think the movie was a bit shaky overall. I honestly felt like I was watching a cheesy "made-for-TV" special or something, apart from the good acting. The whole "kid gets two adults together romantically thing," although always a crowd-pleaser, is pretty unoriginal and really cheats what could have been interesting about looking closer at how "paying it forward" might really have worked. I suspect that the makers of this film just couldn't see how it would work themselves, so the film takes implausible, skipping leaps in that department while we get well-tread territory over the hang-ups of Spacey's and Hunt's characters. All-in-all, not too revolutionary.
The movie really lost me at times dialogue-wise. One example is in the unconvincing homeless-guy/suicidal girl scene. Another (which is a peeve of mine) is the oh-so-typical "if you use words beyond the eighth grade level you must be hiding behind them" portrayal of Spacey's character. A third is when the film threw in a quick one-two punch of tragic/sublime "touched by an angel" moments at the end to wrap it all up. Not really all that inspiring to me...more like standard tear-jerking stuff. Finally, the score seemed like a carbon-copy of "American Beauty," and grated on me. I guess we'll know when were seeing something profound from now on when we start to hear the wind chimes.
All in all I just didn't think the film was big-time material story-wise, or as an examiniation of our existence as human beings, or as far as closely examining its own "pay it forward" premise beyond anything superficial. But I did enjoy some of the moments between the actors and that almost makes it worth seeing on its own.
I can see why people like this film. It seems to have a good heart. And that is just fine in my book. But it also seems to have some thematic confusion, a lack of "throughline" with its main ideas, and some seeming emotional pandering that renders it less powerful than it might have been. A better film that explores the potential for magnanamous human behavior is Akira Kurosawa's 1950's film, "Ikiru." That film, to me, is a good example of how to achieve powerful human emotions without falling prey to too much overt sentimentality, but by letting it grow from the story and by activating both the "heart" and the "mind."
I give this film a 6/10.
Meet the Parents (2000)
A few good laughs, mostly due to the good actors; but an uneven effort at times
Well, this movie should be watched with disbelief fully suspended, since it is essentially a farce mixed with a heavy dose of slapstick. It was pretty stupid and unoriginal at times, and often elicited groans from me (more stupid pet tricks.) But it was also delightful and funny at times, mostly in the smaller moments that were a little less over the top, but also in some of the setup and "payoff" in some of the writing. For instance, I thought the outcome of the pool volleyball game was funny and kind of shocking at the same time -- but in a very good way. ;)
Most of what made the film mildly entertaining for me was simply the performances by Ben Stiller and Robert DeNiro. Neither role was that much of a stretch for either of them, as they both were firmly planted in self-parody territory, doing what we've seen them do many times before. Still, even though Stiller and DeNiro are doing little more than selling their "dog and pony act," they are really good at it, and I still enjoyed what they did most of the time anyway.
All in all, if you go in with the right attitude (not expecting too much), you'll surely get a few good laughs before you get back in the car and go home. But it probably won't "stick to your ribs" like the best comedies do.
I give it a 7/10.
Event Horizon (1997)
Ignorant, medieval mentality hiding behind big, modern special effects
This movie is basically an $80 Million dollar statement that says: "Science = Evil" and "Wherever we haven't looked yet, Satan must live."
If I'm not mistaken, some New York City residents were frightened by the original subway construction because they thought demons were down there, under ground. Needless to say, that claim was false. And now we are treated to the Quantum Physics version of the same thing in this piece of junk.
But the film's message of identifying positively with medieval notions of ignorance, fear and evil wasn't the only bad part. There were incredibly derivative plot elements. There was a ridiculous overuse of cheesy horror film tactics. There were illogical action elements that seemed to be thrown in to keep the audience from falling asleep, such as the entry into Neptune's atmosphere, that just seemed to become a non-factor when the director got tired of worrying about them. And there was horrendous dialogue that ignored all of the wonderment around these people trapsing through the solar system and looking directly at these distant planets. Finally, the film just disintegrated into gross-out tactics, throwing bloody people meat into your face.
I think the tagline is "Infinite space...Infinite horror." The only things infinitely horrifying are this movie's stupidity and its incredible waste of money on special effects.
Mission to Mars (2000)
This movie is far less than the sum of its parts
I just saw this film on DVD.
There are some pretty neat-o special effects, a well-done Martian landscape, and lots o' computer-generated fly-bys of just about everything. There's even a 2001-esque rotating spaceship interior scene. Oh joy. But the movie is a complete train-wreck otherwise.
A good movie needs to have all of its cylinders firing: story, dialogue, acting, direction, special effects, costumes, photography, etc. This one only has the visuals covered (even if they were derivitive of other films), but forced several fine actors and actresses to spew some pretty horrible lines.
Good actors and good special effects cannot overcome nonexistent writing and poor directing. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't add up to much more than a half-baked exercise in animatics. And the score -- what overdone drivel! None of it was appropriate for even a crummy soap opera. Just terrible, cliched, distracting and inappropriate.
And the overarching themes ("We are not alone") were just handled clumsily and marred by the bad dialogue and direction. How about the last line in the film, delivered with all the energy of a garden slug? It just summed up this banal and disappointing experience for me.
Two things are good, however:
Its not as bad as "Supernova" (what could be?) and at least my fiance and I had a good time poking fun at it while we watched it.
Pink Floyd: The Wall (1982)
A startling, twisted, difficult work of art; but eminently understandable in the end
The Wall is essentially about this absurd, twisted world as processed in the twisted mind of the protagonist. But the film is constructed in such a way as to pretty much allow you to grasp the trail to madness if you pay attention. Be warned. I'd bet that if you are not prepared to watch this film, it may drive you a bit mad yourself.
It has much to say about the world (war, politics, domination/submission, indoctrination, collectivist sentiment, human frailty/weakness/waste, the meaningless universe -- you name it.) I even read somewhere that the film turns a critical eye toward Pink Floyd's own potentially crazed fans; and I believe it. But it is bound together by the very personal and human, albeit tragic, journey of the main character. After seeing this film a few times, it has all become quite clear to me what sets him off, and generally why. In the end, it doesn't excuse any of the horrors, disappointments or hang-ups of life, nor does it excuse his main reaction to them (building the mental wall to protect himself/eliminate the source of pain.) It does grasp a bit at a bitter-sweet hope at the end in a way I only wish the tormented masses of the world could.
All in all a harrowing, but satisfying journey through a part of the psychological landscape we often would rather not see, but must face at one time or another.
Pretty amazing for a rock opera, I think.
Det sjunde inseglet (1957)
More than "entertainment," a profound experience
I genuinely feel sorry for people who can only describe this film as "boring." No, there are no explosions, car chases or sappy romantic scenes. `Lethal Weapon 3' this film is not. But that fact is only one of the many virtues for this film! I think that people really deny a part of their own humanity when they cannot look past the surface of things.
I can't believe that any thoughtful and feeling human being who allows him or herself to recognize the passionate and profound themes in this film can help being somewhat moved by them. If you have ever pondered questions about life deeper than "What are we having for dinner tonight?" or `Should I wear white past Labor Day?' this film is for you. And the story is told with excellent imagery and symbolism that combines into an overwhelming experience for the senses and the intellect.
Of course, some may be disturbed by the "answers" this film provides. I guess for me, I identify strongly with Bergman's thesis, that perhaps everything we utter about what lies beyond death is a mere projection; that, in the final analysis, we know nothing. But I also identify with the `silent protest' of the squire.
One of the lines that sums up the film for me is:
"I want knowledge. Not belief. Not surmise. But knowledge." -- Antonious Block
Full Metal Jacket (1987)
This movie does not "fall apart at the end" as some say
I'm a big fan of Kubrick. His movies tend to have subtexts that are not readily apparent.
A theme he keeps revisiting in his films is that of entropy, or the way a system can break down. Witness HAL in 2001: A Space Oddyssey, and the "military/political system" in Dr. Strangelove. It takes but a small thing to set destruction in motion.
This one is similar, where the tightly regimented robot soldiers leave the camp all clean cut and organized, but later the story trails off into a non-standard, open and disarrayed ending that parallels the reality of the lack of closure such things have in real life. Stories are ususally handed to us in nice, digestable packets, but the narrative here falls apart just like the military unit does.
I think it is intentional.