slimjack's Reviews

FrightWorld (2006)

1/10

Huh?

10 April 2009

Very bad. Very, very bad. As a fellow who aspires to make, be in or - at least - sniff the catering table at a movie set, I find it hard to criticize independents who actually got a movie of any sort made. However, this movie ... oh dear.

Realizing Frightworld doesn't aspire to anything more than crude exploitation (an honorable thing in itself) and to try to make it conform to more mainstream standards is a mistake. And to be fair, it is more entertaining than - say - Red Zone Cuba ... but not by much. So I won't try to critique, just let me ask throw out some observations.

1) If gore is the point of the movie, shouldn't you be able to see it?

2) If you have hire three sound men make sure at least one knows how to operate the equipment.

3) In a horror movie your lead maniac must be scarier than a smurf doll. Difficult I know but really...

4) There is a lot of talented videographers in the Buffalo/Rochester area, most you can hire really cheap. Get one who knows how to frame a scene.

5) Just because you have someone who knows how to use After Effects and other cool programs doesn't mean he should do so every two seconds.

6) Kudos for getting the girls to take off their tops but next time, get girls who's tops we want to see taken off.

7) Editing should help tell the story or set a mood. At the least in this sort of movie editing should sell the gore gags. A chainsaw suddenly appearing in a characters stomach is not scary, it's sloppy.

Some good things. Not all the acting was bad. Jack was pretty good and I liked Acid once she started fighting back. There was some neat imagery, unfortunately it was thrown up on the screen without rhyme or reason. "Acid Poptart" is a name that deserves a better movie. I like the moxie of Frightworld too. Next time, now that they have a movie of sorts under their belts, I hope all involve aspire to something better than Colman Francis. Upgrade at least Ed Wood.

4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dead Silence (2007)

4/10

A good gimmick undermined by bland follow-through.

14 January 2009

Ventriloquist dummies and horror movies were made for each other. Think about it. Rare is the dummy that doesn't have a malevolent air about it. In fact, the cuter they try to be, the more wantonly homicidal they seem. Mortimer Snerd resembles Ted Bundy's inner child and Waylon Flower's Madam is a visitation from your darkest nightmare. You would have to be the reincarnation of Ed Wood to make a killer dummy movie that wasn't at least a little creepy. While the makers of Dead Silence aren't that incompetent, they did succeed in making a movie so bland and formulaic you'd get more chills by watching an old Smurfs episode.

Young Jamie Ashen and his family are terrorized by the evil shade of ventriloquist Mary Shaw. Ashen and Mary share only the most tenuous of plot convenient connections but it's enough for the ghoul to unleash her wrath on the poor guy. To make matters worse the police suspect Ashen for Mary's bloody crimes. Ashen returns to his decaying home town to lay Mary's troublesome spirit to rest and, needless to say, she doesn't go quietly. Here you see Dead Silence's problem. The emphasis is not placed on the dummies but on the undead ventriloquist and Mary Shaw is simply not that scary. She's just a moldy old lady in a black dress. The dummies themselves spend most of the movie staring at people, which they do very well as you might expect. Every now and again one might turn its head. This action generates more creaking and groaning than a dozen clipper ships at full sail. Thus the ventriloquist dummy's potential for terror is squandered in a movie that seems hell bent on being as close a clone of Nightmare On Elm Street as possible without violating copy write laws.

Dead Silence's cast does nothing to relieve the movie's stale atmosphere. As Ashen, Ryan Kwanten is competent without being in any way interesting. He is a wispy chinned adolescent who hardly looks old enough to date let alone marry. None the less Laura Regan plays his wife. Regan is spunky and extremely likable and one wishes the movie followed her exploits rather than Kwanten's. Michael Fairman gives an effective and moving portrayal of an old undertaker traumatized by the supernatural weirdness surrounding him. As a result he seems to have walked in from another, better movie. The same can be said of Bob Gunton as Ashen's wheel chair bound father. The only actor to find the right tone is Donnie Wahlberg. He doesn't so much act the cop assigned to Ashen's case as embody all the quirks we've come to expect from cinematic law enforcement. I don't think we are supposed to believe this guy for a second. Instead we are supposed to be amused and that we are. The movie goes dead when Wahlberg isn't around.

Like most movies these days Dead Silence looks beautiful. In set design and cinematography it is everything anyone could want in a killer dummy movie. Weirdly, the only place where the design falters is in the look of Mary's dummies. Billy, the main dummy, looks almost charming. Considering the inherent creepiness of ventriloquist dummies, this took some work. Where was the fellow who carved Mortimer Snerd when they needed him? Dead Silence can't be completely disliked. It does try to inject some good old fashioned atmosphere into a modern horror flick and still keep up the gore factor. Unfortunately it misses both its marks by a wide margin. As it stands Dead Silence is a movie made to be ignored.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Smokin' Aces (2006)

6/10

A shaggy dog story that goes enjoyably nowhere.

23 March 2007

There is a new genre infesting our nation's movie theaters. With apologies to Garrison Kellior, let's call it "guy noir". Films aimed directly at the young, hip male audience. Movies that are an unholy combination of old fashioned film noir and the modern action movie, as directed by the class clown. They offer fast paced entertainment, great character actors, twisty plot lines, explosions and more spent ordinance than used in a typical week in Baghdad. Even new genres breed clichés however and the original freshness heralded by Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction is beginning to smell the slightest bit stale. This brings us to Smokin' Aces, a movie that isn't so smug as to be intolerable or so brilliant as to be ground breaking. Rather it is good, competent, workmanlike example of its genre, which is bad news for a movie that wants to be hip and edgy.

Smokin' Aces has the requisite twisty plot. Actually it has at least nine plots, all twisty. In fact it has so many plots the movie dissolves into a series of incidences strung together by a smattering of narrative glue. Aces, a card magician and mob nabob, turns federal stoolie and a dying Godfather posts a high dollar contract on him. Naturally every photogenic hit-man with the weekend free descends upon Ace's casino penthouse to do the job and collect the dough. Smokin' Aces tries hard and includes everything needed to qualify as guy noir. It even tries to incorporate the "Tarantino Digression". That is, extended expository flashbacks incorporated for no good reason except that they are fun to watch. Smoking Aces can't quite pull these off as they require a defter touch than the movie is capable of.

There aren't any real people in Smokin' Aces. All the characters are strictly stereotypes played for effect rather than reality. Jeremy Piven as Aces is the self loathing hop head, Alicia Keys and Georgia Sykes are the hot lesbian hit team, Ben Afleck is the hipster bounty hunter and so on. Everything you need to know about these guys you learn in the first split second they are on the screen. There is no star in Smokin' Aces. Afleck, the biggest name, has a relatively small part and is upstaged by his hat. You might remember Chris Pine, Kevin Durand and Maury Sterling as the Tremor brothers if only because they were the loudest, most violent bunch in a loud violent movie. The only actor who rises above caricature is Ray Liotta, who invests his FBI agent with quiet dignity and a touch of pathos and in doing so sticks out like a sore thumb. It takes a strange sort of movie for a review to criticize the one genuinely good performance in it but Liotta just doesn't fit.

Smokin' Aces manages to hold its whirly gig self together for the most part. There are a few problems. It goes on too long after the climatic blood bath wrapping up plot threads you probably didn't notice amongst the explosions. There is a denouement where a hero, brought in from way out in left field, makes an existential choice that is not nearly as agonizing as the movie thinks it is because we have no emotional investment in the fellow making it. Though the final plot twist is prepared for and makes as much sense as anything else in the film, still it feels flat and unsatisfying. Think of Smokin' Aces as a shaggy dog story. It's long, involved and fun to listen to but ultimately goes nowhere.

233 out of 351 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Grizzly Man (2005)

6/10

A poor documentary about a fascinating individual.

15 March 2007

Grizzly Man is a documentary about Timothy Treadwell, a failed actor and ex-drug addict who lived among Alaska's grizzly bear population every summer for over a decade. At the end of his thirteenth visit he and his girlfriend were killed and eaten by a rogue bear. Over the years Treadwell had shot hundreds of hours of video for a planned wildlife documentary. Much of this footage is extraordinary, on par with the best professional wild life videography. A significant fraction, however, is made up of Treadwell speaking directly to the camera. This footage shows a man descending into madness and obsession. Werner Herzog, famed German director and a fellow who knows something about obsessed madmen, edited together choice bits of Treadwell's footage, along with interviews of his friends and family, in an attempt to understand what drove Treadwell into the abyss. Herzog did not succeed.

Treadwell seems the most unlikely of naturalists. To look at him one wonders how he managed to survive ten minutes among the grizzly let alone thirteen years. While a self-taught expert on bear behavior he treated grizzlies not as the wild beasts they are but as (a ranger sourly notes) "people in bear costumes." Herzog flirts with the notion that Treadwell fantasizes friendship and love with the bears and nature as a replacement for normal human relationships. Over a close-up of one bear's impassive countenance, Herzog intones "what haunts me, is that in all the faces of all the bears that Treadwell ever filmed, I discover no kinship, no understanding, no mercy. I see only the overwhelming indifference of nature" It is, of course, precisely this lack of feedback that allowed Treadwell to build his fantasy relationships.

Treadwell was a good looking blond fellow but his ruggedness was severely undercut by a high pitched, infantile voice. He would seem more at home singing show tunes or baking brownies than roughing it in the Alaskan outback. This he did, however, and with conspicuous success until his growing insanity drove him to take fatal chances. In civilization he volunteered his time and knowledge to elementary and grade schools and set up a foundation to protect the Grizzly. Treadwell apparently financed his endeavors through Internet donations and a series of minimum wage jobs. He must have had emotional and entrepreneurial resources at total odds with what we see. All in all a fascinating character and one that doesn't interest Herzog in the least.

Herzog likes his madmen heroic and there is a certain way such men act. The problem for Herzog is that Treadwell was a fey, will-o-wisp of a man who didn't fit the heroic mold. The resulting conflict in tones often cuts close to comedy as when Herzog, responding to Treadwell's woozy romanticism, says "I believe the common character of the universe is not harmony, but hostility, chaos and murder." This is followed closely by an ecstatic Treadwell declaiming "Oh my gosh! The bear, Miss Chocolate, has left me her poop! The sad thing is that Treadwell doesn't need the trappings of a fictional tragic figure, he's the real deal. He genuinely faced down adversity, found triumph and fame and was savagely undone by fate and his own mad hubris. Sophocles couldn't have done better. Perhaps Herzog should have made a fictionalized biography where the living man could have been reduced to the sum of his tragedy. As a documentarian, however, Herzog's dramatic inclinations lead him astray. We, in turn, are left staring at Treadwell's anything but impassive face with less understanding than we had before we slipped the DVD into the drive.

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

300 (2006)

8/10

Absolutely the best venal movie since Birth Of A Nation

14 March 2007

What can you say about 300, a movie that is one long and woozy love letter to the ancient, war loving Spartans? That pictures infanticide and extreme child abuse as an admirable form of social engineering? Where the light skinned and English accented heroes slaughter vast numbers of their dark and stupid foes? Where to be a woman is to proudly bear sons for the Fatherland and stand by your man as he swaggers off to suicidal carnage? Where to be old, sick, malformed or effeminate is to be evil? That proudly wears its fascistic heart on its national socialist sleeve? Well, what you could say is that it is one fantastically entertaining movie!

300 tells the story of the three hundred Spartans who held off the entire Persian army at Thermopylae. Sparta runs afoul of the Persians by refusing to submit to their rule. Treachery rears its ugly head and good King Leonidas is forbidden to use the Spartan legions to lay waste to the enemy. He sets out with three hundred doughy volunteers to hold the eastern horde off long enough for the Spartan senate to come to their senses. The eventual fate of Leonidas and his comrades is one of the most famous stories of ancient times and 300 more than does it justice.

There are no real stars in 300 though Gerard Butler has a star-making role as Leonidas. He handles spear, beefcake poses and faux-Shakespearian dialog with equal aplomb. Lena Headey is very good as Queen Gorgo but can't rise above the fact that she is a chick hanging out in a boy's club. Her role is primarily to look decorative and stoic in equal measures. Beyond these two and perhaps Dominic West as a dodgy member of the Spartan senate or Rodrigo Santoro as the ten foot tall and supremely swishy Xerxes, there isn't a member of the cast well known or forceful enough to stand out from the rest. Everyone involved delivers fine performances but the fact is their roles are subservient to the design, emotionality and heedless energy of the piece.

300 is another movie made on a virtual set. That is, with the exception of the actors, most of what you see isn't real, it's computer animated. While perhaps not as amazing as the similarly filmed Sin City or Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, 300's surreal copper and sepia-toned fever dream of ancient Greece is an achievement in its own right.

300 is being damned and praised by all sides of the political spectrum. The fact is 300 could be used as a motivational tool for just about any group in need of a testosterone fix. It's guaranteed to get your guys on their feet and ready to rumple. Make no mistake though, there have been few truly excellent movies made with such dodgy sentiments since Birth of a Nation. Judged solely on the merits of it's politics 300 brings certain words to mind, "venal" and "pestilent" being the most polite. Judged as adventurous entertainment however, 300 has few equals.

It would be easy to dissect 300 and lambaste its lack of historical veracity. After all the historical Spartans were sort of a bronze age Hell's Angels and were roundly hated by their long suffering neighbors. As to their vaunted militarism, even the effete Athenians were able to kick the tar out of them from time to time. This is all beside the point. 300 was not made for rational discussion. This is a movie made to bypass the frontal lobe and stir the Cro-Magnon id. It is supposed to get its audience frothing at the mouth. This 300 does with such dexterity and malevolent ingenuity as to render it an instant classic of its kind.

11 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Zodiac (2007)

8/10

A good police procedural but a poor psychological study

13 March 2007

The Zodiac was a serial killer active in San Francisco during the early 1970's. Unlike others of his kind, the Zodiac loved publicity and courted it religiously. He sent letters and coded messages to newspapers and police. During one killing he wore a complicated hood and cloak costume with his zodiac symbol emblazoned on the front. Another murder was done simply for the press and to tweak the cops. Horribly he got away with all this. The Zodiac killer was never caught. Because of this Zodiac the movie combines a police procedural with a study of the psychological effects the fruitless search had on its participants.

Zodiac tries to concentrates on two individuals, Robert Graysmith, a political cartoonist who becomes obsessed with the killer and David Toschi, one of the cops assigned to the case. To appreciate the psychological toll obsession takes you have to come to know its victims. Despite the movie's long running time we never get that close to Graysmith or Toschi. Part of this is the actors fault. As Graysmith Jake Gyllenhaal is a cipher. He never seems any more than an amiable young man and his inner life remains something to be guessed at. Mark Ruffalo, as Toschi, is a better actor than his compatriot but his part is written as standard TV cop fare. Toschi resembles an amusing Columbo clone rather than a real cop with twenty five years experience. Another hindrance in understanding these two is that we simply don't spend enough time with them. Zodiac must have a hundred speaking roles with an array of secondary characters that easily outshine the leads. Robert Downy plays Roger Avery, a reporter assigned to the Zodiac case, as a smart-alec hipster undone by the '70's drug culture. Brian Cox plays flamboyant criminal lawyer and part time actor Melvin Belli for all the parts worth, which is about every stick of scenery within his reach. As a suspect John Carroll Lynch seems normal but just creepy enough to give one pause. Charles Fleischer outdoes Lynch on the creepy scale as a source who may be more than he seems. These characters flit in an out as the case rises and falls, all drawing attention away from Gyllenhaal and Ruffalo. It becomes increasingly clear is that Zodiac isn't really interested in their characters. The movie would much rather dwell on the search for and identification of the Zodiac Killer.

It is as a police procedural that Zodiac shines. The facts of the case are clearly, almost lovingly delineated. Or, more accurately, Zodiac gives a very complete illusion of delineation. For Zodiac is compelled to give us the killer in a famously unsolved case. Yes, this is the suspect Graysmith and many of those involved with the case truly believe to be the killer and Zodiac is careful to point out the evidence presented is circumstantial. There can be, however, a huge gulf between what a movie pays lip service to and what it implies dramatically.

It must be remembered that Zodiac is based on a book by a man whose psychological health depended on finding the killer. A multi-million dollar movie also has a need for closure. A police procedural needs a conclusion to proceed to. Otherwise you leave your audience frustrated and a frustrated audience is a small, unprofitable audience. Bear that in mind as you watch Zodiac. As informative as the movie is, distrust its conclusions. The real Zodiac was never caught. No one was prosecuted. Everything else is, at best, informed conjecture. Keeps this thought close and you will find Zodiac fine, thought provoking entertainment.

6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Ghost Rider (2007)

4/10

The Rider Has Yet To Shine

3 March 2007

Warning: Spoilers

The Ghost Rider is a super hero who never quite hit the big time. He has a great premise though. Motorcycle stunt man Johnny Blaze runs afoul of the Devil and is cursed to become the Rider, a demon who lusts only for vengeance. Clad in black leather, his head a blazing scull, sitting astride an infernal Harley, the Rider is truly an evocative image. He had his own comic, was canceled, resurrected, failed again and generally puttered in and around comic book limbo for years. Nevertheless he garnered a coterie of fans, one of whom was actor Nicholas Cage and so the Rider has been given a shot at shining on film as he never had in comics. Unfortunately he suffers the same fate in the theater as he did in print. Great concept. Great look. Mediocre follow through.

Like most comic book movies Ghost Rider is part origin story. We see Blaze make his pact and his first forays as the Rider. We learn the Devil creates him because he needs a hit man. There is more than one fallen angel out there and they are all gunning to take down the big man. In stark contrast to the supernatural power plays we also experience the touring stunt show milieu of Johnny Blaze, with his poker playing blue collar buddies, hick fans and motorcycle minutia. All this is great cinematic stuff yet Ghost Rider can't make it click.

The problems start with the acting. Ghost Rider may be Cage's baby but he is too old for the part. Fifteen years ago, perhaps, but now he's just too mature and weathered to believably play a guy named Johnny. Hampering matters further is Cage's habit of striking hokey Elvis poses, rendering Blaze ridiculous just at those moments we should care about him. Gorgeous Eva Mendes plays Blaze's girl. Though winning in Hitch, here Mendes exhibits little spark. She makes absolutely no connection with Cage romantic or otherwise. The Devil is blandly underplayed by Peter Fonda but his infernal rival's fair worse. When the lost angels fell to earth they passed through a trailer park and took the shape of the rednecks that dwelt there. In other words, the Princes of Hell are an unimpressive lot and the Rider earns little respect for his victories over them.

A movie like Ghost Rider can survive casting snafus but what it can't survive is the dimensioned of its premise. While the Rider is truly a wonder of CGI and everything his beleaguered fans could hope for, the movie takes this impressive creation and thrusts him into situations designed for humor rather than awe. As a consequence the Rider is never as terrifying as he should be. Finally, fatally, the poor Rider is not even the most impressive creature in his own movie! What could be more impressive than a flaming skeletal biker? How about a flaming skeletal cowboy riding a fiery horse? One played by Sam Elliott no less. This infernal cowboy is so striking and the casting so right that it further diminishes our interest in the nominal anti-hero.

In the end Ghost Rider is not a particularly bad film. It hangs together, has its fun moments and Mendes is very, very pretty. All of these are important considerations in a popcorn movie. Still if you are a fan of the Rider, or just have an affection for off-beat entertainment, you can't help but wonder if there weren't a better way to utilized such a cool concept.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Million Dollar Baby (2004)

9/10

A Movie to Admire More Than To Love

3 April 2005

Million Dollar Baby is not a boxing movie. It is a character study. Now Rocky was a boxing movie. A poor young kid with "heart" gets a shot at the title, becomes a contender and triumphs over all the odds. Rocky's journey to triumph was the whole point of the exercise and that is what makes the film a boxing movie. Baby on the other hand, while steeped in boxing and its milieu, doesn't care about winning or being a contender. What it cares about are the people who live with the sport and how this world affects them, their attitudes and their actions.

Frankie Dunn is a boxing promoter. He's a tough old geezer and one of the best in his field. His one flaw is a serious drawback in his line of work. He doesn't like to see his fighters get hurt. Frankie's life is an endless cycle of developing young fighters only to be abandoned when he refuses to take them to the next level out of fear for their safety. One day Maggie Fitzgerald wanders into his gym. She's a youngish woman who wants to be a boxer. No, she wants to be a winner and she is more than willing to do whatever it takes to become one. Despite his years, his experience and his distaste for training a "girly" Frankie is no match for Maggie's tenacity and soon finds himself with a determined protégé who begins her swift rise to the top. This is only part of the story however. Events occur that test these two in ways far crueler than the force of a heavyweight's punch.

It has to be said that neither Hilary Swank nor Morgan Freeman are overly believable in their roles. Of the three leads only Eastwood looks likes he could spend his days in a dingy old gym. The spindly Swank is unconvincing as a power puncher and Freeman comes across like a slumming PhD. This is an instance, however, where suspension of disbelief pays off in the long run. A little loss of feasibility buys you two great performances. Maggie is a woman whose tough exterior hides a tougher interior wrapped around a will of iron. This is both her triumph and her tragedy. Swank captures these qualities in a natural, loose jointed performance that manages to make this rough customer appealing. Morgan Freeman is an actor who can steal a scene with just a look or turn of phrase. Here he's called upon to act as narrator and observer of human tragedy. He does so with dry objectivity leavened with a hint of bemused sorrow. As Frankie Eastwood is excellent as a man whose job and background conspire against his compassionate nature. The rasp of his voice sounds like a soul tearing itself apart.

Million Dollar Baby is not an easy movie to like. It takes two people who are the sum of their experiences and needs and rubs them together under horrendously stressful situations. It is like a case study, showing a little human truth as the film makers see it. If you approach it on those terms you will find Baby a worthwhile investment. You will, however, find yourself admiring the accomplishment more than loving the experience.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Constantine (2005)

9/10

No Lutheran Vampires, darn it!

16 March 2005

Watch enough horror movies and you can be forgiven for thinking that the Reformation never happened. Just once I'd like to see a Methodist demon though I'd settle for a Lutheran vampire or two. Unfortunately - or fortunately depending on your point of view - the new supernatural action film Constantine does nothing to further the protestant cause. It is firmly rooted in the gaudiest Catholic mythology with more Latin, holy water and crucifixes than in all the churches of Rome. None of it is taken seriously mind you. Thousands of years of tradition and belief are gleefully misused, misquoted and misconstrued in the service of a senselessly gory and violent movie. That it's a well made and entertaining slice of hokum probably won't cut much slack for Constantine's creators in the hereafter.

It seems that God and the Devil made a bet a millennia ago as to who could win the most souls to their cause. Points are taken off for direct supernatural meddling. All the rules allow is a spiritual nudge or an earthly temptation here and there, but someone is not playing by the rules! Demons are finding their way to earth and an ancient, incredibly holey artifact is about to fall into the very worst of hands. It's up to John Constantine, PI and freelance exorcist, to expose the demonic conspiracy. Unfortunately he has terminal lung cancer and is facing damnation due to a botched suicide attempt. It would be a short movie if it weren't for the pretty cop who seeks Constantine's help in solving the mystery of her sister's suicide. Further stirring the pot are various holy and unholy notables who make their agenda and themselves known as the plot progresses.

Constantine cries out for a tough guy lead. Like Bruce Willis say, or Samuel L. Jackson. Instead we have Keanu Reeves. In truth Reeves is not all that bad. He plays John Constantine strait, drawing humor and pathos from the character's jaundiced world view and hopeless position. Unfortunately Reeves lacks the charisma and physical presence a rough, world weary demon hunting PI might be expected to have. On the other hand Rachel Weisz is great as the conflicted cop. Emotional without being overly weepy and believably tough she seems entirely capable of handling her supernatural problems without Constantine's help. It's too bad her character devolves into a standard woman in distress. Pruitt Taylor Vince makes so much of his part as a slovenly priest we become more intrigued by him than we are with the main plot line. Tilda Swinton is righteous and more than a bit creepy as the angel Gabriel. Finally there is Peter Stormare as Satan. Funny, frightening, and truly alien, his is one of the best devils ever put on film.

Despite unholy cadres, heavenly hosts, visions of hell and all matter of supernatural jumbo jumbo Constantine feels more like a film noir than a supernatural melodrama. To John Constantine Satan is just another corrupt Mr. Big trying to muscle into town and God and His angels are an unreliable and suspect city hall. As the movie takes its tone from its hero's attitude it is more suspenseful than horrific. Constantine's pleasures derive from the way its detective movie roots collide with the supernatural overlay. The movie does a fine job treading this line without falling too far into parody. Park your brain at the door and enjoy.

0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Aviator (2004)

8/10

Soars on Psychosis but Fails Elsewhere

7 March 2005

The dichotomy of Howard Hughes' spectacular rise and epic fall has fueled sermons, books, plays and even an opera. Artists, academics and theologians have found all manner of signs and omens in his story. The Aviator chucks most of this in favor of a glamorous psychiatric case study. You could say The Aviator is A Beautiful Mind gone Hollywood without Mind's inspirational spine. In fact the greatest strength of The Aviator is the tale of Hughes epic struggle for his sanity. When the movie meanders to other concerns, such as his Hollywood dalliances or his business struggles, it loses focus.

The Aviator assumes the audience has a familiarity with Hughes and his world. If you don't know he died a wizened gargoyle after years of madness and seclusion much of the impact of the movie will be lost to you. The Aviator follows Hughes' life from the late 1920's to the 1940's from the start of his production career and ending with the first and only flight of the Spruce Goose. Director Martin Scorsese stops short of showing us the wreckage of Hughes' final years to let our collective knowledge add the requisite shadow over the glamorous proceedings of the film.

The Aviator is hampered by bad casting choices starting with Leonardo DiCaprio as Hughes. DiCaprio is a gifted actor and he does a splendid job suggesting Hughes' genius and creeping madness. However DiCaprio cannot summon the weight or authority needed to play the ruthless tycoon Hughes becomes. His scenes in front of a Senate sub-committee are particularly bad. He comes across like a sophomore sassing the dean. Cate Blanchett, as Katharine Hepburn, fares worse. Her resemblance to Hepburn is minimal at best and she does not begin to approximate Hepburn's vocal rhythms. While Blanchett gets better towards the end when she all but drops Hepburn's mannerisms, in total her performance was distracting. The actors in less recognizable roles fare better. Particular standouts were John C. Reilly as Hughes' long suffering factotum and Ian Holm as a beleaguered meteorology professor.

Hughes' business rivals are portrayed as outright villains, which is indicative of the curious take the film has on Hughes' career. The Aviator posits the incredibly rich and autocratic Hughes as a proletarian rebel who takes on "The System" and beats it by being brilliant, brave and handsome. We even have a scene where Hughes, after spending millions like water, lectures Hepburn's eccentrically aristocratic family on the value of money to those who have none. While it strains credulity to hear the future darling of the Nixon administration wax Marxist, the shocked look on the horrible Hepburns is undeniably satisfying.

The Aviator is one of those films best appreciated on the big screen. It is an absolutely gorgeous movie. The flying scenes in particular are spectacular and the crashes horrific enough to make us understand their effect on the already unstable Hughes. While The Aviator may not be on par with the best of Scorsese, the power of Hughes' tragedy is exceptionally well delivered and serves to drive the movie through its occasional doldrums.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Hitch (I) (2005)

9/10

A Perfect Example of its Genre

2 March 2005

Hitch is a romantic comedy. Of all movie genres romantic comedies are the most formula bound. Just as we know Perry Mason will win the case and Jason will kill a bunch of teenagers, we know that the handsome man will get the beautiful girl after around ninety minutes of painfully contrived obstacles. Why? Because that is what the audience wants. We don't go to these movies looking for innovation. We want the boy to get the girl and woe betides the director who messes with us in the name of Art. The danger of formula is it encourages sloppy productions. Cast some pretty leads, lay the jokes in with a trowel and stack the corn at the end and your golden, right? The nation's cinemas are littered with the wreckage of this sort of thinking. What the smart producer knows is while audiences may want the familiar ride they are also looking for a good story well told. The makers of Hitch were very smart. The movie conforms in every way to formula but distinguishes itself from the pack by its writing, some genuinely funny gags and its amiable tone.

Will Smith plays Hitch, a modern matchmaker dedicated to helping the average Joe land the girl of his dreams. His clients must be sincerely in love and he insists on working in secrecy, being more of a Cyrano de Bergerac than a Dolly Levi. His advice is sound and he genuinely cares for the schlubs that form his clientele. His current case involves a chubby, disaster prone accountant crazy for a beautiful heiress. As Hitch sets to work he meets an improbably sweet gossip columnist and finds himself falling in love. Of course Hitch is deathly afraid of commitment and the gossip is stubbornly cynical about romance in general. All of this folderol is as insubstantial as it sounds. Hitch does not incline the viewer to trot out weighty French critical terminology.

Romantic comedies rise and fall on the charm of their leads. Those fluffy Rock Hudson/Doris Day comedies of the '60s would not be so fondly remembered if they starred, say, John Cassavetes and Gena Rowlands. Will Smith and Eva Mendes have charm to spare. Importantly Smith as Hitch doesn't come across as insincere. He's a nice articulate guy who genuinely likes the opposite sex and does his best by them. Mendes matches Smith's intelligence and gives Hitch reasons beyond her beauty for his growing infatuation. The supporting cast is no less involving. Kevin James is a hopeless, clumsy mess as the lovelorn accountant and his struggle to implement Hitch's smooth moves are as hilarious as they are endearing. Julie Ann Emery as Mendes' eternally hopeful best friend and Adam Arkin as Mendes' level headed boss are excellent. The only possible quibble is Amber Valletta as the heiress lacks the oomph in either looks or personality to so captivate the poor accountant.

Hitch is a determinedly sunny movie. With the exception of one loathsome yuppie all the characters are decent and likable, even those who work for the NY Post style tabloid. Manhattan is a beautiful and happy place where everyone is at least moderately well to do and there is no racial or ethnic tension. It's a world where love carries the stacked deck and Cupid is all mighty. Yes, this is a fantasy as broad as anything you'd see Gollum in, but man does not live by angst alone. Sometimes charm and laughs are important and Hitch fills the bill brilliantly.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

7/10

A solid, entertaining disaster movie

19 June 2004

The Day After Tomorrow is a workmanlike disaster movie that takes its premise seriously but not so much so that it fails as the light entertainment it is meant to be. DAT doesn't so much avoid the cliches of the genre as uses them intelligently. Director Roland Emmerich captures the good, old fashioned fun of cinematic catastrophe while avoiding the melodramatics that mar movies like The Towering Inferno and The Poseidon Adventure.

The movie opens with a large chunk of the Antarctic ice cap falling into the ocean. Scientist Jack Hall witnesses the event and, with the help of a computer model designed to study ancient weather patterns, predicts that global warming is going to cause a new ice age. In fact it soon becomes clear that the climate reversals that Hall thought would take a century or more are occurring at a vastly accelerated rate. Within days the Northern Hemisphere is beset by biblical disasters and glaciers begin galloping southward. It is at this point Hall heads off for frozen New York to save his estranged son. Critics have sneered at this, citing ersatz family drama as a disaster movie cliche. The critics would have been right if situations like these were used for campy histrionics. Instead DAT makes a smart choice. Rather than have the cast emote frantically the movie leaves the theatrics to the CGI technicians. As a result the quiet tragedies the characters face stand out in relief against the cacophony of disaster that surrounds them.

Dennis Quaid shines as Hall, the heroic scientist and absentee father. His intensity and utter seriousness keep the role from being consumed by its own cliches. Ian Holm is his usual memorable self as a doomed Scottish meteorologist and Kenneth Welsh gives his wrong headed US Vice President more depth than called for. Jake Gyllenhaal and Emmy Rossum are fine as the endangered son and his love interest. Together they avoid what could have been sappy pitfalls and managed to inject a little humor into their predicament.

DAT fulfills its apocalyptic premise by giving you all manner of spectacular destruction. Tornados, blizzards and tidal waves rip across the screen with all the wild abandon one could wish for. Is it all convincingly real? Nope. Not at all. In DAT they have to ravish the whole Northern Hemisphere on essentially the same budget that powered just one hurricane in Twister. Exacting realism just isn't in the cards. So, instead of quality, the movie goes for imaginative quantity. You are treated to the sight of three twisters tearing the heart out of Los Angeles, a wall of water cleansing the dirty streets of New York, a tanker floating down Broadway and the Statue of Liberty waist deep in a snow drift.

The Day After Tomorrow has become a lighting rod for undeserved criticism, most of it lambasting it for having the audacity to be a disaster movie. This is something like cursing the sky for being blue. So be warned, if you don't like disaster flicks DAT won't change your mind. You might even think twice about spending eight dollars to see it. But it is worth matinee prices to experience the spectacle on a wide screen. If it sounds like I'm damning this movie with faint praise I'm really not. DAD is an enjoyable movie that does its job well. If disaster is what you are in the mood for you cannot go wrong, just don't expect it to shatter your senses.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

8/10

That rare bird, a decent modern pirate movie.

30 May 2004

Pirate movies have fallen on hard times as of late. There hasn't been a decent one since the mid-fifties. Attempts to revive the genre have generated a series of expensive flops like Cutthroat Island and Roman Polanski's Pirates. Despite the dismal track every ten years or so there is yet another attempt to get it right. With the latest, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl persistence is rewarded. Though not on a level with Captain Blood or The Crimson Pirate, Curse is still is a thoroughly enjoyable movie that successfully combines modern action with a traditional sea saga.

The Black Pearl is a ship with a cursed crew doomed to an undead existence until they return all the Aztec gold they unwisely pilfered. After years of ghostly plundering they manage to gather all save for the one piece currently in the possession of the beautiful Elizabeth, the Royal Governor's daughter. Can her true love, the pirate hating blacksmith Will, keep her safe from the crew's boney clutches? Or does she need the help of the completely loony Captain Jack Sparrow?

Sparrow is a hilarious addition to the Hollywood Pirate tradition. He is a seadog sure to strike terror into the hearts of the fiercest scallywag though not because of his dazzling swordplay. Johnny Depp plays Sparrow as if he has downed one too many grogs on the way to the gay pride parade. He flounces, weaves and mumbles his way about the Caribbean absolutely sure that he is the very model of a modern pirate captain. That his adversaries aren't as sure of his seafaring abilities as he is doesn't register in his hazy worldview. Depp's Belle of the Poop Deck routine works fabulously. He gives the movie a pixilated charm but if it's an old fashioned shiver-me-timbers pirate you want there is Geoffrey Rush as Captain Barbossa. Rush `arrhs' it up for all he's worth and even makes you feel a little sorry for the murderous old sea dog.

As Depp and Rush keep the glorious tradition of ham acting alive others in the cast are left struggling to keep up. While Orlando Bloom seems stogy as Will the insanely beautiful Keira Knightley is in no danger of being overshadowed. Her Elizabeth comes across as the most competent character in the movie. You get the feeling she could have sorted the plot out quicker without the blundering help of Sparrow and Will. The rest of the cast is filled with a great assortment of character actors who fill out their colorful parts nicely. In fact, it's safe to say it's the performers who make this movie despite the extensive special effects on display.

Curse suffers from the usual modern summer blockbuster problems what with frenzied editing, sloppy plotting and a leaden approach to comic timing. Complicating matters is an out of control sound design. Background creaks, booms and clangs are blasted out of proportion and every footfall thumps like a brontosaurus tread. All this drowns out the actors so potentially funny lines are lost. Art direction is also problematic. For example, the skeletal crew is so stuffed with detail that between the quick cuts and frenzied pace they come across as a perambulating blob. A further drawback is the cinematography. For some reason the normally sunny Caribbean looks as bleak and cold as the North Atlantic. While all this is annoying it shouldn't stop you from seeing Curse. It's a charming movie filled with the sort of enjoyably preposterous performances you rarely see nowadays.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Secret Window (2004)

Exceedingly predictable thriller surrounds an entertaining cast.

28 March 2004

Secret Window is being sold as a thriller with a big twist ending. That is something like passing off the ending of Oedipus Rex as a novel twist. Granted, theater goers in 2000 BC might have been surprised by Oedipus but then you'd probably have to go nearly as far back to find an audience who'd be shocked by Secret Window. Nevertheless the movie is surprisingly engrossing due to the cast and some enjoyably off-kilter dialog.

Secret Window concerns one Mort Rainey, a writer well into his sixth month of a depressive funk due to the breakup of his marriage. She got their house and a new-age lover. He got the lake front cabin and the family dog. Rainey spends his self pitying days napping on the couch and talking to the dog. One afternoon he is wakened by a cornpone southerner who calls himself John Shooter. Shooter accuses Rainey of stealing one of his stories and threatens hot vengeance if Rainey doesn't admit to the plagiarism. On the off-chance you might be surprised by the movie's twists and turns this is all you should know going in. As for those of you who can smell a stale twist a mile off, you should be aware that Rainey is played by Johnny Depp. Lacking the surprises and chills that a thriller should provide Depp pretty much becomes Secret Window's whole show. So be warned, if you don't like Depp's bag of tricks this movie isn't for you.

Depp's Rainey is not the mannered caricature that is his usual stock and trade. If you go in expecting Jack Sparrow or Ed Wood you are going to be disappointed. Though enlivened by a few of Depp's trademarked quirks, Rainey remains recognizably human if not particularly likeable. He displays nasty flashes of misanthropy and his reaction to peace overtures from his wife is repellent. Despite this we like the guy and feel for him once John Shooter enters his life. Shooter is played by John Turturro with a slow talking malevolence that is not as memorable as it should have been. Still, watching Shooter's bloody minded quest for literary justice makes you understand why famous authors don't read unsolicited manuscripts. Charles S. Dutton has a fine time as a professional body guard Rainey calls upon and Len Cariou has an amusing role as a fatally inefficient sheriff. Surprisingly the key roles of Rainey's wife and her lover are badly underdeveloped. As the ex-Mrs. Rainey, Maria Bello is forced to rely on her beauty to suggest why Rainey implodes at her infidelity. Timothy Hutton is a star in his own right and has his own collection of method acting tricks. As the lover he could have matched Depp tick for tick but is never given the chance.

One gets the feeling that nobody involved with Secret Window kidded themselves that the ending was less than predictable. The movie marches deliberately along gravely signaling ahead so onlookers will be forewarned of any approaching surprise. To give it credit the movie allows the plot to come to its logical conclusion and its characters don't cheat fate. For those in a forgiving mood, or for those who simply like Johnny Depp, Secret Window is worth a view.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Cradle 2 the Grave (2003)

Much huffing and puffing with scant return.

23 March 2004

Warning: Spoilers

Possible spoilers...if such a movie can be spoiled...

Here is a question of great philosophical import: Is a movie like Cradle 2 the Grave critic-proof? Consider the plot. Jewel thief and family man Tony Fate and his intrepid crew are hired to steal a mysterious bag of `Black Diamonds'. His heist is disrupted by resourceful Taiwanese policeman Su, who's country was the original owner of the diamonds. Meanwhile the fellow who contracted the heist, shadowy international criminal Ling, decides he has been double-crossed and kidnaps Fate's daughter to force the thieves to hand over the loot. Of course the `Black Diamonds' are not ordinary jewels and Fate and Su must become a team to foil Ling's nefarious plans. Judging from this description you would be safe in assuming C2tG has no pretensions to lifting the bar of cinematic excellence. All it wants to do is give you a good bang for your buck. Unfortunately there is more kick in your popcorn than C2tG exhibits onscreen.

While you don't go to something called Cradle 2 the Grave expecting Laurence Oliver you do expecting a likable star, a cool villain and a funny sidekick or two for that downtime between explosions. Nominal star Jet Li barely registers. As Su, Li's struggle with the English language leaches him of personality and the movie values it's gunplay over his martial arts displays. Rapper DMX fares better as Tony Fate. DMX is a tough looking hombre with a great raspy voice who convincingly handles a gun and carries off the tender scenes to the degree that the movie requires. As Ling, Mark Dacascos would have made a good foil for Li had their conflict been given more weight and their final confrontation been staged to highlight their martial arts rather than pyrotechnics. The heavier acting - such as they are - chores are handled by the supporting players. Chi McBride easily outshines the leads as a particularly nasty crime-lord and Tom Arnold brightens up the proceedings as a none-too-cagey fence.

Fine acting is all well and good in its place but what you want from a movie like C2tG are fights, chases and a few gallons of blood on the side. A good plot would be nice but is not strictly necessary. While C2tG's plot is adequate to its needs the movie fatally botches its action. Midway through the film there are two sequences, one of which could have been sort of fun and the other - well it must have seemed like a good idea at the time. The good idea has Li going up against an army of steroid abusing cage fighters. The bad one has DMX outracing every cop in the city riding an all-terrain vehicle. Both ideas are handled badly. There is no build in the cage fight and Li seems distracted and bored. DMX's chase depends on the notion that a four wheeler can out-run and out-maneuver cars, motorcycles and helicopters. Both sequences peter out rather than end. Mistakes multiply when, in a bid to goose the excitement level, the two sequences are intercut. You have about twenty seconds of Li pounding on the cage fighters, then a cut to DMX buzzing down the sidewalk and then back to ten more seconds of Li's fight. Rather than adding to the excitement this strategy causes the viewer to lose the flow of the action and deadens whatever tension could have been generated if each sequence had been allowed to run separately.

C2TG is no where near as bad an example of the action movie genre as Rollerball. It has its moments and would do well as the second rental on a guy's night double bill. If, however, you are only allowed one shoot-'em-up per rental by your significant other there are many other movies that give you a more entertaining bang for your buck.

4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Seabiscuit (2003)

8/10

A well told tale

19 August 2003

Seabiscuit is the true story of how a small, crook-legged thoroughbred became a champion and one of the fastest horses ever to run a track. It is also the story of how this horse brought healing into the lives of three stricken men and became an inspiration for Depression struck '30s America. Sounds a bit gooey, doesn't it? I mean, just add Shirley Temple and you'd have a movie capable of tripling the national glucose level. Don't let the description scare you. This is an excellent movie that won't rot your teeth.

One of the strengths of Seabiscuit has been criticized as its main flaw. The film is paced at an amiable ramble rather than a gallop. It takes its time, gives each character a leisurely introduction and lets the viewer soak in the depression era period. The movie trusts that its story is strong enough to hold the viewer's attention. It must be said, however, that if you don't think the adventures of a loveable car salesman, a crusty horse-loving bum and a half blind kid entertaining you might find the first hour or so before the introduction of Seabiscuit rough sledding. Look at it this way, while the set-up might seem long and slow, when you get to the racing sequences you get a huge payoff for your investment. Not only do you have the thrill of watching Seabiscuit's rush to glory, because the movie takes its time in introducing you to the protagonists and milieu you appreciate what the horse's success meant to these men and the country.

The only criticism I have of Seabiscuit is that it feels remote at times. It takes a reserved, glossy approach to the subject matter. The 1930s come across as a beautiful museum exhibit with everything lacquered to the highest possible sheen. As much as I loved the look I couldn't help wondering if the actual thirties horse track atmosphere weren't a bit more ragged around the edges.

The acting is somewhat of a mixed bag. Jeff Bridges plays Charles Howard, a man who achieves all he could wish for and then experiences the worse of personal tragedies. It is he who buys the unpromising colt and gives him the chance to succeed. While Bridges has played the go-getting businessman before he doesn't bring much depth to his character this time around. He has the car salesman side down pat but stumbles when suggesting Howard's emotional scars. Likewise Tobey Maguire, playing Seabiscuit's hard-knock jockey Red Pollard, doesn't begin to embody the scrappy youth Pollard must have been. Like most of his generation of actors Maguire is better at summoning emotional moments than building a character. While we buy him as an emotionally damaged yet determined young man it is very hard to accept him as a jockey. While both Bridges and Maguire are likeable in their roles they rarely seem more than the movie stars they are. Not so Chris Cooper. Cooper plays horse trainer Tom Smith, the strange loner who brings out the champion in Seabiscuit. Cooper is fantastic. You'd swear he'd wandered onto the set after spending a lifetime riding the high plains with only horses for company.

As undeniably fun as explosions, car chases and shootouts are, there is something about seeing a movie that actually boasts characters and a plot. Seabiscuit tells a fascinating story that truly earns its emotional moments.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Freddy vs. Jason (2003)

8/10

A good attempt at splat-shtick

18 August 2003

You have to be a `special' sort of person to enjoy Freddy Vs. Jason. Take this test: Did you take popcorn to driver's ed. class when they showed Death On The Highway? Did you giggle uncontrollably while dissecting frogs in Bio 101? Do you have an autographed picture of Richard Speck? Have you ever been featured on American Justice? If you answered yes to any of the above, then man, this movie's for you.

In the grand tradition of Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, Freddy Vs. Jason pits the popular maniacs from the Nightmare On Elm Street and Friday the 13th series against each other. Fred Krueger is kicking around Hell unable to invade the dreams of teens. The children of Elm Street have forgotten to be afraid of him. No fear. No power. Spying the undead Jason Voorhees hanging out in another ring of Hell, the wily Krueger sets him free and points him towards Elm Street so as to strike the fear of Freddy into its denizens. Of course Jason has his own needs and veers away from Krueger's plans. Naturally Krueger gets miffed and so we are treated to a knockdown, drag out brawl between the titular baddies. This fight is the complete reason for this film and a fine, frolicsome dust-up it is too. Both monsters get their licks in, each having moments where they have the upper hand. Surprisingly at the end there is a clear winner. While I can't tell you who the winner is I can tell you that Krueger is the more impressive of the two monsters, not that there is much of a competition. Krueger, with his dream powers, metal claws and constant wisecracks easily eclipse poor mute Jason and his rusty machete. Krueger is, as always, played by the indispensable Robert Englund with his usual wicked wit and nasty panache. Jason is, as always, played by a stuntman trying to emote through a hocky mask.

The teenage victims and their subplots are pretty much an afterthought. In the tradition of the Nightmare movies there is some effort to give the victims a semblance of a personality but this impulse disappears quickly. Most of the younger cast's acting is only as good as it has to be and no better. Not that this all makes much difference. Trust me, no one is coming to this movie to see if Kia gets a nose job or Gibb quits drinking before she is fricasseed.

Just as you don't approach Freddy Vs. Jason expecting a deep exploration of teenage angst, you probably shouldn't go expecting a real horror movie either. The film is an example of a curious sub-genre called `splat-shtick'. That is, a comedy that uses flying viscera in the same spirit that Laurel and Hardy used cream pies. As such, it is a pretty funny movie - providing you can get into the spirit of things. While it never reaches the sublime dementia of the possessed hand sequence in The Evil Dead Pt. 2 or the classic `head' scene in The Re-Animator, Freddy Vs. Jason does sustain its humor better than most of the `strait' comedies released this season. While I can't - in good conscious - recommend this movie, if you bring to it a sick enough sense of humor you should have a reasonably good time.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Hidden Fortress (1958)

Waiting for Rokurota

27 July 2003

The Hidden Fortress is a fine movie that deserves better than to be remembered as the inspiration for Star Wars. Two more dissimilar movies would hard to be imagined. The peasants bear a striking resemblance to Vladimir and Estragon in their infighting, negotiable affection for each other and their seeming inability to make any real progress toward any goal whatsoever. They are truly a venal pair, loveable only in their humanity and humor.

I saw The Hidden Fortress on the Criterion DVD. Beautiful print but no commentary outside of a brief interview with George Lucas distancing himself from the film's alleged influence on Star Wars. It would have been nice to hear interviews with surviving cast and crew or a knowledgeable historian. Criterion also made a terrible choice in not translating more of the credits. Only Kurosawa and Mifuni had the honor of an English translation. Surely Misa Uehara, Minoru Chaiki and Kamatari Fujiwara deserve to have their names known to we who lack basic Japanese. The Princess and the peasants help make this movie what it is. I gripe too much though. Without Criterion (and Netflix)I would not have been able to see this movie at all.

Again, The Hidden Fortress is a great movie that also happens to be great fun. Highly recommended

35 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Finding Nemo (2003)

A lively and beautiful summer treat.

11 June 2003

Fish. How the heck do you make a movie about fish? Fish are good for hooking, cleaning and frying but to make an animated adventure about them? Seems like a long shot to me. Luckily for us Pixar Studios took up the challenge and made the computer animated Finding Nemo. This is an astoundingly beautiful, touching and very funny movie aboutahfish.

The plot of Finding Nemo is simple. In a comparatively tough opening scene (for a children's movie) clownfish Marlin loses his wife and all but one of their thousand-odd eggs. The surviving egg hatches to become the titular Nemo, a feisty little fry suffering under the watchful eye of his overprotective father. One day Nemo feels particularly put upon and swims off into dangerous water. Naturally he is captured by divers and soon finds himself captive in a fish tank. Thus begins Marlin's quest to find and save his son. At first glance, this looks like standard kiddy movie fodder. Dangers are faced. Fears are overcome and (big L) Lessons are Learned. The sort of pabulum parents dread sitting through and kids quickly tire of. For the most part though Pixar successfully navigates the shoals of the mundane. They fill Finding Nemo with enough fascinating details and humorous asides that you forget you've seen essentially the same movie a hundred times on Nickelodeon. From the dental groupie denizens of Nemo's fish tank to the single-minded seagulls the movie will snag even the most adult viewer's attention throughout.

The first thing that hits you in Finding Nemo is how gorgeous the movie is. The undersea environment simply ripples with color, texture and detail, especially in opening scenes set in a crowded coral reef. Traditional cell animation cannot begin to compete with computer animation in this area.

Pixar has always been extraordinarily clever in casting the voices of their features and Finding Nemo is no exception. Albert Brooks, an actor known for his neurotic roles, is perfect as the driven father fish Marlin. Willem Dafoe as Gill, Nemo's fish tank mentor, is every old con that ever led an escape attempt. Barry Humphries, usually heard and seen as Dame Edna Everage, sounds exactly like what you'd expect a talking shark to sound like. The featured voices include Eric Bana, Bruce Spence, Elizabeth Perkins, Austin Pendleton, John Ratzenberger and Geoffrey Rush among other - all perfectly cast and all fitting their animated counterparts perfectly. The standout performance, however, is Ellen DeGeneres as Dory the bluefish. She steals the show as Marlin's enthusiastically helpful companion with an unfortunate memory problem.

Finding Nemo does have its faults. Some sequences are played at such a frenetic pace it becomes hard to sort out what is happening. In particular Marlin and Dory's encounter with a trio of over-friendly sharks suffers from a too frenzied approach. If I hadn't read that they had stumbled into a Meat-a-holic Anonymous meeting I would probably have missed the joke. This, however, is a relatively minor blip in an otherwise consistently delightful film. With its wealth of humor, vibrant color and stunning attention to detail Finding Nemo is well worth a viewing on the big screen.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Fantastic action rewards the patient.

9 June 2003

Say you're at a heavyweight bout. Not just any bout mind you, but the fabled `Thrilla in Manila'. Ali and Frazier enter the ring. The crowd goes wild! Frazier warily eyes Ali. Ali taunts Frazier. The crowd holds its breath! The bell sounds and - Frazier and Ali spend the next half hour discussing French literary theory. Sure, eventually Frazier gets disgusted with Ali's neo-Freudian deconstructionist attitude and starts throwing punches but by that time the crowd's snoring. That, in a nutshell, is the experience of The Matrix Reloaded. This movie has stunts, fights and spectacular action to spare after you've sat through enough gaseous bloviating to float the Hindenburg.

In The Matrix we learned that Sentient Machines have enslaved the human race. Physically humans live in a cocoon hooked up to enormous electrical collectors. Mentally, however, they live within `The Matrix', a vast virtual reality designed to emulate 21st century earth. We followed the adventures of Neo as he finds he may be `The Chosen One' to lead the Human Race out of bondage. The Matrix Reloaded starts a short while after the events of the first movie. Machines have discovered the location of the free human city of Zion and are out to destroy it. Only Neo and his band of rebels offer any hope of salvation.

The leads do a decent job staying ahead of the special effects. Keanu Reeves' strong suit, looking vaguely puzzled by the world about him, works well for Neo the befuddled virtual messiah. Carrie-Anne Moss again is memorable as Trinity. Unfortunately, her character has devolved from the tough resistance leader of the first movie to being Neo's babe in this one. While Moss has her share of action scenes, Trinity's prime function now is to be saved by Neo. Laurence Fishburne's endlessly philosophical Morpheus handles the bulk of the movies speechifying. When not pontificating, Morpheus is given to looming stoically over Neo's shoulder. Only Fishburne's charisma keeps this leaden character from bringing the movie to a screeching halt. Hugo Weaving's dryly-humorous take on the evil Agent Smith gives his scenes some needed verve and Gloria Foster as the all-knowing Oracle perks up a potentially slow patch. The rest of the cast tends to be swallowed by the blood and thunder and the sprawling dull patches.

Once past the first half hour or so the action picks up dramatically. You are rewarded for your patience with fabulously impossible martial arts displays, spectacular action sequences and the mother of all chase scenes. These are the stuff of summer movie heaven. However, even as events start to hurtle along, Neo and his pals are wont to take lengthy breaks for their sit-down palavers.

It can't be stressed enough how much the endless nattering hurts The Matrix Reloaded. The speeches are so clumsily written that most of the actors have their tongues tripped up. Only Weaving and Foster manage to put an entertaining spin on them. The content - speculations on the nature of reality, free will, causality and the like - resemble the type of philosophical gibberish you'd hear around a half empty keg in the hospitality suite of a Star Trek convention. Don't get me wrong here. Most of The Matrix Reloaded is a heck of a lot of fun but you might want to wait for the DVD and the relief of a fast forward button.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Catch Me If You Can (2002)

What would you do?

30 January 2003

What if you were a teenage kid, fast on your feet and possessing the gift of gab? What if you found that by wearing the right suit and faking some checks you could fly wherever you want, buy cool cars and get the sort of women here-to-fore only glimpsed in the pages of forbidden men's magazines? Would you say `Get thee behind me Satan'? Would you go back to church, sing in the choir and date plump little Suzie from down the street? Nahneither would I, and neither did Frank Abagnale Jr., the `hero' of Steven Spielberg's Catch Me If You Can

It's the early 60s and Frank is a teenager in need of an escape. His beloved Dad's a crook, his French mom's a floozy and impending family bankruptcy has forced Frank out of his pricey private school and into the public school system. What's a boy to do but impersonate a teacher for a week to show the world what-for? The success of his prank coupled with a chance encounter with an airline pilot shows Frank a rather questionable solution to his problems. Soon Frank, resplendent in a filched Pan-Am uniform is caging rides on airliners, cashing forged paychecks and scoring with the Stewsjust the type of therapy a mixed up kid needs. How this appealing young bunko artist is both brought to -and given a measure of - justice is the narrative thread of this absorbing fact based movie.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays Frank as a bright, relatively normal kid who discovers natural talents well suited for a life of larceny. DiCaprio does an appealing job playing the character for simplicity and truth rather than the big effect. Tom Hanks plays Agent Carl Hanratty, the dogged FBI agent charged with catching Abagnale. Crusty to a fault but possessing a well-hidden streak of compassion, Hanratty battles both Frank and an FBI for who check-kiting is not high on the list of glamorous crimes.

One of the strengths of the movie is the way DiCaprio lies. The problem with most movies involving conmen is that their cons are usually enacted with a wink and a smile. Because the grifters come across as transparently phony their marks seem imbecilic to fall for them. Not so in Catch Me If You Can. Frank Abagnale moved among intelligent professionals who knew much more about the subject he was lying about than he did. Frank would have had to prevaricate with complete conviction to pull off his con. DiCaprio captures this. Despite the fact we are in on his game, when Frank passes himself off as a pilot or cop we half believe him ourselves. The marks have no reason not to believe him.

With Catch Me If You Can Spielberg is not straining for a blockbuster or trying to `hit one out of the park'. As a result the picture feels relaxed. Spielberg has an interesting story to tell and he delivers it like a master raconteur. It may not unseat Titanic at the box-office; it may not win a string of rewards. It does keep you constantly entertained, makes you care about Frank and Hanratty and gives you a sense of time well spent, an important feat in my book.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Gangs of New York (2002)

Terrific Entertainment!

30 January 2003

Gangs of New York is just perfect entertainment. It is an enthralling, bloody, melodramatic epic that more than justifies its two and one half hour running time. In Gangs director Martin Scorsese spins another tale of the New York underworld but with a twist. Instead of the mid-twentieth century organized crime milieu of Goodfellas, Scorsese ventures back to the 19th century to show us the origin of the modern street gang.

It's the early 1860s and the notorious Five Points slum is ruled by the savage `Bill the Butcher'. The viciously nationalistic Bill terrorizes all the immigrant masses jammed into his slum but seems to harbor a particular hatred for the Irish population. Into this seething cauldron wanders mysterious young Amsterdam Vallon who soon works his way into the trust and affection of Bloody Bill. Amsterdam, however, has a past with the unsuspecting Butcher and sports an agenda not unlike a certain Prince of Denmark. Bloody vengeance and dark betrayal soon come to pass, all played against a backdrop of corruption and unrest that lead to up to the horrors of New York Civil War draft riots.

Daniel Day-Lewis is marvelous as Bill the Butcher. His Bill is both recognizably human and a full bore, moustache-twirling villain. Day-Lewis strides his savage and profane way across the screen and steals the whole of the movie. The only other actor to approach Day-Lewis' level is Jim Broadbent as William 'Boss' Tweed. Broadbent is Tweed's spitting image and he makes the grasping old pirate so winning we find ourselves rooting for Tweed against the gaggle of reformers that infest his domain. Though Leonardo DiCaprio is the nominal lead of the picture he is overshadowed by his co-stars. Large, slope shouldered and vaguely brutish looking, DiCaprio is physically perfect for Amsterdam. While he could have used some of the fire and rage of a young James Cagney, DiCaprio's acting is superior throughout the movie. The problem is that Amsterdam just isn't as flashy a role as Bill or Tweed and, as good as DiCaprio is; Day-Lewis operates on a whole other level. Cameron Diaz as the beautiful pickpocket Jenny, never convinces that she is a product of the slums. Despite having considerable screen time, Diaz fades into the background when compared to her more powerful co-stars.

Just as important as the actors are to Gangs is the period atmosphere that drips off the screen. The amazing old New York set has an air of lived in reality that you could cut with a knife. You can almost smell the vermin. Gangs is entirely free of the embalmed feeling you get from most modern period movies. The cast handles the period argot as if it were their true speech and wear their costumes like lived-in clothing. You come away convinced that this is how the world looked and sounded in 1862.

Scorsese does eschew all nuance and subtlety in Gangs. Instead he tells his tale in wide, bold, exploitive and melodramatic strokes that make the movies two and a half hours fly by. Be warned that if you are waiting to see Gangs on DVD you are making a huge mistake. Gangs has to be seen at the theater. The detail and scope of the film cries out to be viewed in all its wide screen glory. This movie is a fantastic achievement.

216 out of 285 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

An outstanding, if not totally enjoyable, movie

27 January 2003

Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers continues the monumental achievement of The Fellowship of the Rings. It is an intelligent and tasteful fantasy epic. That said you might find it a movie you respect more than enjoy. Watching it can be a distant and cold experience. You seem to be viewing the romance and adventure through a frosty blue lens.

The Two Towers is the second chapter of a trilogy that makes little concession to those who come in late. You are thrust into the middle of the action as Frodo and Sam make their way to the cursed land of Mordor. Aragorn and his party track the Orc band that kidnapped Pippin and Merry at the end of The Fellowship of the Rings. Two and a half hours of high fantasy mayhem later you are again left dangling but not before meeting enough characters to populate ten normal sized movies. This brings up a point: While it is not strictly necessary to read Tolkien's books or watch the first movie to enjoy The Two Towers, such preliminary preparation will help keep your Éomérs separate from your Éowyns and Éothains.

The Two Towers cast is, again, led by Ian McKellen as the durable wizard Gandolf. McKellen's exceptional performance does not steal the movie; rather he is like a star quarterback leading a winning team to victory. Most all the actors were memorable up to and including the computer generated Gollum. The exceptions were, unfortunately, Elijah Wood and Sean Astin as the heroic hobbits Frodo and Sam. Their rather bland performances and wandering accents diminished the impact of Frodo's quest to Mordor. That quest is, after all, the backbone of the trilogy. This is not a fatal flaw as the other performances and the sheer spectacle of The Two Towers is more than enough to carry you through the few dead moments.

Spectacle the Two Towers has in overflowing abundance. Magical and fantasy elements seem to play more of a role here than in Fellowship of the Rings so you have swooping dragons, giant walking trees, huge armies of hell-beasts and a castle assault the likes you've never seen. The siege of Helm's Deep could have been a movie unto itself and is the undisputed highlight of The Two Towers. The epic promise of magical fantasy is realized here but, do to the uniform strength of the cast's performances, all the blood and thunder on display is not at the expense of the characters or their story.

Director Peter Jackson does have some chinks in his style. He has yet to develop a flair for epic movie making. It sometimes seems that his sole way of showing off the size of his movie is with great swooping helicopter shots. Other times he sprints his camera through intriguing environments too quickly to get a real sense of the scene. He also indulges in some topical comedy that, while undeniably funny, is gratingly anachronistic and has the effect of momentarily rousing you from the mood the rest of the movie has carefully built. These, however, are small problems that barely scuff the surface sheen of The Two Towers. A larger barrier to truly enjoying this movie is the afore-mentioned remoteness of its style. This may be more a matter of personal taste than anything else. To me the cool and formal presentation was a little off-putting. To others it might strike just the right note of grandeur. There should be no argument, however, that The Two Towers is a film to be reckoned with and that the cinematic Lord of the Rings trilogy will be judged as much a classic as its literary forbearer.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Collateral Damage (2002)

7/10

Above average action trash and proud of it.

5 April 2002

Collateral Damage is an excellent effort by all concerned. It's exciting, polished and it sports a more serious demeanor than most movies in its genre. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his colleagues have nothing to be ashamed of. Yet because it had the bad taste to be released after the cruel events of September 11th it has been roundly lambasted in reviews and op-ed pieces as a piece of insensitive trash. The question to ask, then, is "Yes? So what's your point?" Action movies have never been known for their deep sociological insights and to expect Schwarzenegger to have the precognitive foresight to predict last fall's horrors is ridiculous. A movie should be judged by what it is trying to accomplish and by its own merits. By these standards Collateral Damage turned out pretty good.

Schwarzenegger plays Gordon Brewer, a heroic fireman. Brewer's happily married existence is shattered when his family is caught in a terrorist explosion. This sets in motion the revenge quest that takes Brewer from Washington D.C. to the jungle horrors of South America. Schwarzenegger is obviously trying to change his image in this movie. In stark contrast to his previous colorful and bombastic outings, Collateral Damage is admirably low key. Andrew Davis' directorial style would seem right at home on the muted Law and Order TV series. For the most part, the remote and cool directing plays well with Schwarzenegger's heroics. The only real problem is when the obligatory action set pieces kick in. Because of the relative realism, when Schwarzenegger takes a sure-death tumble down a waterfall or survives a Hiroshima-sized fireball, the absurdity of the situation is heightened rather than the thrills.

In a surprising move Schwarzenegger stretches himself and actually acts in Collateral Damage. He attempts emotion, character building, empathy and everything! More surprising still, he does a decent job of it and holds his own against his supporting cast. New Zealander Cliff Curtis exudes way too friendly a demeanor for "The Wolf", the satanic object of Schwarzenegger's wrath. Though I suppose that's exactly the way an effective terrorist would come across, the movie could have used the rabid ferocity of a Gary Oldman in the part. Francesca Neri is intense and appealing as the woman Brewer feels compelled to protect. As a CIA operative, Elias Koteas seems content to coast on his reputation for playing sleazy whackos rather than attempting a complex character. The two best supporting players, John Leguizamo and John Turturro, have what amounts to extended cameos. Both deliver entertaining characters that disappear far to early Collateral Damage isn't a great movie; it's just a good one. Let's face it; Schwarzenegger's stock and trade are action supermen. While seeing him in, say, The Cherry Orchard would undoubtedly be an experience, the man is really most comfortable turning bad guys to sushi with a chain gun under each arm. To start castigating him for making the sort of movie he's been doing for twenty years is ludicrous. It is very understandable that September 11th has put many people off cartoonish violence. If that is the case with you, then please stay away from Collateral Damage. Otherwise I recommend it as a very good example of the popcorn movie it was meant to be.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)

10/10

A truly odd classic

3 April 2002

The Royal Tenenbaums is a truly great movie. It is full of humor and humanity. The acting is impeccable, the story absolutely absorbing and the presentation stylish without becoming overbearing. It's also one of the oddest major studio releases in years. If you are unprepared for its oblique view of life you could be justifiably outraged by the movie. This is a cheerfully filmed comedy about child abuse, divorce, adultery, mental illness, grief, suicide and death. It's the type of movie where a trip to the dogfights is portrayed as a bonding experience. Despite.or perhaps because of.all this, it ultimately ends up a positive comment on the endurance of family love.

Twenty years ago the Tenenbaum family was famous for their string of child prodigies. There was Chase the financial wizard, Margot the playwright and Ritchie the gifted athlete. All had accomplished prodigious feats well before their tenth birthday but then a terrible disaster occurred. Now all have grown to be twisted, neurotic and emotionally scarred adults. The terrible disaster was their father, Royal Tenenbaum. Royal is simply the most obnoxious excuse for a parent ever to slither across a movie screen. He's Auntie Mame gone bad. He's a self absorbed, conniving, cheating, racist b**tard. As the movie begins he's been kicked out of his luxury hotel suite for nonpayment of rent. He also finds out his ex-wife is going to marry her black accountant. Both these events impinge on Royal's self interest and so he devises a scheme he hopes will rectify the situation. The movie tracks the result of his scheme and the effect it has on the wreckage of his family.

Royal is a pretty unredeemable character and Gene Hackman digs into the character's miserable hide with a tangible joy. Royal so full of wormy life one can readily see why a seemingly sensible woman like Ethel Tenenbaum would not only have fallen in love with him but still be carrying a guttering torch years after she's thrown him out. As Ethel, Angelica Huston is fully the equal of Hackman. Ethel is someone who's been raked over the coals by a loved one and who has done her best ever since to repair the damage. Ben Stiller is perfect as Chase, still nursing childhood wounds while trying to deal with the freak death of his wife. Gwyneth Paltrow defines the word "neurotic" as Margot, a woman hell-bent on hiding secrets no one really cares to know. The whole cast was exceptional and each has a moment or two where they can shine. Only Luke Wilson, as Ritchie, seemed a little too remote for a man enduring the rigors of hidden love.

Does all this sound like a lighthearted comedy? Well, yes, if you're definition of "light hearted" is flexible enough. It is one of the funniest movies I've seen lately. It's not a cruel comedy like the excellent, if extremely nasty, South Park movie. You care about the Tenenbaums even as you laugh at their foibles. With all its darkness the movie is surprisingly sweet. There seems no clear-cut message except, perhaps, that even the lowest, most craven SOB has potential for salvation. Then again, perhaps the only thought was to entertain us. That The Royal Tenenbaums does, with great style and surprising warmth.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

slimjack

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed