Change Your Image
bennyp81
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Compadres (2016)
A Fun Adventure Despite Technical and Artistic Flaws
This was the first truly bilingual film I have ever seen. No, it's not merely a film where people talk in two languages. It's the first I've seen where the events unfold in two languages and the audience processes them accordingly. I didn't know what effect it would have on me at first, despite knowing both English and Spanish. However, after watching "Compadres", I saw that, if anything, it gave the film a richness that made it fun to watch.
Alas, after watching the film, I couldn't help but feel as though I just sat through a six-month telenovela hastily condensed into an hour-and-a-half work: The scope was clearly a grand one, but director Enrique Begne's execution suggested he was well out of his depth, since he botched quite a number of elements along the way. To wit, the editing appeared rushed and scattered, with some scenes leaving out plot-critical shots of items and people that are normally taken for granted in other films. The music was all over the place, ranging from twisted to tender, while an equally erratic score filled the crevices. Additionally, there were actions by the characters in certain scenes, such as Garza randomly kissing the waitress at the diner, that felt out of place; they were probably inserted just to extract a laugh from the audience when, truth be told, they didn't need to. Even the opening title credits looked half- baked, as though they came straight out of a student copy of Adobe Flash. These factors converged to derail the film's tone, leaving one convinced that Begne simply could not decide what flavor of story he wanted to tell. Maybe a glance at Quentin Tarantino's "Jackie Brown" could have helped.
And yet... you can't help but immerse yourself in the experience, despite the above lapses in judgment. Omar Chaparro (as the stoic Mexican cop Garza) and Joey Morgan (as the bumbling but good-hearted computer hacker Vic) make for an enjoyably discordant duo, showing that strong characters backed by capable actors do matter. The desolate landscapes and grimy city scenes add to the alienation that slowly grates on Garza and Vic. In the face of relentless backstabbing and setbacks, their budding friendship is the only thing left that they believe in, and that modicum of hope is just enough to push them forward, to search for the truth, to save each other's lives. Said tribulations have their own share of twists and surprises (with competent explanations on the side) to mystify but not confuse. The story that pierces through the poor choices made by the filmmakers successfully keeps the audience in the game and endears the lively cast of characters to the moviegoers.
By the end of the film, you'll want to see Garza and Vic head out for another adventure, one you would gladly pay a matinée ticket for. Hopefully, some better production personnel will be in tow.
Catalog (1961)
A Surprising Find
I caught wind of Mr. Whitney's work while learning about slit-scan photography, the technique used to create those engrossing images that form the "stargate" sequence of 2001: A Space Odyssey. It never occurred to me that this kind of motion photography was possible in 1961. I'm still trying to wrap my head around how slit-scan is done, but this experimental short film demonstrates other tangentially related techniques. Whitney employs techniques such as extended exposure, optical manipulation, kaleidoscopic mirroring and some frame-by-frame editing, all with the aid of an analog computer Whitney built for this purpose.
The image effects in this short still fascinate even after decades of ever-improving special effects and the advent of computer technology. Even the most spoiled connoisseur of special effects would find appreciation from the work Whitney and others, of which Catalog displays for our wonder.
Ben & Arthur (2002)
Eureka!
I have found it! This is the real deal, the bottom of the barrel, the absolute worst, the nadir of cinema. Ben & Arthur made me do the unthinkable by "honoring" it with a 1 rating on IMDb, something I have never done in the 11 years I have been rating movies on this site. Normally, I try to find at least one redeeming point in any bad film I see, if only to rationalize its merits and save myself face: Even the horrendous "Titanic: The Animated Musical" had at least decent still drawings at the very end. Alas, "Ben & Arthur" was beyond redemption and any hope that one could walk away from the film with something to justify the experience.
The fact that IMDb even has an entry for this audiovisual equivalent of excrement frightens me. I believe it did get a screening at a movie theater, it is a feature-length work and its DVD is readily available at several online stores, so I guess it technically qualifies as a "film". Whatever you wish to call this work, everything in it is bad: Acting, writing, direction, editing, music, photography, sound recording, set design, continuity.... I could go on, but other reviewers on this site have already elaborated on this film's numerous flaws, with far better grace and humor.
My goodness, even the first few seconds tells you how badly this film will devolve: It features an irrelevant and disgusting background animation for an opening sequence and the use of a gingerly MIDI-recorded rendition of "The Entertainer" for an otherwise ostensibly tragic love story. Scott Joplin should simply come back from the grave and toss the filmmaker into a vat of liquefied iron, which closely resembles the red fluid flowing across the screen. It would've made the opening credits seem more proper.
Oh, but the filmmaker, Sam Mraovich. Let me add something that no reviewer has addressed as of yet: Considering he did nearly all of the production duties in this film, he is technically also an "auteur" in the same vein as, say, Stanley Kubrick or Wes Anderson. However, those last two, while often writing and producing their own material, nevertheless saw the benefit of sharing the workload with people that are experts in their respective fields of film production, while also staying involved and informed of progress. Mraovich on the other hand quite literally does all the work in piecing together this wreck, almost surely because he fancied himself as capable of such and not because a lack of appropriate personnel. Fact-checking is non-existent, with Mraovich going as far as screwing up basic Bible facts that even cold-hearted Atheists would recognize. The fact that he also stars in Ben & Arthur as the central protagonist (nudity and all), while providing what is hands-down the worst performance by any actor I have ever seen, reinforces what everyone here already knows: That Mraovich has lost much of his grasp of reality and has no idea of how humans function.
(Additionally, even Kubrick usually had his name in only a few credits at most or, in the case of "A Clockwork Orange", in just one card. Mraovich's name is everywhere in Ben & Arthur.)
And just what were the actors in this movie thinking of when they signed on to this thing anyway? Anyone with a brain cell would have backed out after reading the first page of the script. Were they doing it out of duty? Maybe they were blackmailed. Were they even paid well? (I would imagine SAG would frown upon paying actors in graham crackers.) Maybe they simply pitied the hopelessly delusional Mraovich.
In any case, Ben & Arthur was quite the discovery for me. Wider awareness of this movie could easily set the gay rights movement back to the stone age. Once you are done with this abomination, if you dare brave it, you'll conclude that it belongs in the great Pantheon of Bad Ideas like the Great Leap Forward and The Baseball Network.
Turn-On (1969)
Ayayay!
I learned about this show a few days ago. Having read some of the amusing comments regarding this show on IMDb, I just had to go down to the Museum of Television & Radio in Beverly Hills to see what the fuss was about.
Oh wow. The trivia section here said that ABC canceled the show just minutes after the first episode began airing. Now that I saw that fateful first episode, they were doing 60s television a favor. Manic, disturbing, unnerving and psychotic are just some of the lighter adjectives that describe this show. By itself, the "rapid fire humor" was too rapid (the show cuts into too many skits into too little time) and not humorous enough (obvious double jokes, for one).
And yet the show was funny... for all the wrong reasons! While the jokes were hardly laughable (except perhaps the candy dispenser refusing to pop out The Pill; that was a real guff!), their execution certainly was. Mr. Conway tries, but he really doesn't belong here; "eye-candy" that isn't; a curious dog-cat-Muppet hybrid silently popping up with a bewildering stare after seeing a, um, "sex act"; oh, and let's not forget the "Body Politic". All of this is sardine-canned into thirty minutes to yield some of the most bizarre entertainment ever produced for television. Perhaps it should come with every sale of the Ludovico Machine. Indeed, the white background, extremely minimalist set designs and mind-frying Moog synthesizer music would make you think that Laugh-In was doing a little "in-out in-out" with Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange!
Der Ring des Nibelungen: Götterdämmerung (1981)
Sadness, singing, and Siegfried to boot!
How refreshing and appropriate, it seems, that this interpretation of Wagner's final Ring Cycle opera takes us away from the distant places of Norse lore to the gilded towers of the Industrial Age. The way I see it, Götterdämmerung tells the story of a world on the brink of losing its faith. There's nothing to believe in anymore; there's no one you can trust. The Gibichung Hall doubles as a contempt-ridden snake pit, surely an ode to man's vapid purpose. Thus the world's wealth cannot disguise the misery of its existence. Our way of life is unsustainable and heading for ruin. The god's absolutely final chance to maintain the status quo (in the form of Siegfried) fails.
Ah, let's chat about Siegfried: For a "free hero," he's as whiny as Luke Skywalker and as reckless as Harry Potter, and yet these latter two are not as easy to beguile. By today's standards he would never be considered a hero in any way. At best, he's oblivious to the pressing challenges that the world faces. At worst, he's an idiotic numb-skull who won't heed to any good advice, not even his own. If anything, the real hero of this debacle would be Brünnhilde, who in The Valkyrie saves a defenseless girl from a terrible fate, stands up for herself in answering to her considerably peeved super-father, and here returns the Rhinegold to its proper owners.
And yet, despite all of this, when Brünnhilde sings about the end of the gods, it plays the same leitmotif that opens The Rhinegold: Will the world start anew? Will there be new "gods" to take the reins? Is there hope still? What do we know? That's the great things about this opera, and especially this production. In the end, all great works must do one thing to survive the wear of time, of which this opera succeeds: To leave us wondering about what could have been and what could still be.
You Got Served (2004)
What would Wagner think?
"Wait, you don't mean Richard Wagner, I hope!?" The guy who wrote Tannhauser, Lohengrin, and Ring Cycle (Rheingold, Valkyrie, some forgettable romp after Valkyrie, and Gotterdammerung)? Yes, sorry, but I do mean THAT Richard Wagner. What would he think of films today? He never lived to see the medium rise to its full glory; but by today's cinematic standards, if he wanted to do one, what could stop him? Imagine him writing scripts, composing film scores, and perhaps producing and directing. With his lofty imagination and desire to fuse drama and music with meaningful tact, his films would be unparalleled!
"But Wagner has nothing to do with this tawdry excuse of a 'movie'! What's the point?" Well, while watching this, I remembered recently reading a short parody of The Valkyrie that attempts to summarize the opera's complex story. It was quite funny, but if I didn't know the opera's music and lacked firsthand knowledge of plot points, the humor would have been lost. This "movie" felt much like a short, watered-down, and generally hilarious parody of an otherwise memorable opera. The only problem is that You Got Served is not based on a memorable opera... or anything else! It is very much its own film, and yet the film has this urgent need to feel complete.
Chris Stokes, a band-manager-turned-filmmaker as is the current zeitgeist, writes and directs this laughable exercise in movie-making. I bet he comes from the music video tradition, since the "movie" exploits fast cuts, faster girls, jarring edits (EDIT: The editing in this film was atrocious!), and loud music, all for the sake of promoting a musical act. I hope this experience teaches him that films and music videos do not equate. Films are longer and require much more care.
He didn't think his screenplay through. Its numerous faults include blatant stereotypes, poor exposition (more than once did I see the need for several scenes to be condensed; plot holes were abundant), repetition (Stokes greatly wants to remind us that our protagonists owe money), deus ex machina (Grandma has some backup cash; forgettable friend learns about a major dance contest; "Mr. Rad" getting our "heroes" out of a fine mess with some gang), trite dialog (I could swear that, at one point, it looked as though Steve Harvey badly wanted to say a comeback to some comment made to him, but NOOOOO! The script apparently had other plans!), the sacrificial lamb (in the form of "Lil' Saint". Telling.), and the obligatory "romance" (the film's two resident lovebirds are no Tristan and Isolde, let me tell 'ya).
Nor did he think his casting through. Musical acts don't necessarily make actors. (Mariah Carey paid dearly for not understanding this.) Not one the young "actors" in this film showed any conviction in their roles. The film exemplifies two types of bad acting: One coming from good actors muddled in bad roles (Harvey and a few of the token adults fit this) and another coming from bad actors relishing in awful roles (which this film has in spades).
Boy, did I get served! This is required viewing if you want to learn how NOT to make a film. Wagner would be ashamed of such a hackneyed fusion of "music" and "drama." If he was alive to see this... thing, he would never stop vomiting. Honestly, his oral discharges would be far more entertaining than this act of cinematic terrorism.
Going Greek (2001)
I'm sorry, but...
...having seen this movie, I must disagree with most of the other commentators. This film is quite bad in just about every basic aspect.
For one, instead of having a strong story that drives our heroes Gil and Jake to strive for inclusion at the expense of their dignity, we have nothing more than a series of episodic gross-out gags and ruses, not to mention a slapped-on romance. The razor-thin plot consists of fraternity brothers inducting Gil in hopes that Jake would join the fraternity as well and, with his former football skills, beat a rival fraternity (of which we know nothing of, by the way) in a football game that exists only because there was a need for an uplifting and climactic ending.
Second, the gags are gross in the extreme, yet they are neither funny (thanks to poor timing aided by the aforementioned episodic approach, despite well-done delivery) nor disgusting (Yes, every conceivable example of displaying people's by-products is in this movie.). Some of the humor is good only when taken out of the context of the film, but for the most part it is just plain sad, because it leaves little for the audience to fill in with their imagination.
Third, the bad-enough one-dimensional stereotypes that unfortunately are the characters are in addition plagued with an air of arrogance and self-importance. Moreover, some of the characters are not completely fleshed out and, because of it, they miss moments that could've been ripe with humor. For example, Charlie Talbert gives a memorable and hilarious comedic performance as Dooly, but even that can't save his poorly written on-screen persona. (Early on he says he "likes pussy", but near the end it shows that he is clearly a homosexual. The actual problem is that there is no comedic arc to discern whether that was the case all along, he developed a taste for it, or if he was bi.) Try as I might, these problems couldn't be ignored and ultimately soured the film for me.
I gave the film a 3: The lowest rating you can go + Basic principles of film-making are followed + Charlie Talbert.
Rich and Strange (1931)
Curiously quirky Hitchcock
What an unusual Hitchcock film this is! For one thing, in this film, he doesn't focus on themes of murder and suspense as he is well remembered for. Instead, he takes a satirical look at the complexities of marriage and fidelity, with rich, quirky, and even disturbing humor. (It's interesting to note that Elsie Randolph returned in another twisted Hitchcock "comedy", "Frenzy", forty years after this film.) The editing is a bit crude by today's standards, although you just have to appreciate the mix of titles and audible dialogue to represent the transition from silent films to "talkies". Still, it's a funny film you can enjoy, with numerous Hitchcock elements clearly evident. Enjoy!
Angus (1995)
Amazingly sweet and intriguing. Talbert has Talent!
What's there to really say? Absolutely enjoyable! Where should I start?
I think it's best to start with Angus Bethune, the fat kid who just doesn't seem to get a break, until an age-old enemy, Rick, rigs an election so that Angus can dance with his long-time crush, Melissa. Angus is played by Charlie Talbert, who was reportedly "discovered" at a Wendy's in Illinois. Talbert plays the role with warmth, heart, sarcasm, and conviction, and he does it so wonderfully (and this being his first film!), he can potentially be one of film acting's best-kept secret. He is sure to have a successful career in acting, pending that we do see him in another film. Angus' interaction with his granddad (played by George C. Scott in possibly one of his most memorable, though short, roles since "Patton") is very interesting to pay attention. The supporting characters, geeky Troy, beautiful Melissa, and Rick the pest (played by a more credible James Van der Beek), form part of the fabric of appealing characters that dot the film. The film would have been better though if we knew a little more about these people, so as to make it a character study.
I've read some comments from expert reviewers about this film. Most agree that Charlie Talbert has a great future in film ahead of him, but that the film itself is "formulaic" and "predictable". This is quite true, and that was one of the fears I had before watching this film. Yet after watchng this film I'm now absolutely convinced that even "formulaic" and "predictable" films can be great, provided that they're executed properly and with heart, as it was with this film. In the case with "Angus", it's a mix of originality (a tongue-in-cheek script and direction) and tried-and-true motifs. There's even a character twist (I won't say who) that threw me a bit off-guard near the end!
In this case, it's Patrick Read Johnson's direction that made this movie very memorable. The cinematography was vivid (or blight) and colorful. The dance sequence at the ball with Melissa and Angus is one of the most beautiful (and beautifully shot) in my memory. The soundtrack is excellent: Green Day is at their top of the game; the Goo Goo Dolls still haven't made the grade; the songs form a nice snapshot of great alternative and punk music reminscent of its time. My personal favorite is Ash's "Jack Names the Planets". Even some of the camera shots (especially with the irises to open and close the film) are dazzling.
Although admittedly it's not destined to be a classic (or at least any time soon), "Angus" is a genuinely warm, funny, bitterly sarcastic, though strictly Hollywood, picture of that ever-so-turbulent, confusing, and questionable time of our lives known as high school. Watch it and you'll at least enjoy it. I did! I gave it a nine.
Social Misfits (2001)
At least it has Charlie Talbert.
"Social Misfits", as many of you are already aware, is a small-time independent flick. I found the film quite enjoyable and even poignant at times. Some of the writing, especially amongst the counselors and between the warden and the mother, was stale. The theme and premise of change of character through suffering slips away, as some of the violence that continues to occur throughout the movie suggests.
Still, the film has a slew of young actors with great potential. Tann is excellent as the leader of the group, as are Damon and De la Fuente as the Hispanic hoodlums. All the female roles were played wonderfully, and I'll give high esteem to the very young Huett, who played the girl who though she could fly.
What really saved the movie, for me anyway, is Charlie Talbert, in a very rare showing. Talbert is of "Angus" (1995) fame, and is rarely seen in movies. Even though his performance and his "moments" were short, he took great advantage of it. Throughout the movie, he is sweet, assertive, and charismatic. Through tone, physical features (he looks huggable), hand gestures, emotions, and body movements, he expresses his character (Kyle the klepto) perfectly! Talbert once again (alongside "Angus") demonstrates that he truly has a talent for acting. He would surely be appreciated if we see him in more key films.
All-in-all, "Social Misfits" is a great movie to rent. Take it home, and I bet you'll enjoy it, if only a bit.
Angus (1995)
Amazingly sweet and intriguing. Talbert has Talent!
What's there to really say? Absolutely enjoyable! Where should I start?
I think it's best to start with Angus Bethune, the fat kid who just doesn't seem to get a break, until an age-old enemy, Rick, rigs an election so that Angus can dance with his long-time crush, Melissa. Angus is played by Charlie Talbert, who was reportedly "discovered" at a Wendy's in Illinois. Talbert plays the role with warmth, heart, sarcasm, and conviction, and he does it so wonderfully (and this being his first film!), he can potentially be one of film acting's best-kept secret. He is sure to have a successful career in acting, pending that we do see him in another film. Angus' interaction with his granddad (played by George C. Scott in possibly one of his most memorable, though short, roles since "Patton") is very interesting to pay attention. The supporting characters, geeky Troy, beautiful Melissa, and Rick the pest (played by a more credible James Van der Beek), form part of the fabric of appealing characters that dot the film. The film would have been better though if we knew a little more about these people, so as to make it a character study.
I've read some comments from expert reviewers about this film. Most agree that Charlie Talbert has a great future in film ahead of him, but that the film itself is "formulaic" and "predictable". This is quite true, and that was one of the fears I had before watching this film. Yet after watchng this film I'm now absolutely convinced that even "formulaic" and "predictable" films can be great, provided that they're executed properly and with heart, as it was with this film. In the case with "Angus", it's a mix of originality (a tongue-in-cheek script and direction) and tried-and-true motifs. There's even a character twist (I won't say who) that threw me a bit off-guard near the end!
In this case, it's Patrick Read Johnson's direction that made this movie very memorable. The cinematography was vivid (or blight) and colorful. The dance sequence at the ball with Melissa and Angus is one of the most beautiful (and beautifully shot) in my memory. The soundtrack is excellent: Green Day is at their top of the game; the Goo Goo Dolls still haven't made the grade; the songs form a nice snapshot of great alternative and punk music reminscent of its time. My personal favorite is Ash's "Jack Names the Planets". Even some of the camera shots (especially with the irises to open and close the film) are dazzling.
Although admittedly it's not destined to be a classic (or at least any time soon), "Angus" is a genuinely warm, funny, bitterly sarcastic, though strictly Hollywood, picture of that ever-so-turbulent, confusing, and questionable time of our lives known as high school. Watch it and you'll at least enjoy it. I did! I gave it a nine.