Saturday January 29, 2005 
|
|
|
All
|
Holes in the Water
|
Non Sequitur
|
Sun
|
The Orthodox Church
|
What's in the CD player?
|
What's in the DVD player?
|
What's on the bookshelf?
Saturday January 29, 2005
There's an old joke about two old ladies in a nursing home. "The food here stinks," gripes the one. "Yeah," says her neighbor, "and the portions are so small!" My complaints about this movie are along the same lines. On the one hand, this flick is totally formulaic and predictable. Gruff, tormented ex-spook loner, hooked on Jack Daniels and water, signs on as a bargain basement bodyguard to a cute little kid who captures his heart before the bad guys capture her. He spends the rest of the movie trying to get her (and himself) back. But that's not what happens here. Twisting the formula, the girl is dead a third of the way into the two and a half hour movie, and thus Denzel Washington's motivation throughout the over-long remainder is revenge, not rescue. And, the girl being beyond redemption, so therefore is he. I would have expected to see Steven Seagal in this, or Jean-Claude Van Damme. Denzel, despite his over-the-top creepiness in Training Day, is too nuanced and thoughtful a guy to carry out this bloody vendetta. And the reverse twist, at the end of the movie, is just plain bizarre. Not to mention the fact that he takes bullets to the chest better than I take splinters. That JD and water must have medicinal properties even I never suspected. Redeeming things, somewhat, are some great supporting performances by Dakota Fanning (adorable as the kidnappee), Radha Mitchell and Marc Anthony as her parents (note to J. Lo: your new hubby might not make the best dad -- just saying...), and Christopher Walken as I've never seen him before: likeable. Good turns, too, from Rachel Ticotin and Giancarlo Giannini. Mickey Rourke plays himself. Oh, and the most bizzare thing of all: a caption, before the closing credits -- Tony Scott must have gotten himself a new caption machine or something, the way he over-uses it -- dedicating the film "to Mexico City, a very special place." After 146 minutes of kidnappings, corruption, and an exploding Rave club (cheered on by the Ravers, of course), this is not where I want to spend my next vacation. I'm going to Disney World! (2005-01-29 17:50:00.0) Permalink Comments [1]
Sunday January 23, 2005
The critics hated it, but it worked just fine for me. Ashton Kutcher is believable as a good kid with bad blackouts which blot out the memories of traumatic episodes in his life. Re-reading his journals, he is taken back to the moments of truth, and discovers he has the power to change things for the better. The rub is, every time he fixes one thing, another thing breaks. (And the things in question are the lives of his friends and family, and ultimately even his own.) It's like a Rubic's cube with all the sides solved but one; try to change the one, and everything else falls apart. The moral of the story is, of course, "don't play God". But they wrapped a nail-biter of a flick around this simple lesson. It reminds me most of Frequency, though it's darker and more multi-threaded. Amy Smart did a fine job as well: she is believable as a struggling waitress, a well-off sorority sister, and, later, a crack-addled prostitute, as one of Kutcher's saves goes terribly wrong. The ending is bittersweet -- just like life. Those critics judged too harshly. (2005-01-23 15:03:39.0) Permalink Comments [2]
Saturday January 22, 2005 King Arthur: The Director's Cut
Watched this this afternoon, as the snow started to fall. The director's cut added a forgettable scene or two, and a few extra technicolor decapitations, but otherwise, was every bit as dreary as the theatrical release. I even fell asleep -- I kid you not -- during the climactic battle scene. I stand by every word I wrote back in July, except by now I've heard of Clive Owen. Big Sarmatian Whoop. (2005-01-22 17:12:45.0) Permalink Comments [0]
Saturday January 15, 2005
I dunno, I was really underwhelmed by this pair. Kill Bill: Vol. 1 is pretty much archival footage from a shoot-'em-up (or rather, slice-'em-up) video game, where you kill a level 1 baddie and then comes level 2 with a worse baddie to deal with, and so on, and so on, and on and on and... Yawn. Kill Bill: Vol. 2 picks up where Vol. 1 leaves off, though as it moves toward the inevitable and predictable confrontation with Bill himself, there is at least some attempt to flesh out the characters. Before they are unfleshed by some blade or another, a shotgun, or perhaps a well-placed, well-manicured hand. Throughout the pair, you can't help hearing Quentin Tarantino in the background going "Isn't this cool? This is so cool. Watch this, it's so cool!" He makes movies like William Shatner acts. (Which is better than how William Shatner sings, at least.) He's making a movie, and he wants you to know it's a movie, and he wants you to know it's a very cool movie, because he's such a cool guy. Contrast this with the higher rated movies on this list: serious ones like House of Sand and Fog, silly ones like 50 First Dates: they create a world which, whether it makes you sad or happy, feels very real and very dear. Kill Bill creates a tacky shrine to other tacky movies.* If that's Tarantino's objective, he hits his mark. If it's not, I'll stick with Shatner -- he's much more fun to watch.
[GET IT (VOL. 1)]
---------- (2005-01-15 14:40:48.0) Permalink Comments [2]
Saturday January 08, 2005 Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy
This movie is so dumb it makes Dumb and Dumber look like The English Patient by comparison. Actually, I liked Dumb and Dumber. This movie is so dumb it makes Dumb and Dumberer look like The English Patient by comparison. It was really that dumb. If you don't believe me, (2005-01-08 18:38:55.0) Permalink Comments [0]
Classic Saturday afternoon adventure flick, in the grand tradition of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Delivers just what it promises: no more, no less. It was nice to see a chase scene across the historic rooftops of Philadelphia, vs. the usual flattops of New York. And best of all -- Harvey Keitel keeps his pants on! The only real implausability (if you're willing to buy into the basic premise) pertains to the shadow marking the spot. I know what bugged me about it: if you caught it too, let me know with a comment. (2005-01-08 12:28:42.0) Permalink Comments [2]
Monday January 03, 2005
Color me cranky. The critics loved it, but this is one flick that, IMHO, over-promised and under-delivered. I much prefered Jack Black in Orange County and Shallow Hal. (2005-01-03 04:34:26.0) Permalink Comments [2]
Saturday January 01, 2005
I admit it. I have a soft spot for sappy love stories with happy endings. I'm just a sappy, happy kinda guy, I guess. Still, this movie could have gone so wrong. From a plot that sounds a lot like Groundhog Day (which I found incredibly annoying), to Drew "Charlie's Angels" Barrymore, Adam "Anger Management" Sandler, and Rob (okay, I loved The Hot Chick -- so sue me!) Schneider, I was not expecting anything I'd remember the morning after. Much less, fondly. Instead, all of the actors -- and the film itself -- showed a lot of heart. The thing under-promises and, in my book, really over-delivers. Roger Ebert liked it for all the right reasons. Unlike him, I much prefer it to Groundhog Day. You want to see a great Bill Murray film, get Lost. (2005-01-01 19:09:10.0) Permalink Comments [1]
Good suspense flick, with great performances from Denzel Washington, Liev Schreiber, and Meryl Streep as the "Mother Knows Best" from hell. I think Michael Moore should buy the rights, change "Manchurian Global" to "Haliburton", and re-release as a documentary. Except their guy is already the VP. Hmmm... (2005-01-01 13:15:00.0) Permalink Comments [0]
I actually liked this (slightly) more than 2000's Meet the Parents -- it was a little less Farrelly-brothers-ish, and thus, less painful to watch. With the exception of Ben Stiller's truth serum-induced remarks at the Focker Family engagement party. Oy. Dustin Hoffman and Barbara Streisand were delightfully over the top as Ben (Gaylord Myron "Greg" Focker) Stiller's over-stimulated parents; Stiller, Robert De Niro, and Blythe Danner were about what you'd expect. Teri Polo looked unexpectedly worn and haggard. (I guess that's what she gets for hanging out with this lot.) There were a couple of lines that initially struck me as keepers -- but just over 24 hours later, I can't remember what they were. Contrast that with Napoleon Dynamite: I watched it better than a week ago, and it's still cracking me up. That's the difference between a great movie and a 9th place ribbon. (You have to have seen it...) With that in mind, I'm going to do something I don't usually do -- and revise N.D. up from three stars to four, for getting better with age. (2005-01-01 13:12:10.0) Permalink Comments [0]
Thursday December 23, 2004
Okay, I will tag Lizzie with this one. In fact, she wanted to see it so much, we ran out to the video store last night so as not to have to wait for Netflix to ship it out to us. And she wouldn't let me pull it from our queue afterwards -- so this is shaping up to be the winter that finally makes up for Napoleon's bad winter of 1806-1807. It's not a bad movie at all. In fact, if you're a big Freaks and Geeks fan like me (that was the show Lizzie and I used to watch together each week, following Felicity, and prior to Gilmore Girls and Joan of Arcadia), the theme is somewhat familiar. With one huge difference. In Freaks and Geeks, the geeks are more than sympathetic and fun to hang out with. (At least for me. :) In Napoleon Dynamite, by contrast, it hurts to watch them. Of course, this makes for some of the funniest moments in the movie: Napoleon trying out his Uncle Rico's time machine (he bought it on-line), for one, and his brother Kip's chat room romance, for another. But this is because they are that somewhat rare breed: geeks whose geekiness is not compensated for, either by intelligence or compassion. They are dumb, nasty geeks. Even so, they (and the movie) have their moments. The humor is really dry, but compared to the target audience, I'm really old, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and three geeky stars. If only this didn't remind me so much of my freshman year at MIT, I might have been a bit more generous. Some memories just die hard...
---------- (2004-12-23 08:34:07.0) Permalink Comments [1]
Lizzie's home for Christmas Break. Actually, that's not fair. I'm the one who found it on the FX channel yesterday, and yelled upstairs that she should come down and watch it with me. I will own up to liking it, which I do. Not only is the plot fun (it's kind of a poor man's Memento), it boasts an all-star cast, including Marla Sokoloff, Jennifer Garner, John ("Jaaaaaaaaaaaaay Leno!!") Melendez, Andy Dick, Fabio, Brent Spiner (f you don't know who Brent Spiner is, you don't deserve to have me tell you), and that guy who's dating Demi Moore. All in all, this is one shibby flick. Dude -- sweet!! (2004-12-23 08:06:43.0) Permalink Comments [0]
Tuesday December 21, 2004
Really bad movie. Lorelai Gilmore, what would your mother say??!! She would wash your mouth out with soap for sure. And forbid you to see Billy Bob ever again. At least that's what I would do. (2004-12-21 14:55:40.0) Permalink
Roger Ebert didn't much like this flick, but I didn't think it was all that bad. On the down side, the acting is pretty lame, and I'm a big fan of both Will Smith and Bridget Moynahan. He was great in Independence Day and Men In Black I and II; she was wonderful in The Recruit. But here, they are strictly one-dimensional; the movie fails to follow up on the intriguing angles of his divorce and her relationship with the man at the center of the movie, Dr. Alfred Lanning (James Cromwell), whose apparent suicide Smith believes to be the work of a murderous robot, voiced well and eerily by Alan Tudyk. (One can observe that the humans give rather robotic performances, whereas the robot is intriguingly human. I don't think this was entirely intentional. :) Plot-wise, Lanning was the inventor of the "Three Laws of Robotics": 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. and thus his murder at the hands of "Sonny" presents a bit of a problem, the solving of which occupies Smith throughout the movie. On the up side, the basic premise -- a hidden, fatal flaw in these deceptively simple and perfect laws -- is really intriguing, and full credit is due to Isaac Asimov, author of the 1950 volume of the same title, a collection of short stories around the theme of the (imagined) history of robotics, and, in particular, the impact of the three laws as they are played out in "real life". Asimov was a genius and a brilliant writer, the book is a classic, and for all its shortcomings, the movie it inspired can't help but be engaging and thought-provoking. With better acting (and I have to fault the screenplay and the direction here), the movie could have easily garnered a fourth star. As it is, three is sui generis. (Get it?!) (2004-12-21 14:37:59.0) Permalink
Saturday December 18, 2004
From the sublime to the ridiculous. I think Tom Hanks is the bees' knees. One of the best actors out there -- back-to-back Oscars in that category for Philadelphia in 1994 and Forrest Gump in 1995 -- and surely one of the finer human beings on the planet. (And a co-religionist, by the way, thanks to his Big Fat Greek Wedding to Rita Wilson, who co-produced that fun flick with him.) But everybody has a bad day or two, and Hanks is certainly entitled. The Ladykillers, the Coen brothers' 2004 re-make of the 1955 original, is irritating and verbose: I'm not sure whether irritatingly verbose or verbosely irritating better describes it, but the very irritating verbosity of this sentence will give you the verbosely irritating flavor of it. And at the end of the day (it feels somewhat longer than The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, the extended edition), it seems more like an excuse for the Coen brothers to crank out another great Southern-fried soundtrack along the lines of O Brother, Where Art Thou? than a serious film project in its own right. I think it would have been more aptly introduced as a sequel to that sonorous flick, and simply titled "O Brother". (2004-12-18 06:09:06.0) Permalink Check the archives for entries dating back to the dawn of recorded history (June 14, 2004). |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(VOL. 2)
