Amazon Unbox + Tivo: Compelling VOD
Jan 18, 2008 in Reviews
The AIG and I are big Battlestar Galactica fans. Don't laugh; I've been saying for years that it's incredibly well-written, and, given that she's a professional TV writer, I'd say there's some evidence I'm right. Anyway, I've been catching her up thanks to my DVD collection, but Season 3 isn't on DVD and Season 4 starts in just 3 months. Getting all the episodes in is hard work. That's where Amazon Unbox comes in.
Read on... (plus 3 Comments)
Back in Mac
Dec 1, 2007 in Mac, Reviews, Switch
Well, I went and did it. I got a 15" MacBook Pro to replace my Dell. The new Mac was supposed to come in more of the April/May timeframe, but then the Dell had a little explosion -- a flash of light, an overpowering smell of ozone, and then it wouldn't turn on for two days (remarkably, after a weekend turned off, the Dell worked fine). That put a crimp in my plans for productivity and whatnot, and I couldn't quite trust a sparky laptop, so MacBook Pro time it was. And it's wonderful. It's beautiful. It feels great, and I love it. Read on... (plus 3 Comments)
Oh My.
Apr 2, 2007 in Reviews
I think I've said before that, if you aren't watching Battlestar Galactica, you're wasting your television. I would like to revise that statement at this time; if you're not watching Battlestar Galactica, you're wasting the entire concept of visual entertainment. Buy it off iTunes. Find a torrent of it. Buy the British version on DVD, probably already out by now. Just see it. I mean, not only is it well-plotted, -written, -directed, and -shot, but now they've moved up to showing off -- despite having telegraphed everything that was going to be in the season finale, every moment of it left you saying "oh shit!" That, folks, is skill. Don't be a hata, watch BSG.... Read on... (plus 1 Comments)
Corny is the New Black
Apr 1, 2007 in Reviews
Have you watched some of the new shows on TV this season? They're very retro, which is an interesting response to the couple of years of confusing shows, after the pattern of Lost and Alias, that dominated schedules for a while.
Read on... (plus 3 Comments)
Canon PIXMA MP530, GBC ProClick
Mar 19, 2007 in Elsewhere, Reviews
http://wadearmstrong.com/archives/reviews/canon_pixma_mp530_gbc_proclick.php Read on...
300
Mar 17, 2007 in Reviews
A lot of words have been spent talking about the quality, or lack thereof, of 300, the new movie based on a Frank Miller graphic novel. I'm probably not going to add to the overall value or quality of all of that here. However, if King Leonidas and his Spartans didn't mind dying for nothing, then I can't see why I should mind blogging for nothing. Read on... (plus 2 Comments)
Letters From Iwo Jima
Feb 23, 2007 in Reviews
I don't see many movies these days. Sure, there are a bunch that look good -- heck, even Ghost Rider has my girlfriend Eva Mendes in it -- but I never seem to get around to seeing them. Not only are movies too expensive, but they're in the the theaters for such a short time, and so many of them are complete crap. Expensive, hard-to-find crap is no good. So, the highest praise for a movie might be that it makes me want to see another, specific movie. On that scale, Letters From Iwo Jima scores quite high -- if Flags of Our Fathers, which I had intentionally skipped seeing before, were still in theaters, I'd rush over to see it. Read on...
Pan's Labyrinth
Jan 7, 2007 in Reviews
Last night, I saw Pan's Labyrinth with a friend. If you've caught the trailer, you may have gotten the impression that this movie is some sort of a magical story of another world. That is slightly correct, but in a very European, Terry Gilliam kind of way. Much of the story takes place in the real world, is violent (exceedingly, at times), and dark; the fantastical world is revealed only in a few short scenes. They promise "a journey that will make you believe," but half the point is -- can you believe? Is it really true? Read on... (plus 1 Comments)
Paroxysms of Happiness (or, Alternatively, Another Reason For You To Hate Me)
Dec 5, 2006 in Reviews
I love Christmas shopping; I love this time of year. While others complain about the crowds, I float along in a haze of joy from the wondrous seasonal music. Oh, I do want to hear you and your drum, and come with all the other faithful, and hear about that holly jolly soul Frosty. But basic requirements of workplace productivity, showering, etc., all prevented me from spending Thanksgiving-Christmas in malls, listening to the piped-in music, and who can trust K-Earth to not play some Beach Boys in December? So, for years, I've been mostly holiday music-less, apart from singing "O Tannenbaum"1 to myself in July. Read on...
War Is Over (If You Want it to Be)
Oct 22, 2006 in Reviews
The US vs. John Lennon leaves a lot on the table. It could have been a thunderous call to call to action, a strong statement of a way in which we could follow in Lennon's footsteps in today's eerily similar times, but instead it was just a shrine to an artist. In that way, and in many others, it was truly a film for the political environment in which we live -- intriguing, horrifying, demanding action, and ultimately empty of vigor. Read on... (plus 1 Comments)
Jackass Number Two: Smells Like Roses
Oct 4, 2006 in Reviews
There's something special about watching a movie and knowing that, years later, you'll be able to say "hey! I saw that movie when the people in it were still alive!" Jackass Number Two is a hilarious oracle of coming disaster, a serious of potentially-disastrous pranks all gone right. Now, a more-civilized individual might balk at breaking into riotous laughter at this Road Runner cartoon gone live-action. Read on... (plus 4 Comments)
True Love
Sep 30, 2006 in Reviews
I'm into the whole minimalist wallet thing -- the slim look, the lack of pocket bulges (I get enough from my Treo), and the fact that I don't schlep half of my office with me every time I leave the house all keep me happy. My last wallet, reasonably well-liked if not particularly perfect (the money clip thing was a good experiment, but not a success for me) fell apart and was discarded without too much fanfare or too many tears. Its replacement, however... well, I'm in love. Read on... (plus 2 Comments)
I Am Napoleon Dynamite
Sep 11, 2004 in Reviews
I like big boots. I do whatever I feel like I wanna do, gosh! I sadly lack the appropriate comeback. I make up outrageous stories. Especially about my loser summer vacation. I'm pretty good with a bo staff. Wait, I'm not. I have mad drawing skills. I had a girlfriend but she didn't live in town ya know right? High school? Worst day of my life! Liger = cool (jackalope = cooler, basselope = coolest) The defect in this post is... bleach. Mmmm tots. I got left behind at the dance. I tried to jump my BMX bike. Crash! Aqua is always a good fashion choice! Bargain bin at Ross = fun! I am invulnerable to many common flirting techniques Girls are scary I am an expert at being the third wheel Grandma is waaaaay more fun than I am. Annoying mouth noises. Always hanging out with Mexicans. I just wish I could dance like that!... Read on... (plus 10 Comments)
Catwoman Vs. Spider-Man 2
Jul 29, 2004 in Reviews
Obviously, there's no movie Catwoman vs. Spiderman, much less a sequel. No, this is a review of this summer's two big superhero movies: Catwoman and Spider-Man 2. Everybody has seen Spider-Man, so I don't need to review the plot here; nobody saw Catwoman, so I'll summarize briefly. Halle Berry plays a shy graphic designer for a cosmetics company; she discovers this company's new product has horrible side effects, and is killed by Sharon Stone. Ms. Berry is brought back to life by an exotic Egyptian cat, and becomes the ultra-agile and sexy Catwoman. Fighting ensues. Etc. Etc. Catwoman is actually quite entertaining, despite the vicious reviews. The fact is, it's a relatively silly movie with lots of fussin' and fightin', like many of the successful summer flick of yore. It's also got Halle Berry in skintight leather (it's more than that -- there's so many cut-outs in Halle's leather pants that it's difficult to imagine that they can retain structural integrity). What's wrong with that? It's hard to believe American's won't pay $100 million to see Halle shake her ass. In contrast, Spider-Man 2 has Toby McGuire in skintight Lycra. Not quite as sexy, at least if you're of my persuasion. Fortunately, the last 15 minutes extensively feature Kirsten Dunst in a soaking-wet sundress. Spider-Man 2 is not an old-fashioned summer superhero flick. It's a real film, with internal struggle and personal growth and extended dialogue and all. For my taste, this actually kinda made it slow, not as much fun as it should have been. This is even though it had more big fights than Catwoman. Not as much fun as the first one, that's for sure. So that's my take: see Catwoman now, see Spider-Man 2 later if you feel like it. Other reviewers disagree. World 1, Wade 0. Oh well!... Read on... (plus 5 Comments)
Anchorman
Jul 21, 2004 in Reviews
Anchorman, Will Ferrell's paean to the forgotten elements of '70s sitcoms and action shows, is a deeply weird movie. If the picture weren't so hilarious at virtually all moments, the world would now be seriously doubting Ferrell's sanity. Or at least accusing him of being French. Anchorman is built around the story of a stereotypical '70s local news anchor. This is not a premise that, on its surface, offers a lot of room for plot, action, stuff like that. And, indeed, the movie is light on plot; but, as in Dodgeball, there's so much attention to detail that things never drag or seem aimless. This film is made by its details, both big and small. The big details come in the characters, who have consistent, predictable, and always hilarious manners of behavior; even the smallest tics are attended to, with an eye to the absurd. The homosexual sports anchor, the autistic weatherman; both are characters whose traits aren't just plot devices. The small details are what really make the movie a winner. Thanks to cable, we can all see classic '70s TV like CHiPs and Fantasy Island; these shows all used certain plot devices, certain activities, and certain stereotypical characters as stock elements. The token Latino, the West Side Story-style gangs, women's lib, Roman gladiators -- all of these things are standbys reused as subtle plot elements in Anchorman. The overall effect is deeply wierd, an effect only enhanced by jokes about dogs punted off of bridges and whale vaginas, and, of course, the endless series of cameos by trendy comedians (in a movie about sexism, there are no comediennes...). The jokes merit special mention. All jokes are absurd, and each is hilarious in and of itself, absent any context. It's a testament to the professionalism of the actor in this movie that any lines at all were delivered with a straight face. These are funny, funny one-liners, in a Pythonesque way. Anchorman just works. I'm sure, in fifteen years, we'll be wondering what drugs everybody was on to make this movie; but it sure works. After watching it, you may ask yourself "what just happened"? I know I was confused. But who cares? Anchorman was one heck of a funny film.... Read on...
King Arthur: Epically Bad
Jul 17, 2004 in Reviews
I have a hard time believing that any movie reviewer could have liked King Arthur. A truly awful movie, this picture can be added to the list of self-conscious pseudo-epics that will be remembered by history only for how much they cost and how little money they made. It's almost difficult to think of all the ways in which King Arthur was awful. However, since this is my blog, I'll do it. The first error was in the basic concept. Most people know the story of Arthur and his knights, so retellings of that story have a built-in audience. The success of The Lord Of The Rings also suggests that, culturally, there are enough people who like the idea of knights running around and accomplishing great quests to justify making a movie about it. So a fairy tale is a great idea. But King Arthur is no fairy tale. This movie is billed as "The untold true story that inspired the legend," and, when legend is inovlved, telling the truth is rarely a good idea. In this case, the truth takes us too far from the legend to allow any connection between the two. Arthur the Roman? Lancelot the nomadic Eastern European? Guinevere the blue-painted Celtic warrior woman? Merlin the almost entirely absent from the plot? That doesn't work. Apart from a sword called, for no particular reason, Excalibur, and a table that is, also for no particular reason, round, there's no connection between the story told here and any legend with which anybody but a Ph.D. in history is familar. So the value of the legend is lost, but the script does not recognize that it is so. Little introduction is provided for most characters, little do we learn about them; the script expects us to care about Gawain and Galahad even though their names are spoken only once and their identities are established not at all. Call the King Jim, call his retainers Alonso, Raul, Bitsy and O'Flaherty, it would have made no difference at all in how the movie worked. The next big error was in the script. All of the script. Lacking conversation, all interaction between characters was carried out through weighty declamations. Not only was each speech more absurd than the last, none gave us any insight into the characters' motivation, apart from the desire of our Knights of the Round Table to go home to Sarmatia, which is somewhere in Eastern Europe who cares. Thanks to this horrible, impersonal script, the movie appears to plod along at all but the very most exciting moments. There's no suspense at any time, and many side plots that should serve to add interest seem to proceed for no reason, filled with characters who behave with no noticeable motivation. While the movie is only slightly more than two hours, it seems like four. The cinematography is no better; clearly, the prerequisite for shooting this movie was to watch Braveheart about 470 times. But watching the same, derivative shots over and over again gets boring quickly, and the incessant slo-mo hero shots simply serve to make somewhat entertaining events seem absurd and overblown. So: overblown, senseless, plodding bad movie. No worse than The Patriot, right? Well, there were a couple of good fight scenes, it's true. But this movie... Read on... (plus 4 Comments)
Fahrenheit 9/11
Jun 28, 2004 in Reviews
Were I PJ O'Rourke, and were PJ O'Rourke still his funny, young, sex- and drug-addled self, I'd open this movie review by commenting on how physically unattractive the crowd at Fahrenheit 9/11 was. Yes, it's true, leftists are skinny, have un-preened hair, and don't wear their finest to Sunday evening shows. Michael Moore himself, it is true, is a fat, sweatshirt-sporting slob who probably sports a baseball cap because he doesn't have a stylish haircut. Truth be told, I was a bit surprised that, in LA of all cities, the Left did not contain more hotties. On the other hand, ugly or not, it's nice to be proven correct. My general objection to Michael Moore's films is that he has a particular fixed view of the truth and is unwilling to follow the thread of the story if it leads to another truth; Bowling for Columbine is a great example -- Moore followed the guns, not Marilyn Manson's erudite description of teen alienation, even if alienation was the cause and guns were only the tool. Even with an administration as corrupt as ours today and with as many warm, if not smoking, guns as one might find around the Bushes and the neocons, the story needs to follow naturally the evidence if even one swing voter is to have his or her mind changed. On the other hand, prejudged or not, it's nice to be proven correct. The pre-story of Fahrenheit 9/11, eerily like the pre-story of The Passion, was of how major studios wouldn't distribute the film. Mel Gibson couldn't get anybody to pick up his movie; Moore's movie was dropped from the Miramax lineup after Michael Eisner, chair of Miramax's owner, Disney, decided Fahrenheit 9/11 was too controversial. I would certainly agree that the picture was inflammatory; in some places, Moore could have been more delicate with his presentation of information and still achieved much the same effect. Fahrenheit 9/11 is not just a presentation of the information Moore unearthed in his investigation; it's an aggressive presentation. On the other hand, inflammatory or not, it's nice to be proven correct. Fahrenheit 9/11 was an excellent film. It drew me in, appalled me, took me down a coherent path of conspiracy and then spat me out the other end, mad as hell. I'd never fully appreciated how tangled the web of the Bush family, the Bush friends, and the Saudi family were. I never thought critically of the ultimate (rather than short-term) effects that the Bush administration's efforts to create a climate of fear would have. I never thought of how lonely it must be to be the parent of a serviceman or -woman who was one of the few killed in a popular war. In an interview on the Daily Show, Michael Moore lamented that the left in America was not aggressive enough. Having seen his movie, I agree that more aggression can get the point across more clearly. Fahrenheit 9/11 is an aggressive movie, appropriately so as it is aimed at an aggressive foe. And it's appropriate at that, being less disrespectful and more factual than the aggressive vitriol spewed by the Limbaughs and Coulters out there. The best thing I can say about Fahrenheit 9/11 is this: not only will every liberal who sees it feel... Read on...
Good Bye, Lenin
Apr 19, 2004 in Reviews
Good Bye, Lenin goes far with a simple, but absurd, plot. Alex Kerner, his sister and mother live an idyllic existence in East Germany, until his father defects to the West. Then, hoping to keep her world together, his mother, Christiane, loses herself in ideology and becomes a big Communist Party booster. Leading the Young Pioneers and sending missives to the Party about the unsuitability of sexy underwear to the vast proletarian masses. Christiane continues in this direction with some success until, one day, she suffers a heart attack. She is in a coma for eight months. And this is the problem, for, during those eight months, Communism falls. When Christiane wakes up, her doctor tells Alex that she is fragile and may suffer another heart attack and die if exposed to any stressors. Alex looks at the newspaper and asks the doctor, is the opening of the border with the West not a stressor? Will his mother die if she learns of the fall of Communism? So Alex and his sister take his mother home. They make sure that her room is filled with the relics of East Bloc living and that nothing's changed, even concealing from her his sister's new job at Burger King. But life is filled with a million little challenges. Old, reliable products disappear from supermarket shelves and are replaced by imports from Holland. Coca-cola is everywhere. The news is filled with reports of pending reunification. Alex's efforts to conceal the truth from his mother go from the earnest to the absurd as he tries to create a complete alternative reality. In the process, the filmmaker attempts -- and even, occasionally, succeeds -- in telling us that our realities are essentially what we construct. The film itself reminded me very much of Wes Anderson's work, not fearing the bittersweet and finding humor in absurdity in itself rather than chasing the punch lines and slapstick that is visible in so much comedy today. There are a few laugh-out-loud moments, and more moments in which you hide your eyes in fear of darkly comic disaster -- a very German take on the genre. Good Bye, Lenin is a fun film to see, but probably best rented rather than seen in the theater; there are no shots that need to be seen on the large screen so you might as well save a few bucks. Put it on your Netflix list, though, and don't miss it.... Read on...
Freaky Friday
Aug 24, 2003 in Reviews
In the annals of human events -- specifically, those annals having to do with making your Wonderful Girlfriend happy -- it often becomes necessary to watch movies one would not otherwise watch. Thus, I quite fortunately came to see Freaky Friday. Freaky Friday has a simple plot -- a mother and teenage daughter switch bodies for a day and learn to appreciate each others' trials and challenges in life. By understanding each other better, they become closer and yadda yadda yadda cue sappy strings. The resulting picture is neither as contrived nor as boring as it might seem. It's, frankly, a bit freaky that I enjoyed this film more than my Wonderful Girlfriend, who's probably much more exemplary of the movie's target demographic than am I. She thought it was nice but a bit cookie-cutter; I disagreed with the latter assessment. This is not to deny that Freaky Friday is filled with cliches; it sure is. Oh, and there are plenty of moments when you just know what is going to happen next. But this movie proves that the difference between "seen it a million times" and "oh that was pretty amusing" is execution and attention to detail; Freaky Friday scores high on both. The foundation comes from a sound script. Not overly original, it does have a few key traits that most scripts are missing: Realistic dialogue both for the mother and for the daughter, leaving us with conversation that doesn't sound contrived and doesn't overreach either for maturity or for youthful hipness Simple, familiar characters with easy-to-understand motivations who behave in ways that make sense A stunning lack of plot holes, deus ex machina, etc.; the movie's plot just moves itself along naturally Follow this up with solid acting of the type needed in a silly teenage movie such as this; even the bit players leave the right taste in your mouth. In a movie populated by stereotypes and, even worse, teenage actors and even younger kids, audience members have got to steel themselves for scenes that are real stinkers thanks to the complete inability of the actors involved therein to pull of their lines or character. Not so in Freaky Friday! Jaime Lee Curtis and Lindsey Lohan are perfect as the switched mother and daughter, both playing mature and young-and-hip with equal ease and conviction. Mark Harmon is just cute and rich enough to be believable as Curtis's future husband. The tyke who plays the youngest child in the household is funny and unselfconscious, and grandpa is convincingly addled. The hot boy is dumb but sincere (and maybe not as dumb as he seems), and the teachers are convincingly dull and useless. Heck, in this one they even got the music right -- Freaky Friday is filled with the kind of bubblegum-pop-posing-as-punk that the kids seem to love today. And there's even a bunch of punk rock girls who I'm not allowed to think are cute for another year or so. The soundtrack is just one of the details Freaky Friday got right. With no scenes that drag on and none that are cut short, with well-dressed sets, the director and crew of this production kept their eyes on the ball. And the actors were in character for even the littlest scenes, with the right posture and... Read on... (plus 4 Comments)
Seabiscuit
Aug 15, 2003 in Reviews
Reading Seabiscuit the book was a magical experience, and I knew from the beginning that it would be quite a feat for the movie to come close. The book appears, on first read, to be a perfect candidate to be turned into a movie. It's exciting, it's filled with great and vivid characters, and it's wonderfully paced. The script used in the movie, however, illustrates how difficult it is to turn a story with such sweep into a movie. Introducing all of the characters and covering all of the events is an incredible challenge, and the movie justifiably drops a lot of detail about people and even entire events. Many critics complain that it takes over 30 minutes for Seabiscuit the horse to make his first appearance in the movie. Now, the book's author, Laura Hillenbrand, takes her own good time in bringing in the horse in the book, to very little detriment to the final product. But the technique fares less well in the theater, and the beginning of the movie drags a bit because you've no idea where the plot is going. Our main characters are introduced straight away, and Jeff Bridges, Chris Cooper and Tobey Maguire are brought to us in touching manners. But the emphasis on these characters continues throughout the movie, to the substantial exclusion of Seabiscuit himself. The horse is lost as a character -- he's the center of the movie but has little enough personality. Certainly, physically Seabiscuit (or the dozens of horses who play him) is exactly right -- too small, knobby-kneed and with an awful gait. I can only imagine the owners of the horses who were hired to play our hero, suddenly offered money so that their ungainly cart horses could appear on screen. It must've been quite a shock! Seabiscuit's opponent War Admiral is also well-cast -- the horses playing him are enormous, muscled, sleek and dark. But so little time is spent on this horse that we're left at a loss as to why he might be popular in his own right. No Maverick vs. Iceman is this -- viewers of Seabiscuit will have no argument over who to favor, nobody will come away favoring the coldly efficient War Admiral over the jaunty and personably misfit Seabiscuit. Something's been lost there, I fear, when it's all black-and-white. Also disappointing was Elizabeth Banks as Marcela Howard, Jeff Bridges' wife. Marcela was supposed to be of Mexican descent, but the actress's accent was simply that of a ditzy modern woman. Marcela was played with plenty of the strength necessary, and even the proper bearing, but out came a sheen of low class every time she opened her mouth. Where did this woman come from in the midst of a classy cast playing their characters to a t? Well, not 100% to a t. see, Chris Cooper, playing trainer Tom Smith, has lines. Smith was a famously silent person, monosyllabic to a fault. It's obviously difficult to move a movie forward with a character who has very few lines, but Cooper should at least have spoken at length only when necessary. Many of Cooper's lines could have been offloaded to the narrators. That's narrators, plural, which is kind of bizarre and which works poorly. PBS's David McCullough narrates a great deal... Read on...
Gangs Of New York
Aug 11, 2003 in Reviews
When I saw the first previews for Gangs Of New York, I thought "now there's a disaster writ large." Further previews just reinforced this impression, and the uneven reviews seemed like a sign that, well, Scorcese succeeded in fooling half the people all time. I was just as happy to stay in the other half. So I came into seeing this DVD with a prejudice. But, I felt like a Big Movie, and it did have all of the Oscar nods and whatnot going for it. Maybe something I should see, eh? In Big Period Piece such as this, there are a few concerns one has right off the bat -- regardless of the specific picture, really. These are: Is it just Too Darned Long? Is it too much of a melodrama? Is it too little of a melodrama? Is there any pretense at historical accuracy, or must one suspend disbelief? Can anybody in the darned thing act? Did they have any idea how to finish the pic? As generic questions, these must be considered first. After surviving this gantlet, the movie can be judged on its specific traits -- but if it fails the majority of the above tests, it can be consigned to the scrap-heap without any actual thought. So, in order: Gangs Of New York was not too long Gangs Of New York did not really go overboard on the melodrama But, at the same time, Scorcese (and Daniel Day-Lewis!) totally appreciated the melodramatic aspects of the movie and used them to their advantage Seems pretty accurate, and shows an overlooked perspective of a well-known time At a minimum, Day-Lewis and a bunch of the supporting cast can act; Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz we'll consider seperately No, Scorcese had no idea how to finish this (we call this "French Director's Disease") So Gangs Of New York makes it by, too many strikes against it for greatness but plenty of check-marks to get a star and maybe even a smiley face sticker. This movie cannot be considered without concentrating on the man whose character lies at its center and whose acting dominates every scene. Daniel Day-Lewis plays the evil Bill The Butcher to absolute perfection. Every line is delivered just right, every motion carries the nuance of the character. There is not a moment when you doubt how this man becomes the leader he is; there are many moments when everyone seems to be a supporting character orbiting about him. Also nominated for an Academy Award ™ was Cameron Diaz, who performs creditably but in no particular way any better than much of the rest of the supporting cast. Like many, she's afflicted with an occasional Irish accent. Her part is smaller than it seems, which does her no favors either; she's given no chance to take over the screen. Leo is given such a chance, but this is no Titanic. He entirely lacks the hard edge his character ought to have; perhaps a Joaquin Phoenix or, dare I say, Colin Farrell would have been a better choice. DiCaprio seems nothing but young throughout, and while his tough has much the aspect of a up-and-coming thug, it's an aspect lent by his general air of Tom Saywerishness, not his inner strength. The script, however, is good enough... Read on...
Bad Boys II
Jul 27, 2003 in Reviews
Bad Boys II takes place in an alternate reality in which everything is highly explosive and cops get paid enough to dress in haute coture and authentic sports jerseys. The plot is pretty simple, as is required by a movie that is principally about explosions and gunfire and driving fast. Our heroes, Will Smith and Martin Lawrence, play police officers in Miami. Smith plays a richer version of Mel Gibson in the Lethal Weapon movies, while Lawrence plays a whiny version of Danny Glover. Are new heroes are partners, of course, who spend their time tracking down drugs and keeping them out of our nightclubs (schools play no role in this movie, bub). Smith and Lawrence (I could give you their characters' names, but, hey, the actors just play themselves, so let's call it like it is) have tracked down an Ecstasy-importing gang and are going after a big shipment to shut the whole thing down. The Ecstasy is imported by a Cuban, played by a Catalonian; smuggled by peckerwoods (played by actual peckerwoods) and sold in nighclubs owned by a Russian (played by a Swede). Now, I realize that the Office Of National Drug Control And Making Tobacco And Alcohol Companies Rich By Keeping Out Alternative Intoxicants Policy thinks that Ecstasy Is Bad, but it's a pretty weak evil drug. Compared to ceroin or cocaine or PCP, it's pretty benign, and a bunch of well-dressed club-goers (even an overdosing one) using E and having positive social interactions are not exactly as sympathetic as schoolkids getting hooked on pot or blue-collar workers falling victim to crack or even rock stars becoming junkies and living a slothful and filthy existence. Ecstasy forms a pretty weak foundation for the big evil in this movie. But, functionally, it's nothing but a McGuffin enabling a movie full of shooting and detonations of various items, as which it serves adequately. So the action all starts in the first five minutes when our heroes infiltrate said peckerwoods moving said Ecstasy in a Klan meeting. There's a gunfight, and Smith shoots Lawrence in his big bootay. This is the source of much strife between the partners, allowing Bay to insert some conversation between explosions and gunfights, thus keeping the total cost of the movie down while keeping its running time up. And it is a long, long film -- 150 minutes -- but it doesn't seem that long, because the budget is plenty large enough to provide action for what must be about 125 of those minutes. The biggest action sequence takes place when Gabrielle Union, playing Lawrence's sister and an undercover DEA agent, is laundering the Ecstasy dealers' money. The Red Lectroids (in a cameo role), for some reason, try to hijack her and her money, resulting in what is certainly one of the best car chases I've ever seen. The Lectrods also hijack themselves a car transporter and drive down the freeway, dumping cars off at 70 miles per hour, trying to shake their police pursuers. There follow many good smash-ups, some explosions, and even a boat tumbling across the highway. Further good action scenes include: A car chase involving a hearse that sheds bodies as it flees A gunfight in a ghetto house involving lots of trick shots through walls and aimed by mirrors... Read on...
The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Jul 22, 2003 in Reviews
First of all, The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen is, as my girlfriend pointed out, a guy movie. Second of all, it's a fun movie. Third of all, the early buzz that it was going to completely die in the summer movie buzzsaw seems to have been somewhat overly cautious; it's no blockbuster, but it's making money. And why not? It's got fun characters and good actors. Sure, there's flaws (more on those later), but everything's got flaws. LXG (as they like to call it) is, nonetheless, a movie that can be appreciated for what it is, a good time for guys. There's a certain conflict in LXG, and it's not between the good guys and the bad guys -- it's a fundamental question, is this a movie about gadgets or a movie about superheroes? The director, or whoever, holds off on deciding until the very end, when the climax is all various people and their particular role in the big fight. It's a good denouement, and it follows from what's gone before, but if you just saw the first and last ten minutes of the film you'd say "Where did these people come from? What happened to all the wonderful gadgets?" Wonderful gadgets aboud throughout the film. Machineguns, tanks, even missiles take center stage during different scenes. They're all brilliantly visually executed, in keeping with the movie's setting of 1999. One favorite is Captain Nemo's Nautilus, all decked out in art deco metal-plated bunting and with the shape of a flintlock musket. But, it seems, we can't decide how big the darned thing is -- in one scene it's dozens of feet across, in the next it fits in the Venice canals. Perhaps Captain Nemo is actually a Timelord, Nautilus a Tardis, and the inside of his submarine is infinite. It would not be inappropriate for the movie. The characters are finely done as well. Sean Connery of course dominates the screen as white hunter Alan Quartermain. The parts of The Invisible Man and Dr. Jekyll (and Mr. Hyde) are sympathetically played and well enough developed to build a real connection with the audience. The real standout is Peta Wilson's Mena Harker, made a vampire by Dracula. She plays her role with the appropriate violence and eroticism while preserving the demure aspect of a 19th century woman. But there are weaknesses in the gadgets and the people. It's the person with the most gadgets -- Nemo -- who's the worst developed, and the person with the most personality -- Quartermain -- whose gadgets (wonderful hunting weapons, after all!) are the most overlooked. Other gadgets and powers are simply overlooked -- for instance, there appear to be robots running around with flamethrowers, but I'm not quite sure of that. And Mena's primordial lust for blood is only noted in the most minimal way. It is probably the plot that is the greatest weakness of this movie. I've not read the graphic novel, so it may be that the script was simply an adaptation of that; in that case, much was lost. It proceeds along herky-jerky, with no overall arc but a few major forced developments. Venice? Mongolia? Much of the action could have taken place, frankly, anywhere, and the script probably would have profited from not taking place in such unique... Read on... (plus 2 Comments)
28 Days Later
Jun 29, 2003 in Reviews
Were I a real movie reviewer, I'd start this out with a thorough retrospective of the zombie movie genre and also weave in an overview of the difficulties of importing artistic British movies. And yada yada yada. Well, movie reviewers are like that, especially in LA, where everybody knows the biz. But I'm no Manohla Dargis. I'm just an ordinary guy who likes really brilliant filmmaking like that in 28 Days Later. Okay, first the obligatory brief summary of the movie. Bike courier is hit by car. Bike courier is in coma. Bike courier wakes from coma. Bike courier finds nobody is around, anywhere, in the center of London. Bike courier travels London, finds many dead, others zombified, is almost eaten alive. Bike courier finds other survivors, falls in with them, travels north to Manchester to try and find civilization. It's not a bad plot, and, in its ultimate construction, works very well. Action moves on at an appropriate pace, with breaks being taken at the right moments and suspense and motion coming naturally. Nothing is rushed, and there are no deus ex machinas. The quality of the basic concept, and the strong script, pay off through the film. The acting is also fine. Even the incidental characters are convincing — although it must be said that this may be a function of the British style of acting. Who, after all, hasn't at sometime said, "Ahh, now that's some fine classically-trained acting?" Yeah, so the perceived quality of the acting in this movie might just be a side effect of some built-in American sense of submission to the mother country. The cinematography was good too, few really striking shots but every shot just so. The film had a strange look to it — at first I thought it was 8mm — which, reading up on the topic, I learn is a from using all digital. The result is close to Dr. Who vs. the Daleks and adds to the feel of urgency and disaster that permeates the film. Now, I know you're saying, "but Wade, you've gone 350 words and you haven't even mentioned the zombies! Everybody just prattles on and on about the zombies!" Well, I didn't talk about 'em 'cause everyone else already did. What can I say, they're great zombies! Not clumsy, oafish, moaning zombies, plaintively (and mellowly) calling out for brains, the infected in 28 Days Later are fervent, raspy, blood-covered and vicious. They seem to have some innate, reptile intelligence straight from the id. They scream eerily and breathe heavily and decidedly deserve death. And I feared their appearance at every moment. No review of a horror movie can go without mentioning the blood and gore in it. And this was a bloody and gory movie, no missing it — but not so much as many of today's pictures. At many points, the extent of the actual violence was left to the viewer's imagination; at other times, the violence was heavily backlit or carried out at night, so that only the outline of bodies or certain highlighted areas were visible. Other fights used fast cuts to show the highlights. Only at the very end, when violence was necessary — both morally and to the plot — did we really see any extended explicit gore. The... Read on...
Bruce Almighty
Jun 18, 2003 in Reviews
I wasn't sure for, like, three days what I thought of this movie. Don't get me wrong, I had a good time watching it. It made me laugh and stuff. Several times. Kinda hard even. Classic scenes and whatnot. But I still couldn't figure out what it was that this movie made me think. Part of the problem was that, for most of the movie, director Tom Shadyac (hey I learned that's pronounced Shady-yak; living in a company town finally pays off, eh?) didn't plan I would think anything. Mostly it was a fun, mindless comedy. A story about an everyman that pretty much everyone in the audience could sympathize with. And, to me, that's what about 90% of films should be. There were a few points where it turned preachy. At the end, when Bruce was talking with God about being Almighty, they went a little over on the schmaltz. But then it is a stupid comedy, so it's important to not be too particular about these things. Somebody who went into a theater expecting classic work from Jim Carrey and Tom Shadyac would be, well, a critic. And this movie got panned for its shallowness and contrived plot. But who needs a flawless and deep stupid comedy? Where's the fun in that? The rest of the movie was all fun. A few sight gags, great one-liners, and some facial gymnastics by Jim Carrey. Just what you expect from a Carrey flick. But, still, it left something in the back of my head. And I didn't realize it until I was half-awake two mornings later. I was thinking about the movie, about writing this review, and realized I was seeing every scene in my head - but with Adam Sandler, not Jim Carrey. And there was no difference. None at all. So how is it that the 40-some-year-old Carrey is interchangeable with the 30ish Sandler? How is it that this movie could've been made with either of them? It's perhaps the curse of the well-executed generic comedy that it can be lead by any one of several stars. Classically, it's the character of the star that is projected throughout the movie and that makes the picture unique. And, well, Carrey added none of that here. It was all heartwarming feel, no rubber face and stretchy arms. And, when you get beyond that, Carrey is just every everyman. The only question: can Sandler bring in a $100 million opening? Well, maybe that is Carrey's unique print on Bruce Almighty.... Read on...
2 Fast, 2 Furious
Jun 9, 2003 in Reviews
Ain't that the worst headline ever? Well, it's late and I'm not feeling that original. I have to admit I came to this film (2 Fast, 2 Furious) expecting the bare minimum of watchabilty. I'd thought the first one was ok but a bit slow, and I was afraid of more of the same. Plus, 2 was lacking Vin Diesel, who'd completely run away with the first movie. Things didn't start out auspiciously. Now, I live in LA, where every movie opens first, and everyone flocks to the new openings (conversely, not even the best films last more than a few weeks here). It's like the movie market in general, but more so. And showing up for a hot movie on its opening weekend, you need to show early to get in line outside the theater. But when we got there 45 minutes before showtime the line looked like this: Now that's a bad sign. Can't even open a teen-oriented movie with full lines for one weekend? Left alone in line while my moviegoing companion got a Wetzel's Pretzel, I started to write this post. Yep, without seeing the movie. See, I used to be a movie reviewer, and this is how all the pros do it. Works for covering hard news too! I was making up all sorts of jokes to make on the name of the star, the heretofore idenitity-less Paul Walker. Paul Thomas? Paul Michael Gossealer? Yeah, stupid shit like that. But I figured a few crappy puns would be needed to flesh out a bleak review of a disastrous movie. Five minutes before they let us in, a bunch of extreeeemely well-dressed asian kids started to show up, and, once we got in the theater, a whole stream of russians also dribbled in. Can a stream dribble? Oh well. The point is, they were all about 19, they all cheered loudest for the Freddy vs. Jason trailer, and I could see all of them driving waaaay too fast in some rice rocket. So that's the demo this thing is drawing, and boy did I feel out of place. Now, I'd mentioned that I thought the first film had too much talking, too little racing? Well, good signs first off when pretty much all the opening scene was hot girls' asses and some trash talking. And then there was a race straight off that showed you where 2 was coming from — a little less street cred, a little more budget and flash, a lot more fun and a lot more focus on driving fast. And they followed this part of the show with a bunch of scenes that either involved driving recklessly, hot girls, the ridiculously hot Eva Mendes, trash talking, pranks, or a bit of gunplay. No talking. None at all. Plot? Sure, enough to make each scene fit in its own place. Not too much to get in the way. Miss Vin Diesel? Not even slightly. With the opportunity to shine, Paul Walker proved that he's a latter-day Keanu with smoother delivery and more boyish charm, and Tyrese was the perfect sidekick. The minimalist script was kicky and snappy and filled with laughs. The pacing was just right, never a slow moment but never losing you with too much at once either. Oh, and... Read on...