Change Your Image
ericendres
Reviews
A.N.T. Farm (2011)
Intelligent and absurd comedy for families
I am 44 years old, so A.N.T. Farm is a show I never intended to watch at all, and certainly didn't think would become one of my favorite shows. I have two girls, and I happened to sit down with them one day while A.N.T. Farm was on, and though it took a few minutes, I was hooked. I was frequently laughing, and also impressed with the intelligence of the humor. (And that intelligence includes the "dumbness" of characters like Paisley and Gibson and Cameron. Writing good "dumb" characters is not easy.)
A.N.T. Farm is unique among family shows for its absurdist style and wit. Think Monty Python or Demetri Martin or the satirical edge of The Simpsons, but suitable for all ages. Like any series, some shows are better than others, but most episodes have a good number of laughs, and a few that are particularly clever. The main actors portraying Chyna, Olive, Fletcher, Angus and Lexi are all very engaging, and the supporting cast is colorful and interesting.
I'm a little less crazy about the setting change for season 3. The absurdity of the show seemed to contrast better against the more typical setting of an average high school, as opposed to the absurd setting of a super school run by a zany Steve Jobs type. Here's hoping, if there is a season 4, that they can return to the original school. But the show is still highly entertaining and intelligent, regardless.
I'm surprised to see A.N.T. Farm so poorly rated here, but I think it perhaps requires more thought and attention to appreciate than typical sitcoms. I consider myself pretty well versed in comedy, and I write comedy for children as part of my career, and there are some jokes on the show that I don't get right away. That makes A.N.T. Farm a great show for repeat viewings, as you can appreciate the humor more than once and even pick up new things the second time through.
If I have any quibble about the show, it's that some of my favorite characters (e.g., Gibson, Paisley, Skidmore, Cameron) have been written out or lost from the cast, except for rare cameos, and essentially replaced with less interesting and funny characters (e.g., Zoltan, Winter, Hippo). There are also rare times when the show can forget what its real strength is (absurd comedy), and meander into something more typical of sitcoms for children, where a lesson is learned or character relationships are strengthened, or a performance is featured (i.e., Chyna singing a song). Thankfully, these times aren't that frequent, and often include some humor as well, but I do think I'd prefer if the show just owned its silliness all of the time.
Still, though it may not get the appreciation it deserves, A.N.T. Farm is one of the most entertaining and intelligent comedy series on TV in recent years (and yes, I'm including adult shows in that comparison).
The Cat in the Hat (1971)
A terrific and inspired adaptation with terrific songs.
Having read the Cat in the Hat book many nights to my little girls, I was interested to see this version and also the new Mike Myers film. I returned the DVD of the Mike Myers film the next day after watching it, and this animated version I sought out to buy a copy of after borrowing it from the library. That should say it all.
This is only a half hour program, but it is packed with wit, character and a lot of very memorable songs with tremendous melody and sophistication. They've fleshed out the original story with a lot of new jokes and an added twist of the cat looking for his "moss-covered, three-handled family grudunza". All of the choices were inspired, as it captures the spirit of the book and also adds much spirit to it.
This "Cat" has a great cast of voice actors, great music, and great fun! 10 out of 10.
Oliver Twist (1999)
An incredible version of a Dickens classic.
Some have taken Alan Beasdale to task for rewriting some aspects of the original Dickens story, but I think it was all for the best. It may not match the original story, but taken completely on its own it is nonetheless very compelling and captures the essence of the original well enough while adding some nice new elements.
This is a top notch production in every respect... writing, direction, acting, music, sets, costumes, etc. Robert Lindsay as Fagin is astounding among an absolutely terrific cast, with Sam Smith playing just the right light note as Oliver and Marc Warren a dutifully creepy Monks.
I've seen the whole thing twice now and enjoyed it even more the second time, with the six hours of it seeming to fly by. 10 out of 10
The Office (2005)
Too painful to watch after a while
I hadn't seen the original British version of "The Office" but had heard many accolades about it, so I was excited to see the new NBC version. I thought it was hilarious for the first few episodes, but then it grew tedious fast and the last few were really just painful to watch and not very funny at all. And I checked out the DVD of the British version from the library recently and that was painful right from the start. Funny moments now and then, but mostly just painful.
I think the problem is the boss. He's just too annoying and though he's interesting and funny at first in a "car wreck" kind of way, after a while it's not even interesting. It's just more of the same. How often do you want to see a car wreck? When they focus less on him the show works better, but he's just too much of a jerk after a short while. Yes, we get it... he's a jerk... okay, already... but make it funny! Would Homer Simpson still be watchable after all these years if he wasn't incredibly funny along with his obvious negative qualities? Watching the two versions I do think NBC's boss is more likable as a jerk than the original British one, so I think the show still has a chance, but not if they keep too much focus on him being a jerk, at least without it being really funny.
King Arthur (2004)
Not "Excalibur", but an excellent film about the reality, not mythology.
John Boorman's wonderful "Excalibur" has always been one of my very favorite films of any genre, so any other film I've seen about the same subject is always compared with that, and usually they quickly pale in comparison. Of course, the difference with this film is that unlike "Excalibur" and most other Arthur films, which play up the legend and mythology, this new film purports to portray the real events as they supposedly historically occurred, according to recent archaeological discoveries. I'm sure that some things were embellished, regardless, but I think that is one of the things I enjoyed about this; to get a sense for some of the realism behind the legend and for some of the politics and history of the time. And the execution is very well done... not over-the-top at all, but smart and creative, with very credible performances. That I didn't know any of the actors by name or face probably helped, as the prospect of Richard Gere or Ben Affleck or Colin Ferrell whoever in the roles would have been very distracting to take this seriously. The brotherhood and camaraderie of the knights is well written and portrayed, as are the Romans, Saxons and others.
Though it would be hard for any film of this type to compare in cinematography to "Excalibur", which I think is just absolutely outstanding in that respect, "King Arthur" has some nice shots as well and does a very good job of capturing its setting.
The action scenes are particularly well done, especially compared to so many other "battle epic" films, where it's a whole lot of chaos and the main characters always survive through fight after fight. There is a sense of being able to follow what's going on, while also being in the midst of it all. Some of the tactical strategies employed are reminiscent of the type of clever tactical maneuvers in another great film, "Master and Commander".
I'm disappointed to see this film only rated at 5.9 here, with so many other films less deserving getting much higher marks than that. I give it a solid 9 out of 10. Expectations play such a big part in how I perceive movies, and I suppose I didn't expect this to be so well done, or maybe I expected it to be more "Hollywood" or something. But thankfully there was a lot of craft in the writing, the film-making and acting, and I think this makes an excellent "companion piece" to "Excalibur", in terms of comparing mythology against reality.
Abandon (2002)
Pretty good, certainly better than it's grade here.
Not sure why so many low grades for this film. Granted, it felt a little like it could have been something more than it was, and the ending was kind of expected and derivative of similar things, but on the whole there were some interesting aspects to this, and some decent dialogue and acting. Seems like a drought of decent films coming out on video lately, so I was kind of "picking through scraps" and saw this and figured I'd give it a shot. I read some of the comments here and some mediocre reviews and was hesitant to even risk wasting any time on it, but it turned out to be more involving and better crafted than a lot of other things I've seen lately (or seen a part of before turning off). I suppose expectation has something to do with it... If I read a lot of great reviews and comments about this movie, I'd have been disappointed, but I was pleasantly surprised to generally enjoy this.
Miracle (2004)
95% based on a true story, and that's a miracle! (9/10)
I had the chance to meet goalie Jim Craig recently when he spoke for a company retreat I attended. I asked him how much of "Miracle" was accurate and how much was Hollywood. He said it was 95% accurate, right down to the dialogue, and having seen the film now, I don't doubt him. And there's little reason why it shouldn't have been that way, as the real story is certainly compelling enough to tell without embellishment.
In most sports movies, even ones that are "based on true stories", there are cliches added in, like the last second touchdown pass and the come-from-behind victory against the towering undefeated opponent. Well, in "Miracle", there are indeed last second goals and come-from-behind victories and strings of incredible saves by the goalie, but all you have to do is watch the "making of" feature on the DVD where the action from the movie is shown next to the actual footage and you realize that it is exactly as it really happened. Mark Johnson really did score with 1 second left to tie the game at the end of the period, etc.
I was about 10 years old when I eagerly watched the games on TV, but I couldn't remember some of the details and it was powerful to realize the real impact of what was accomplished, and how it was accomplished, which I couldn't really appreciate at that age.
The filmmakers did a terrific job with this film. The story of coach Herb Brooks (very strongly played by Kurt Russell) and the teamwork that he developed among the players makes for a compelling story, and the hockey action is superbly filmed. The decision to cast hockey players and teach them to act, as opposed to casting actors and trying to teach them to skate and play hockey seems like an obvious one in retrospect, but must have been made with some hesitancy and should be applauded. The hockey looks and feels very real, and that is not easy to capture. And the acting is certainly good enough, and why wouldn't it be when the 'actors' are portraying hockey players?? Not a stretch, really.
The victory at the end (it's not really a spoiler to say that, eh?) could have gone over the top with schmaltz and patriotic fireworks, but had just the right touch, capturing the kind of excitement and joy that we all felt sharing that moment.
Congratulations to the makers of "Miracle" for making one of the best sports films ever, and moreso congratulations to Herb Brooks and the 1980 U.S. Hockey team for giving us the incredible story to see!
Big Fish (2003)
Only mildly entertaining/resonating
I guess expectations will get you more often than not. I'm a fan of much of Tim Burton's work, and the accolades declaring this to be a new "Wizard of Oz" were encouraging, but as it turns out, I was more entertained by that other recent film with the similar premise - Secondhand Lions.
Big Fish started with promise as it sets up the metaphor and mythos of its story, but about halfway through it all becomes rather ho-hum. I like where Burton was reaching with this, which was higher than Secondhand Lions was reaching, but it really failed to resonate or captivate in the way it seems to try so hard to. Secondhand Lions knew it was a light comedy, seen from the eyes of a child coming of age, and it was successful in that sense. Big Fish didn't seem to know what it was... it wasn't really all that funny... or dramatic... or romantic... though it had slight aspects of each. And with the protagonist a jaded adult (Billy Crudup), it just wasn't as captivating to experience as compared to Haley Joel Osment's youth in Lions.
Some good performances, especially Ewan McGregor as the younger Edward Bloom, but unfortunately the film is nowhere near as entertaining or resonating as other Burton fare such as Edward Scissorhands or Ed Wood. Hmm... Burton likes characters named "Ed", eh?
6 out of 10
Adaptation. (2002)
Smart, funny, weird, insightful, different, brilliant!
Some sort-of spoilers...
A movie about flowers may not have been interesting, but a movie about trying to write a movie about flowers sure is. "Adaptation" is part satire, documentary, introspective meditation, comedy, drama and cliche Hollywood film (although that's really the satire part)... The film has many thoughtful and interesting parts in the early stages as it explores what apparently made "The Orchid Thief" a successful enough book to be optioned for a film version. Along the way, Charlie Kaufman struggles with his own limitations as a writer and a person in trying to adapt the book to work as a film. Though he ends up giving up, in a way, or giving in, in order to give the movie some kind of dramatic conclusion, I'm glad that he did. As absurd as the ending sequence gets, it is amusing for what it is, and especially to realize how and why it became that, and who is responsible (Donald). And Kaufman is still being true to the essence of the story that he set up while also having a major goof with it, so even screenwriting 'guru' McKee should have approved. Gimmicky, to be sure, but well executed, and a lot of colorful things along the way, especially in the way of Chris Cooper's John Laroche and Meryl Streep as Susan Orlean.
9 out of 10
Hollywood Homicide (2003)
"Happens to be" a bad movie.
I looked forward to seeing this movie, based on some very positive reviews I'd read, touting it's unique sense of humor in the context of the buddy-cop movie genre. Well, I was enjoying it for a little while, and there were some humorous moments early on, but it quickly became stale and formulaic and far too incredulous, suffering from way too many "happens to be" elements.
What I mean by that is...
Harrison Ford's girlfriend happens to be the former girlfriend of the nasty cop who's out to get Harrison Ford, who happens to be involved in an old situation with Dwight Yoakum's character, who happens to be the cop who killed Josh Hartnett's father (with Josh Hartnett happening to be Harrison Ford's partner). Harrison Ford happens to be an aficionado of Motown, and the crime witness happens to be the son of an obscure Motown singer, giving Ford the clue to find his whereabouts. Ford's girlfriend (was her name Ruby? I just didn't care to remember what the names were after seeing it) happens to be psychic and this convenient ability happens to be the only solution for them to come across the criminals to lead to the conclusion. I mean, I don't mind a deus ex machina if used cleverly, but this was ridiculous.
The more I think about it, the more preposterous this whole movie really was, and largely devoid of any real substance or creativity. As I said, early on there were hints that this could be a fairly unique character-based cop movie, but it just never paid off at all in that sense, and the cliches and "happens to be" plot proved to make this a big waste of time. A great cast, including a decent smaller part for Martin Landau and a cameo by Eric Idle, but I really have to wonder why someone like Harrison Ford would have wanted involvement in this junk.
4 out of 10 (and that was generous)
Solaris (2002)
Would have been better as a half-hour Twilight Zone
I think my one-line summary really, well, summarizes how I felt about this movie. It was a well-enough produced, directed and acted film, but it was very slow (and not really in a Kubrickian kind of way that you expect and enjoy) and felt like it would have benefited from being compressed into a shorter format, like a Twilight Zone episode.
Sad to read the trivia comments, where Soderbergh fought the MPAA to allow a PG-13 for showing Clooney's butt. Why not just get rid of the butt shot? Like that was at all necessary...
Anyway, not a bad film, and an interesting concept, but not necessarily worth its length on film.
Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)
One of the best ST films! 9/10
Most of the Star Trek film series has seemed unsatisfactory on the big screen, and I think I figured out why... it's a small screen series. When you watch most of the films on the small screen, they've usually played much better than in the theater. Perhaps in that context, you compare it more to what you're used to watching, the TV series, and realize that any Star Trek film is like having a brand new, 2 hour episode with better filming and effects. But with Insurrection and its predecessor First Contact, there are now two excellent Star Trek films that work very well both on the big and small screens.
In the case of Insurrection, the story is more of a small screen one indicative of typical Next Generation fare, but it was executed with such good writing, humor, action and inventive Star Trek situations, that it plays very big. I saw this film twice on the big screen and enjoyed it, but appreciated it even more watching the DVD recently, especially after having just seen the far inferior and less imaginative Nemesis.
I won't give away any details for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, but I urge everyone to watch and enjoy this film for its use of the Star Trek world (particularly Next Generation style) and its characters in a very well crafted work.
3rd Rock from the Sun (1996)
Often very funny. A victim of timeslot shuffling...
Like many of the classic comedy shows that became my favorites (Cheers, Seinfeld, Simpsons), I didn't catch onto 3rd Rock until about the 2nd or 3rd season. I don't really "seek out" TV shows to commit to watching, but some of the best ones seem to catch my interest somehow or other, or the buzz about them grows so strong that I'm compelled to at least check them out. I wouldn't put 3rd Rock in the class of Seinfeld or The Simpsons, but it was a real pleasure to discover, and a very nice wacky kind of diversion from most of the dreck on television.
John Lithgow's Dick Solomon became an instant classic character, both for the comedic pomposity of the character itself and for Lithgow's over-the-top performances in the role. A strong supporting cast and some inventive comedy writing gave it a real unique flavor. The show's zany reputation also attracted some interesting guest stars, including John Cleese and William Shatner.
Unfortunately, 3rd Rock never held onto whatever success it had at times, most likely because NBC kept shuffling it around to different timeslots. But then again, I agree with some who say it was waning in its last season, so maybe it had enough of a run in five seasons. The show was still often very funny right up to the end, but I think the premise itself ran out of steam. Once the Solomons became so acclimated to their Earth life, the whole premise of them being 'fish out of water' was hard to sustain in the same way that had been the catalyst for many of the funny moments all along.
One good thing about this show for me is that unlike Seinfeld and The Simpsons, which I've seen every episode of twice or more, I can still sometimes catch a syndicated episode of 3rd Rock that I haven't seen, and they're always good for some laughs!
Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
Not bad. Not great. 6/10
(SPOILERS)
Of course if you're a Star Trek fan, this film will be a treat, regardless. Any time you can see a new 2 hour episode of The Next Generation with a nice film budget it's going to be worth it. So, by all means, all of us Trekkers should watch and enjoy this film for what it is. But that being said, I did not find this film as compelling or entertaining as some of the other Trek films, including the last two (First Contact is the best of the film series, IMO).
The premise is an interesting one- Picard and the Enterprise crew come across a young man who turns out to be someone who had been cloned from Picard's DNA years before (Picard is told that someone got the DNA from his skin or hair- a nice joke would have been Picard responding "Must have been the skin..."). There is some interesting discussion between Picard and his counterpart Shinzon, but that is also part of the problem here... too much discussion and not enough active interplay between them. The potential here for a real battle of wits and also tactics between the two 'Picards' was great, but we end up with very little in that regard. Star Trek has always found creative ways to find resonance in its action sequences and interstellar battles, always with the ingenuity of the Enterprise captain winning out in some clever way. This is no exception in that regard, with Picard making a unique decision to ram Shinzon's ship with the Enterprise, when that becomes the best option. But why not give Shinzon more credit in his own tactically brilliant way? He is, after all, of the same blood and mind of Picard. I would have liked to see more of a back and forth chess match with the situations in this film, but it seems to end abruptly before it really had the chance to achieve that. It approaches that, but falls short of being fulfilling and entertaining enough to really satisfy. Along the same lines, the side story of Data's interaction with a clone of him never really goes anywhere after a while, and seems to ultimately be a way to cheat his eventual death and keep the essence of his character alive (for potential sequels, I presume, but the poor performance of this film has apparently negated any more of those). In a way, it cheapens the impact of Data's sacrificing himself when you know that he is still sort of alive.
There are certainly some cool 'Star Trek moments' here, including the all-terrain vehicle flying into the shuttle pod, the aforementioned ship ramming and Data's 'flight' through space, and Patrick Stewart is such a confident and intricate actor that his performance is always a pleasure to watch. But on the whole, it was like watching a good 2 part television episode, but not quite a great film. Also, though I understand why they didn't use the deleted ending scene included on the DVD extras (added to the other ending scenes already in the film it would have belabored the ending), I did prefer that as a more fitting way to close out the film series, with Picard talking to his new #1 and saying how they would be going to explore a new planet system "where... no one has gone before."
With future Next Generation sequels apparently out of the question now with Patrick Stewart declining the possibility of returning, I would like to see another Star Trek movie that somehow combines elements and characters from all of the series, perhaps with the Q character tying them together in some way. It would be sort of a mish-mash of various available (and in the case of the original series, living) characters, but given the right circumstances it could be interesting and a successful way to keep the journey boldly going, so to speak.
Finding Nemo (2003)
Another outstanding Pixar film! 10/10
I'm 34 years old, and have had a fairly wide variety of film tastes over the years, but I am not ashamed to say that I realized recently that the group of Pixar films are among my very favorites. Such entertainment is rare in any film, and they have achieved that every time out so far- Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Monsters Inc., and now with Finding Nemo. These are all movies you can see several times and always enjoy and find new things in.
Even moreso than other Pixar films, Nemo is a real visual treat, with the underwater world being beautifully rendered by the animators. But what really sets the Pixar movies apart from many other animated films is the strength of the writing. The visuals of an animated feature can be terrific in any film, but the story and the characters are what will make or break it. Finding Nemo, like the other Pixar films has a wealth of unique and engaging characters, a compelling storyline, and lots of humor and adventure. Andrew Stanton and John Lasseter and the others at Pixar should be given a lot of credit for being among the very best storytellers out there today.
Bravo!
Signs (2002)
Pretty good, if not M. Knight's best.
Having enjoyed Sixth Sense and particularly Unbreakable, I was looking forward to seeing this. I enjoyed it for what it was, but I wouldn't put it up there with those previous two films. There were some nice scenes, though, and he has a way of getting some nice spiritual moments to ring through in a way that feels right. My favorite moment was actually the goofiest, when there was the videocam capture of the alien at the children's birthday party (a nice Bigfoot cop, btw). It was kind of goofy, really, but also gave me the feeling of what it would be like to be seeing that in the situation the characters were in, and therefore the reaction was shocking as intended. I thought the performances were very good, particularly Joachin Phoenix (who I didn't like at all in Gladiator). His reactions to what was going on helped make it believable (for example, when seeing the video of the alien). If anything, the film seemed a bit too short. It took a while to get going, and then once it got going a little, it ended. I like what I saw, but I guess I expected a little more, as opposed to Unbreakable and Sixth Sense, which seemed a little more satisfying as a whole. Still worth seeing, though. I think Shyamalan is one of the best filmmakers today, and I like that he doesn't have sex and blood and excessive violence and swearing in his films.
7 out of 10
The Music Man (2003)
This movie missed in some very big ways...
To say that this movie was a disappointment isn't really fair... I actually enjoyed quite a lot about it. There were some nice touches here and there, like in "76 Trombones" where the one little girl won't join in and HH sits with her and gets her to join in. Some things like that were very nice. And I liked that they included the "Pick-A-Little" reprise, which wasn't in the original film version. This was, after all, "The Music Man", and it would be hard not to enjoy it for what it is...
However, this movie missed in some very big ways, starting with Matthew Broderick as Harold Hill. To me, this is not even a question of comparing him in any way to Robert Preston, or the idea that he had to fill Preston's shoes, or anything like that... He just doesn't fit at all in that part. Period. And worse yet, his performance was very weak and bland. No strength, no confidence, and not even any character, which I know he is so capable of creating in other roles. He really seemed like a fish out of water compared to some of the other strong performances, including Kristen Chenoweth as Marian (I loved her rendition version of "My White Knight"), David Aaron Baker as Marcellus, Debra Monk as Mrs. Paroo, Patrick McKenna as Charlie Cowell and Cameron Monaghan as Winthrop. A lot of Broderick's lines seemed merely delivered, and not really 'performed'. It was just not natural at all. Very forced. So much for him trying to do something different than Preston and creating a different take on the character- he didn't really create any character! If this show had someone like Robert Sean Leonard or Scott Bakula as HH, it probably would have elevated this to being a very good version. But with Broderick as HH... No way. Not that anyone's take on Harold Hill has to be like what I think it should be or how I would do it... I've seen a variety of different versions of HH, from Craig Bierko's near Preston-imitation on Broadway, to a recent production where the HH was sort of like a cheesy game show host... but they all had the basic element of character that makes the part work in the context of the show. Though he's 40, Broderick still looks like a 16 year-old, which reduces the believability of his being a legendary con-man right off the bat, and worse yet, he didn't deliver anything like a 'confidence man'. There was no rogue-ishness or danger to his role, and that's really an essential part of Harold Hill, no matter what the age is of the person portraying him is. I will say that now and then my wife and I would say something positive about Broderick- "Hey, that line was good..." or "He was okay on that song...", but when that is the exception rather than the rule you're in big trouble with a capital you know what...
Another big miscasting was Victor Garber's Mayor Shinn. Not that he, like Broderick, isn't a great actor in his own right, but his take on this part seemed way off-base. I tried to put my finger on it, and realized that he was too menacing... He was downright nasty all the time, and it just felt really wrong for Shinn, and also gave him little place to go with it. When he is genuinely really angry at Tommy Djilas in the second act, there was no difference between when he was merely suspicious of Hill in the first act. It was all just so menacing. The humor went right out of the character. He was also too well-spoken sounding, in terms of the tone of his voice, to be very believable as such a word-mangling bumpkin. Too proper and refined. Think of George W. Bush... His misstatements sound natural because he has that Texas bumpkin tone to his voice.
There were also a couple of unforgivable dialogue delivery mistakes where jokes were completely lost (which ultimately could be blamed on the director for allowing). One example I can readily think of is when "If You Don't Mind My Sayin' So" is over, Marian should say to Mrs. Paroo, "well, if that isn't the best I ever heard", and then Amaryllis stops playing piano and says, "Thank you". Well, in this version, Marian says that line right to Amaryllis. ???? Where's the joke??? There were a few other things like that, where jokes in the script were missed or passed over, and particularly in Broderick's performance where the delivery of the lines was just plain and monotone and without good timing, and lost some of the nice subtle humor that could have been there. I really expected Broderick to at least pull some more humor out of this role, but I've seen a high-school production's HH do much better with that (and look older, too!).
I particularly enjoyed the opening train scene, and thought that was well done, as well as some of the other ideas for filming they used, such as having HH going through town in various places during "Trouble". But by and large, I don't think the direction did all that much different stuff with the material than the other film version, and didn't really focus more on the love story, which is what director Jeff Bleckner said in interviews. That may have been the intention, but I didn't see it on screen.
5 out of 10
The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)
Terrific movie - Terrible title
I'd seen and enjoyed this movie a couple of times before, but just happened upon it again recently as a late night TV movie, and I realized how this is one of those rare and wonderful films that you find more and more things to enjoy each time you watch it. (One of the other few films that I'd put in that category also features Tim Robbins and also came out in 1994 - The Shawshank Redemption. Good year for Tim, eh?)
Hudsucker Proxy is inventive, funny, full of wonderfully drawn characters and vignettes, and even hits some nice dramatic chords amongst the comedy and business satire. So why did this film fail so miserably at the box office? As others have pointed out, it can only be one thing- the title. The Hudsucker Proxy? Gosh, who would want to see that? As I recall, I didn't want to see it on video, either, when I heard that title, but my father, who rents just about every movie that comes out, highly recommended it. I'm glad he did and I'm glad I gave it a chance. But whoo, what a stinker of a title, and though this film is perhaps not of the style that would have made it a big hit, regardless of the title, I really think that the fact that it only grossed $3 million is definitely because of that. With a better title, I think it might have been a sleeper, as more people would have given it a chance. But that's irrelevent now. It's certainly a great movie, so if you haven't seen it because of the title, give it a chance anyway!
9 out of 10
Thirteen Days (2000)
Great film if you get past Costner's accent...
A very well done film showing the inner workings and politics involved in what must have been an incredibly difficult and tense period in world history.
But why oh why does Kevin Costner continue to insist on trying to speak in an accent other than his own??? His own voice would have been just fine for that role, and it's not as though anyone really knows who that guy is or what he's supposed to sound like. This is film. This is illusion. Don't spoil it with a terrible attempt at an accent! I actually found the actor playing JFK to have underplayed JFK's real accent, and I certainly didn't miss that, or feel that the part wasn't done well because he didn't cop as much of an accent as JFK had. Actually, I blame the director for allowing Costner's accent in the film, but then again, if we're to believe the stories about Costner exerting his 'clout' on films, it may have been beyond the director's control.
But this is still a very good film, bad accent notwithstanding! :o)
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Meh... A good setup for Ep. III, I suppose...
Finally saw AOTC last night. Not bad. It was a Star Wars movie, alright. I enjoyed some parts of it. On the whole, I'd say it was as good as Phantom Menace and even better than Return of the Jedi. But still, somewhat lacking, as Phantom Menace was, in terms of overall excitement. I found myself yawning a few times there, and it seemed telling that though the theater was packed with kids, there was no fanfare among them. When I saw Star Wars and Empire, there was a tangible and very audible excitement there. I think the effects and creatures and spaceships flying through space just aren't all that impressive anymore, especially when you don't have a really compelling story and characters to root for within all of that.
Things I liked: No denyin' that Yoda with the light saber was very cool. It almost seemed incongruous, though, that he hobbles up on a cane, then flips around at breakneck speed with his light saber, then hobbles away on a cane again. I guess he just saves it up for the saberin'! I also liked a few of the series threads that were thrown in there, like when Obi-Wan tells Anakin- "Someday you'll be the death of me." I think the development of Anakin's dark side was done pretty well. The sequence in the blast furnace place where they were making droids was both exciting and clever. Kind of neat that both George Lucas and Spielberg had similar scenes in their latest films, with Spielberg's "Minority Report" automobile manufacturing fight scene. I think the best thing about this film may be that it seems to set up the next film to be a real barnburner in many ways.
Things I didn't like: I agree with some critics who called the dialogue utilitarian, and that there too much of it. It was like watching C-Span at some points. I understand the concept of what's going on, and it's not that it's disinteresting, but as plots go, it doesn't exactly engender much excitement. Too much happened that was expected, and very little that was out of the ordinary, in the way of the action sequences and effects. I really think it's telling that as intricate as a lot of those action and effects sequences were, they don't seem to have much impact anymore. Flying through the asteroid field... That was done in Empire already, and it was new and exciting then, but just ho-hum now. You see some strange looking creatures in some bar, and at this point it's like, "okay, whatever". But in the Star Wars cantina it was pretty damn cool. I know you can't really compare your perception from now to then, and these movies may be introducing these kinds of things to a new generation (although kids today have seen similar effects and action stunts in dozens of other contemporary movies), but I still think there were more compelling stories and characters in the first two movies, by far. But hey, it's the world of Star Wars, nonetheless, and it's a cool world, to be sure. But this movie, even moreso than Phantom Menace, seemed just like more of the same. I also had to conclude that Natalie Portman was miscast in that role. She's beautiful, yes, but man, is her delivery weak and monotone... Part of that is the dialogue, which rarely seems to be character specific, or have any life to it. One person says something that another could say easily as well, with the exception being Yoda, who just says everything backwards, and throws in some wisdom here and there. C-3PO had about the ONLY humor in the whole movie, and it was groaners. I don't recall Star Wars having much humor, but this one needed it more than that.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Nothing spectacular...
I was disappointed with this movie. It's not that I 'disliked' it, but it all seemed so ordinary, and typical. Nothing really inventive or spectacular. Fight some orcs, carry around a ring, whisper to each other about strange portents and impending evil, travel around a bit, fight some more orcs... For a three-hour movie, it left me with very, very little that was memorable. I thought the smoke ship going through the smoke ring, and Gandalf's fireworks were creative, and gave a sense of wonder, and I expected more of the same after that, but didn't get it. Some fantastic scenery, but does that really give credit to a film, or to God?? Elijah Wood, as Frodo, had the same pained expression on his face the whole movie. Vitto Morgenson and Ian MacKellen were both fitting for their roles, as were others, but there wasn't all that much to the roles themselves. I suppose that's the problem of trying to condense an epic story into a comparatively brief movie. One thing I found annoying is how everyone seemed to whisper their lines, especially during what would seem to be the important conversations. That seems to be a convention of acting and films these days, and it's baffling. It's as if everyone has laryngitis, or is in a library. The fight scenes were, well, fight scenes. Again, nothing special or different than what might be expected. Good guys kill everyone with one blow, and can take several blows themselves and survive. And when the two wizards fight each other, what could have been an interesting confrontation seems unfulfilled. My wife commented that the sound effects for the orcs sounded as if they were pulled from a stock sound effects CD or something.
I don't mean to totally bash the film, but it's as though it would have made an incredible TV miniseries, but not a great FILM series. For something that should have been REALLY COOL, it just misses the mark of ever reaching that. Sadly, in the preview for the next film (attached onto the end - the first time I've ever seen that!), it doesn't look like we're in for much better next time. Looks about the same, which is not surprising, as they were all filmed together. Perhaps the story might be more interesting, and they might do more, instead of just evading orcs, so that might be good.
That this has been ranked #3 of all time is truly astounding. I'm just glad it has now been bumped down from #2. Shawshank Redemption deserves that place much more than this movie.
The Majestic (2001)
Darabont's familiar tale...
I enjoyed this movie, but I agree with some other comments I read that said it was predictable and slow and sentimentally patronizing.
One thing I realized, that I'm sure has been noted elsewhere, is that Frank Darabont has now made essentially the same movie three times in a row ("Green Mile" and "Shawshank Redemption"), or at least the basic premise, which is that someone who doesn't really belong somewhere ends up transforming and uplifting the place, and exploring the idea of the freedom of the spirit.
I much preferred "Shawshank Redemption", which is one of my all-time favorite films, to "The Majestic", but it's still worth seeing for some nice little moments here and there. Like "Shawshank", I may end up liking this more upon repeat viewings, but I'd have to give it a few years to see again...
It was also funny to see Bruce Campbell, the perennial B-movie actor and author of "If Chins Could Kill - Confessions of a B-Movie Actor", as the star of Appleton's B-movie.
-EE-
Gladiator (2000)
One big 'meh'...
Ay, carumba... I was looking forward to this film, as I generally like these types of films, and I was thinking it would contain some epic qualities of action, intrigue, characterization, etc. However, this was one big 'meh', and I ended up regretting the time it took to watch over a few days during my lunch hour!
The picture just wasn't very exciting or interesting. There was nothing in it that I didn't expect to happen as I watched it. The characters were predictably bland. Even the fight scenes were rather ho-hum. Just a lot of bashing and blood, which is probably what it really was like, but you know, in a film, you expect some more kind of essence or drama to it. The final fight between Maximus and Commodus? Who cared, by that point? There was very little artistry or drama to something that should have been quite a powerful confrontation... I agree with Roger Ebert's review that the look of it was very dark and bland and depressing, both visually and in terms of character.
What's really baffling is how this was awarded best picture of the year, and Crowe as best actor, and that what's his name playing Commodus was even nominated for an Oscar! Yikes. I mean, I suppose it may have been a weak year, and you certainly can't count on the Best Picture being the 'best picture', but you expect it to at least have something significant to it. This had very, very little to it. I think of just two years ago, when the Best Pic noms were - Shakespeare in Love, Life is Beautiful, Saving Private Ryan, Elizabeth and Thin Red Line. Every one of those movies had so much more to them than this film does. It's almost ridiculous, the difference there. Not to mention others that weren't even nominated that year, like Truman Show and Gods and Monsters...
Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix (that's his name!) were both rather unspectacular, mumbling their way through their lines like David Mamet's mock GREAT ACTOR would. (It's no wonder they were rewarded so!) They just didn't really cement themselves into those roles, particularly Phoenix. I can think of several others who could have done that part, and might have been more interesting. Then again, it could have been the direction, or the script, but his character actually seemed to have some of the more interesting things to say, so that probably rules that out. And it's not so much that Crowe was bad in the part, but it just wasn't that much of a part. He fights, he looks veangeful and sad, he mumbles a few lines, he fights some more, he longs for his family, fights some more... Not all that much to dig into, really. I haven't seen The Insider or A Beautiful Mind yet, but I must imagine that there's a lot more for him to have been 'best actor' for in those characters and films.
There were some little things here and there that were alright, and some of the minor characters did well, but on the whole, a pretty big waste of time to watch...
-EE-
La vita è bella (1997)
Beautiful, indeed!
I've seen this movie three times now, and it has now entered the ranks of one of my very favorite films ever, perhaps even my very favorite. It's so wonderful, and touching, and funny, and romantic, and poignant, and sad, and triumphant. What an achievement. I know some people balk when I recommend this film to them and mention that it has subtitles, but really, everyone should watch this film and enjoy its beauty and be buoyed by its spirit. Bravo, Roberto!
-EE-
Best in Show (2000)
Not the best...
On its own, "Best in Show" would be a marginally amusing comedy about dog show people, but I was very disappointed in it, especially in comparison to Guest's previous "Waiting For Guffman", and his involvement (though he didn't direct) in "This Is Spinal Tap". The main difference between "Show" and "Guffman" was the characters, or not really in the characters, as some were similar, but more in how they were used. In "Show" the characters had little real depth to them, and the tragedy was that they just weren't used in very funny ways. Interesting types of characters, yes, but it's almost like Guest created some interesting people but they didn't do much with what they had. "Guffman" had interestingly flawed characters, as does "Show" (although the "Show" characters are just more obnoxious than anything else), and the moments they created and the world they exhibited seemed more poignant and colored more broadly than in "Show".
The Catherine O'Hara character was just a lame one-joke thing repeating through the movie, and the other main characters had little more to offer. Fred Ward as the dog show announcer was amusing at times, and obviously the funniest part of the film, but unfortunately that's not saying much, and it wasn't as if it was a real side-splitting kind of thing. Actually, my favorite part of the film was watching Ward's British counterpart react to him, and the two announcers together were a good part of the film. But as a whole, it was pretty weak, crude, and quite a disappointment. I'd still be interested to see the outtakes on the DVD. Maybe there's some funny bits in there, but then again, if that stuff didn't even make the movie, then probably not.