Change Your Image
malberts1
Reviews
Million Dollar Baby (2004)
A solid but really mixed and ultimately unsatisfying effort
The first two thirds of this film were excellent, with very good boxing/training action and lively performances from Swank and Freeman, and Eastwood even cracking a joke or two. The last third, when the melodrama hits, it hits like a tornado that sucks all the air out of the room and neglects to fill the vacuum. This movie was saved by the acting, but it was fairly chock full of clichés, and the fact that she walked into the gym supposedly after winning a fight throwing punches that off-kilter gave it a believability gap that took a while to get over. If they had started the film without her having stated she had won a fight, the story wouldn't have changed much (well, the clichés would have been a tad more obvious) and my believability would not have been so challenged for the first half hour.
The last third of the film, where the well-known controversy exists, is incredibly long and tedious even in comparison to other melodramas. Without the ending, I would have given it an eight or nine for the lively Swank performance that, like Sylvester Stallone in the first Rocky film, took an old fashioned formula and made something really great out of it. The ending, however, dragged that all the way down to a six. I don't think I could watch it again without turning it off after that key defining event, but if I did, I'd end up watching a much more enjoyable movie. The movie had heart up until that point, but then it sold its soul.
Shakes the Clown (1991)
The darkest of dark comedies
This movie won't win any technical awards, but if you like dark comedies (this film makes "Barton Fink" look light and breezy at times), this is the movie for you. At times uproariously funny, the poignant parts are luckily kept to a minimum, and there are gritty moments as well. Whether you're a rodeo clown, party clown, or even a lowly mime, this is a movie chock full of lines you'll find yourself repeating in all the most inappropriate occasions. Besides--didn't you kind of suspect that all clowns were miserable deep down, and drunk constantly?
Just beware--this is not a kids' film by any stretch of the imagination, and some of the scenes of Shakes dealing with his alcoholism are stomach-churning, but it provides the backdrop for some serious comedic writing unmatched by virtually every other film out there.
The Big Lebowski (1998)
Easily the lowest common denominator of Coen films
While there is nothing outright terrible about The Big Lebowski, from the very beginning it lacks the wit and intelligence of many of their other efforts. The double-dealing twists and turns can't hold a candle to the level of intrigue in Miller's Crossing (nor the humor, which is mostly missing in Lebowski), nor does it have the dramatic photography of Fargo, which it resembles quite closely in both plot and tone, to keep it interesting. It is a luke-warm film that could have easily been directed and written by any of a dozen writer/directors out there. While there are a few quotes, they are fairly few and far between, and do not stand on their own in any meaningful way (and to all you who think "The Dude abides" is a great quote, then you know why I call this the lowest common denominator). To paraphrase from an earlier Coen film, "we all have that Coen Brothers feeling, but since this film was by the Coen Brothers, we figure it should have it in spades." Unfortunately, it doesn't, and it suffers because of it.
4/10
Bubble Boy (2001)
One of the great dumb comedies of your time
A previous reviewer found this film unfunny and offensive to religions. IMO, that is one of the biggest reaches I've ever seen for an excuse to hate a film that is totally innocuous. The major religious element in the film is a cult of people who all go by the names of Lorraine or Todd, depending on their sex. The Jewish comments are parodies of conservative Christians who hold such stereotypes, not a slam on the religion itself, and the Hindu character is treated in a decent manner respectful of the beliefs, even if the official position of the film is that they don't get it. This film is a classic naive fish-out-of-water film, and if you view it through that lens, how can you be offended by the religious elements unless you are really out looking to be offended by it?
When you get down to it, this film is a diversion, and a fabulously entertaining one at that. Every time I watch this film, I am amazed at the warmth of it (the Bubble Boy himself seems mildly retarded, but he's treated with love, rather than as a figure of ridicule). The coalfire-and-brimstone mother (Kurtz) falling for the jackbooted Dr. Phreak (Troyer) is classic. The biker with a heart of gold is a fantastic character (Trejo). And Mandy Moore really shines as the leader of the cult pack back to capture their chosen one, whom they had previously turned away.
Not perfect, but a ton of fun. 9/10
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Good, but not great (spoilers)
Everyone is gushing about this film, and mostly for good reasons. It's the crowning film of one of the best trilogies ever filmed. It appeals to tons of people because it's based on a timeless story, it's well acted, it's filmed beautifully, and the effects don't overwhelm it like they would a Lucas effort.
That said, it's far from a perfect film, and to me, not even the best of the three (I find The Two Towers to be the most consistent of the three). It is not just the oft-repeated idea that the ending is far too long (it kind of is, but probably wouldn't seem to drag on so long if not for the tons of material cut out of the start and the middle of the film), but rather for the really uneven pacing of the film. It seems 2/3 of the time is spent with Frodo and Samwise crawling up to Shelob and then only five minutes going across Mordor towards Mount Doom. This is very odd to me, as if getting passed Cirith Ungol was the real feat, not the trek across the waterless, foodless plain. The Army of the Dead was one of the most amazing aspects of the film, but they appear abruptly and disappear almost as quickly, making them a passing rather than a salient point of the battle. And, of course, there are the elements the purists complain about, which I found would have really aided in the storytelling: Denethor's corruption by Sauron and the breaking of Saruman's hold after the battle with the ents would have smoothed it out a ton, and they could have kept the length failry the same by editing out some other parts. Arwen, for example, was basically unnecessary as the story unfolded--leave her out; if the scouring of the Shire is unnecessary, why do we even need to go back at all, when they could just head to the ships and end it there, or even better, just end it at the ceremony on top of Minas Tirith? I know there was an effort to keep it as true to the book, but I think Jackson made some basic errors in storytelling that keeps it far from the ranks of a ten, much like the problems with The Hulk earlier in the year.
Good, but not great. 6/10
Memento (2000)
Probably the most overrated movie of recent memory.
First of all, this is not a horrible movie. It does keep you mildly interested. But it has several, fatal flaws.
One reviewer mentioned that the film was too clever by half. I totally concur. The film went out of its way to create something unique, and in the process lost the entire narrative structure. So when it ends, you barely even know if it happened. In fact, you don't know that it happened. If Leonard was delusional about Sammy, then perhaps he was delusional about all the characters in the movie. The fact is, you will never know.
The problem is, this doesn't make for a good film. Good films are those where the narrative art is enhanced by the photography. By this measure, the movie fails, as the photography does almost nothing to tell the story, and Guy Pearce is as milquetoast a leading man as there is. The fact is, the film is about trying to put you in his shoes, to show you what Leonard must have felt like living with no memory, but you end up feeling nothing at all because he is such a bland character actor.
I would compare this film in some ways to Se7en--except that Se7en does a much better job telling the story (even if the ending wasn't at all surprising). The major difference is that you care about what happens to the characters in Se7en. There is no empathy with Leonard, partly because the film never gives you the chance because it's too busy being clever.
Perhaps people will rate it highly, but it is definitely not a Citizen Kane or Casablanca, a movie where you can take it out and watch it over and over again. It's far too dismal for that. It's more a movie like Resevoir Dogs, where you like the idea (and perhaps the execution), but the way the story is put together keeps it from being a classic.
3/10
Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse (1991)
self-indulgent mess
I've never seen a "making-of" documentary that made me hate the film involved more than this one. So self-important, so self-indulgent, so pretentious. All these come to mind where "Hearts of Darkness" is involved.
And to think--I used to like "Apocalypse Now."
3/10
Sugar & Spice (2001)
definitely written by a woman
I always get frustrated by films that were obviously written by one gender. Especially when they obviously don't do enough research to find out when something not only doesn't ring true, but rings blatently false.
The scene I am remembering is the one in the bathroom where Jack tells his football teammates that he got Diane pregnant. In no way, shape, or form would a guy ever cheer another guy getting a girl pregnant in high school. They might cheer about the guy having sex with the hot cheerleader, but I can also guarantee that the first the football team heard about it would not be at a urinal.
It was obvious that this film didn't take itself so seriously, and it wasn't hideously bad, but come on!
Se7en (1995)
a good, but flawed movie
Before seeing this movie, I was expecting great things. All of my friends who had seen it before me had told me what a great movie it was. It was good, a taught thriller that was quite satisfying. Until the ending, that is, which was the worst cop out of an ending that I could imagine for this film.
Up until the very last four minutes of this film, I would have rated it a 10. The cinematography was fantastic, the acting by Morgan Freeman and R. Lee Emery in particular fantastic. Also, Kevin Spacey was very good as John Doe, but there was something particularly hollow in his demeanor at the end. Without giving away the details, there is no way this is in the top 100 films on IMDB, but it is a good film. It's no Citizen Kane, though.
The obvious comparison for this movie is "Fight Club," another Fincher effort. Fincher is much more successful in "Fight Club," though, especially on the ending, which felt not only natural, but left you with closure (unlike in "Se7en," where you are definitely left feeling that there was another half hour of unfinished business, or the ending should have been different). I loved fight club, but "Se7en" I would not go and see again. Just flat out not nearly as good a movie.