15 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Prophetic, disturbing,... but ultimately flawed.
12 April 2012
The question on my mind after seeing The Shock Doctrine was whether ends justify means. Quite possibly, this is the question Klein wanted to be asked, because much of her case regards the distasteful means taken in order to further free market economics, tactics which the very proponents of these dogmas may feel they want to disassociate themselves with. However, my question was about Klein's/Winterbottom's own tactics.

The film uses all methods that we've grown used to from modern politics: cherry-picked facts, "proofs" by emotionally-charged metaphors, hinted claims of guilt by association, sound-bite slogans that are repeated incessantly, and, of course, scare tactics. Sad to say, I've come to expect these things from political candidates that need to make their points in a 30-second TV appearance. I've even come to expect them in rating-seeking news programs. But have we stooped so low that these tactics are now par-for-the-course in documentaries, where a film-maker has 90 minutes of canvas to make a clear, compelling, and well-argued case? I happen to agree with Klein's stance that extreme capitalism is dangerous, and I think what we are seeing in both Europe and China in recent years (e.g. the collapse of Chinese nation-wide education and health policies) are just further proofs of the narrative Klein forwards. However, I don't see that there is a well-argued case here that would convince someone claiming that any change, good or bad, rarely happens in a peaceful way, or that the ultimate outcome of privatization is better than the alternative. In fact, only a handful of minutes of this film are devoted to the question of what the final outcome of extreme capitalism looks like, historically, and these minutes are full of unsubstantiated claims thrown into the air in what is exactly the tactic Klein warns against: shock a person for just over an hour, and suddenly that person becomes much more open to suggestion, at which point you can sprinkle some of your favorite dogmas on him.

So, perhaps this film does a good job with all those who are willing to be convinced by visceral arguments, the likes of which have, unfortunately, come to dominate the public discourse, but I rather promote those who educate people to think. Scaring people to make the choices you think are right... well, that's what this film is all about. Isn't it?
17 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A lot of things it is, but a good movie it is not
8 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Virtually all reviews I've read for "The Hunger Games" were favorable/unfavorable towards it based on the sole criterion of whether it was a faithful adaptation. Well, I haven't read the book and I don't care. A review is useful to me if it tells me whether this is a good movie. Likewise, I don't care whether it is a good setup for its two upcoming(?) sequels, only whether it stands on its own merit. So, with that in mind, here's my impression of it:

The first thirty minutes of it, or so, were a good setup for a movie that is an intelligent commentary about social polarization and the dehumanization of "all who are not us", as well as about the unreality of reality game shows (which, I must say, the entire movie depicts fairly accurately, with no exaggeration except in the most superficial dimension).

Sadly, after that, the movie loses its edge. Characterizations (of the dystopian world as well as its inhabitants) are done with a spatula rather than with a paintbrush, and are often too saccharine-filled to be believable in all but G-rated movies. Far more disturbingly, the characters, after speeches of "I will make them remember me" do nothing but play the game according to its own rules. There is no place where the movie extends, to any serious extent, beyond the reality of the game and its rules. What a shame. The opportunity was right there for the taking...

... and the movie hints that it will be taken in a sequel.

Well, I bought a ticket to see a movie, not a long trailer, and I don't think I'll buy a second ticket just to see another.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Picks up where Bond lost the trail
28 December 2011
I'm not a fan of mindless action flicks, which this is. Characters portrayed as though they were made of steel and rubber make me cringe. Art-major-physics I find annoying. I went to see this movie because of Simon Pegg, and he delivers 100%.

I also had a good time.

The movie is not going to become a classic, but it's well made. All boxes are ticked: 4 exotic locations, including ample opportunity for some pretty high drops. One immediately-recognizable landmark destroyed graphically. Cruise to star, Patton as eye candy, Pegg for the British humor. Nods to previous installments in the series. High-tech gadgets that seem ultra-futuristic but still plausible. etc..

The simple fact is that the old-guard of action-movie makers has gotten tired over the years, and these are the people who stepped up to replace them and are currently holding the fort: Brad Bird directed this movie as though The Incredibles was a dress-rehearsal for it; J.J. Abrams gave it that Star Trek feel and brought in the writers of "Alias" and "Life on Mars" for the extra shine.

It's not going to be a favorite of mine. I will likely forget all about it a week from now. But during the movie's 2 1/4 hours, it felt like watching a James Bond movie for the first time. And I don't mean a new Daniel Craig movie. I mean, that feeling I got when Connery was Connery, Moore was Moore and Bond was Bond.

Oh, and super-cool gadgets were super-cool gadgets.

If you're keen on checking your brains out at the door and having an escapist 2+ hours of good time, this one is a good choice for you.

If, on the other hand, you like an original story, believable three-dimensional characters with some development arc, a back-story, emotional integrity, or anything that remotely resembles any of the above: do yourself a favor and choose curtain #2, instead.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Scarlet Road (2011)
10/10
A must see documentary
12 December 2011
There's plenty to be said about the sex industry, both here in Australia and worldwide, and there have been plenty of documentaries on the subject. The common feature (perhaps to documentaries about a great many other subjects, as well) is that the more you know about something, the less scary, subversive, immoral, outlandish or deviant it appears to be, and the more you are willing to accept one simple fact: people are people. We're all trying to do our bit the best we know how.

This documentary stands out in succeeding in this goal more than any other documentary I have seen on the subject. Director Catherine Scott brings a refreshingly human angle (and gives a refreshingly human face in Rachel Wotton) to two population sectors who are consistently given the short end of the stick: sex workers on the one hand and people with disabilities on the other. Both groups have been the subject of discrimination and misunderstanding since time out of mind. Sex workers, in particular, (as well as their clientèle) have been demonized and their practices outlawed, ironically by the very same people who fly under the banner of human rights (but often prefer to do so while hiding under a veil of ignorance, misconception and sound-bite dogmas).

This is a movie for activists and feminists to see. This is a movie that says: stop hurting me by trying to help me. Stop and ask me what it is that I want. It showcases "Touching Base", an organization devoted to helping people with disabilities fulfill their innate need for intimacy, this being the best example I have seen of the reversal of roles: it is the sex workers who are doing their best to help those in need; it is the human rights activists who are outlawing their actions almost everywhere.

It's an eye-opener.
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Severely underrated
12 December 2011
This movie isn't everyone's cup of tea. Hepburn called it her least favorite film. Audiences shunned it. At the time of writing, IMDb gives it a measly 6.0 rating. Nevertheless, it is one of my all-time favorite movies.

The problem with this film is that it isn't what everyone seems to be expecting it to be: a mindless romantic comedy. Quite on the contrary: this is a work that I can only compare with "Adaptation". It is a story about how stories actually get written: non-linearly, spasmodically, through much self-doubt and simultaneously excessive (narcissistic, really) introspection. (Although, to be fair, in Hollywood the practice has mostly been to call in a whole bunch of writers to fix up the messes left by writers of earlier drafts, so this is least true of how Hollywood movie scripts get written, but it is true just about everywhere else.) Like "Adaptation", this is a movie that takes the plunge into the mind of the writer as he creates a miniature, constantly shifting and bubbling world for us to visit, only to find a second world inside that first, and probably more where that came from. I don't think that you can appreciate it without having written something yourself, but if you have, then you know the feeling: life mimicking art, mimicking life, mimicking art. Personally, for me, the greatest cameo in this movie isn't the appearance of Tony Curtis or Frank Sinatra, but the fact that in mid-shooting William Holden had to be checked into a rehab clinic. How's that for life and art? Again, like in "Adaptation", the story makes no sense, and, in fact, cannot make any sense. Its what the movie is about. To let us watch and keep our sanity, humor is used abundantly. It is well written wit and quite funny, but it isn't what this movie is about, and taking it to be what the movie is about is perhaps what led to its being so underrated.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" says the Wizard of Oz, and as far as box office success goes, he's right. Audiences don't like it when the magician shows how the trick is performed. This movie is a prime example. Another is Schwarzenegger's "Last Action Hero". If you like romantic comedies, you should probably avoid this movie. If you want to see a smart film about the madness of writing, this is a soft introduction to the topic.
37 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Suits (2011–2019)
7/10
Like store-bought cake
6 July 2011
Let me start off with the bottom line: I enjoyed the first couple of episodes and intend to stick around for more, on the hope that the good will be retained and the bad ironed out.

Having said that, it doesn't feel to me like any originality or creativity played a part in the creation of this series. One can almost hear the executives deciding on it: "People like 'House'. We want something like 'House'. But we can't do it as a medical show and we certainly can't do it as a cop show. Any other ideas?" "How about as a lawyer show? We'll have a brilliant civil-law closer take Hugh Laurie's role, and we'll find someone like Masters to play second fiddle." "We can't just copy the character of Masters. It needs to be made larger, taken to extremes. How about a Will Hunting type?" "Yeah, great, and let's throw in a dash of Mentalist into the mix and we have ourselves a show!" etc.

It's formula. It's formula beginning to end. The thing is, like store-bought cake, even though formula will never be sublime, it can, when ingredients are applied discriminatingly, be quite palatable and even enjoyable.

HOWEVER: Though the lead actors are all doing a fine job, in the pilot the smaller parts (particularly the client and witness) are horribly acted. The character of Louis is a caricature and just doesn't work for me. It makes the whole story lose believability. The script overflows with House-like snappy comebacks that are fun to watch, but these do not cover up the basic facts that: a. The dramatic situations are contrived and the legalese is completely unrealistic. b. The script is awfully repetitive. I find it appalling that even after just two episodes the writers are so low on ideas. c. The "Eureka!" moment came about half an hour after I figured it out on my own. d. Some of the dialogue is just so fake and cliché I found it grating and painful.

So, really, now it's just a question of whether the series will be able to outgrow its growing pains and mature into something better than formula. The good actors are there (including Gabriel Macht in the lead, sporting a hauntingly young-Sean-Connery-like appearance). The good premise is there. The fun-to-watch back-and-forth is there. The twists are there. The classy-looking locations are there. The engaging music is there.

Now, all that's missing is a few good writers. Absolutely necessary qualifications: 1. Caring about the subject matter. 2. Ability to write natural-sounding dialogue, when snappiness isn't the objective. 3. Original ideas. 4. Basic knowledge of how civil law works.

I wish this show all the best. I really want it to succeed. There is so little to watch on TV these days that is worth opening the telly for. Here, if nothing else, there is potential.
17 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Source Code (2011)
1/10
Hollywood recycles
7 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Source Code has a powerful trailer, setting up some intriguing questions to be answered and hinting at three plots: inside the virtual reality, outside it, and an interplay between these two that should solve some crucial points. Unfortunately, the film itself contains absolutely nothing that isn't already in the trailer. I saw the film with my wife. She fell asleep in the middle, woke up half an hour later and asked me "was he on the train again?" to which I answered "several times". "What did I miss?" "Absolutely nothing." The whole movie is an exercise in wasting time by a screen-writer whose ideas ran out shortly after he thought up a great trailer (read: sales pitch. I can almost hear it: "Inception meets Groundhog Day, and all happening entirely inside the Inner Space capsule!". Unfortunately, other than recycling from the exceedingly overdone "virtual reality" movie genre, this film has nothing). There is only one plot: "whodunit?", and that plot progresses nowhere, and is finished when the question is answered by the first candidate the audience suspects, but the last the protagonist bothers checking. The ending of the movie, on the other hand, is so bad I dare not even blame the poor screenwriter. It must have been the work of a focus group. Whatever its source, it is lame and unconvincing. Do not expect any of the questions posed by the trailer to be answered. They are not.

I see this movie as an homage to Quantum Leap. The classic "stranger in the mirror" scene is featured, and even Scott Bakula is called in to deliver his famous "Oh, boy". (The scene where this happens is, itself, a testament to the emotional inconsistency of the film: the last thing the hero does is the one thing he keeps telling everybody he wants to do.)

My verdict: Quantum Leap deserves so much better than this.
97 out of 180 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Limitless (I) (2011)
8/10
Original, creative, enjoyable
3 April 2011
I feel it needs to be said that this is a superhero movie. We've had a myriad of superhero movies in recent years, but only a handful (e.g. the first Iron Man) were films where it seemed to me cast and crew were not fast asleep but actually cared about what they were doing. This is definitely an example of that rare breed. It is one of those movies where you spend the entire length of the film NOT noticing that it is a superhero movie, and quite possibly this will not dawn on you even on the ride home, because the subject matter is handled seriously: the characters are 3d life-like people; the plot has life-like complexity; there is ambiguity and room for interpretation. Somebody cared. I had my doubts, going in, whether Bradley Cooper can pull this one off. He sure can. Other actors are also at the top of their game. (I don't feel I need to pick out De Niro in particular, here.)

So, the good: Original, creative writing. Original, creative, beautiful cinematography. Original, creative direction. Interesting throughout. Believable, except when it isn't trying to be. Good pacing. Well acted.

The bad: Some scenes stretch credulity. Most by just a little. The fore-last scene is over the top. I loved it. (My wife said: "They're trying to pull a Tarrantino. Right?" and they were.) I can't blame anyone who says this scene ruined the movie for him. It isn't believable. It isn't consistent with the rest. But it's definitely where the roller-coaster that is this movie is at its most extreme. By contrast, the last scene left me with a feeling of something missed. It's like the script saves the best for the sequel.

So, unfortunately, this movie doesn't have an ending that makes you forgive it for everything else. Quite on the contrary. It just happens to be so good that I was willing to forgive it its bad ending.
29 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Skyline (2010)
7/10
OK film; clever filmmaking
29 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I gave this film a 7 because at face value that's what it deserves. However, anyone who takes it at face value is missing the best parts:

1. First off, it isn't an action/adventure. Maybe those who gave it a 1 expected that. It's SciFi/Horror. A group of protagonists are trapped inside a building and are, in turn, devoured by alien monsters. "Alien" is its closest kin, what Ridley Scott once termed "a haunted house in space". Here, the haunted house is a thirty story building, and, like it or not, that IS innovative. This is like Die Hard where the terrorists are aliens and Bruce Willis loses. If you think THIS is formulaic, go see "Battle LA". You deserve it. Another major innovation is that this is a horror movie with no foreshadowing music, with no darkness, without extreme close-up over-the-shoulder shots (and, bless heavens, absolutely no shaky-cam.) It's a horror movie about agoraphobia, not formulaic claustrophobia. You don't see many of those.

2. On another level, consider the plot. People complained there isn't any, but that's not true. It just isn't of the simple, linear, shoot-em-up variety that people who liked the trailer may be expecting. The movie is about a group of people who repeatedly concoct plans of what to do in the face of a force majeure unlike any other, only to have those plans crushed (to the sound of a wet >splat!<) before they can even make the first move. The plot progresses in that their plans increasingly try to achieve less and less. From a major victory they move to a minor win, to a symbolic win, to just having the opportunity to make a stand: a study of human desperation. The directors did well in choosing real-life-like people as protagonists: petty, unwilling to accept the reality of what is going on, non-heroic. Not a single Bruce Willis among them, and that's what makes the movie so worth watching and grounds it in reality.

3. On yet another level, this movie is self-aware cinema which I quite often found out-loud funny. Here are some examples of what I mean: (a) Director credit "The Strause Brothers" is a clear reference to "The Wachowski Brothers", directors of "The Matrix". Some of the flying aliens in Skyline are also, I think, inspired by The Matrix's squids. (b) Not only SciFi, Horror and Haunted House themes are featured. There is also a strong sense of a zombie movie. The aliens are shot, blown up, mauled, beaten up and even axed to death, only to reassert themselves seconds later. This theme is brought to a climax in the film's ending. (Let me just say this: "Brrrains! Fresh Brrrains!") (c) The ridiculously straight-face in which the protagonists grasp at each false hope anew, playing directly on the Hollywood formula. Nowhere is this more prominent as in the brilliant deliberately-bad music by Matthew Margeson (whose line of credits shows he can do a lot better, thank you). The music repeats one theme in all climatic scenes, to the point that the audience can hum it with the soundtrack. It's a piece singing of hope, a heightened spirit, rescue and >splat!< (which is the part where the monsters chew the plan to bits and spit out the pieces). Margeson, you're my hero! ... and there are a lot more examples where that came from. The lighter scene alone is worth the price of admission to me. "Yippee-ki-yay!", only in Spanish.

4. Lastly, and perhaps most in tune with the director's original intentions, this movie is at the forefront of a revolution. This revolution started when CGI replaced incredibly-costly model-building and puppeteering special effects, continued when Weta workshop and its kin replaced incredibly-costly ILM effects, and has been pushed further with upcoming Project London and its likes. CGI VFX is now a commodity. Colin and Greg Strause have shown that two people, working in garage conditions, shooting in their own homes, working with whatever actors they can get, can make a movie indistinguishable from those playing in the big league. Yes, the non-appearance of Bruce Willis is quite noticeable here, too. If you want Bruce Willis, go see The Fifth Element. If you want Matt Damon, go see The Adjustment Bureau. In both cases, you will see big-money actors wasted on a poor script propped by unconvincing VFX. This is not to say that either of those movies is a waste of your money. I just think this one, on the same scale, is better. To man the role of "the guy with the plan" Colin and Greg Strause cast both Donald Faison ("Turk" from Scrubs) and David Zayas ("Angel" from Dexter) (another self-aware stroke of genius: the two appear in practically every scene without having a single common scene. For all intents and purposes, they're just playing one person.) These two TV actors were cast specifically to recap their TV characters: well-meaning, pretty cool, apparently dependable, but ultimately clueless. (My only real qualm with this movie is that Faison and Zayas didn't bite the hands that feed them, and, contrary to directorial directions, decided to show that they DO have more range than that.) So, basically, the gauntlet has been thrown: Hollywood, what are you wasting all your big bucks on? Why can't you do any better than what these guys did using a fraction of what you're spending? So, I'm well aware that this movie isn't everyone's cup of tea, but to those who can (and are willing to) appreciate what was done here, I think it's really worthwhile. I sincerely hope that Colin and Greg Strause make a lot of money off of this flick, because I want to see what they come up with next. People have complained about the originality of this film. I think it's as avant garde as any Tarrantino.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unknown (I) (2011)
8/10
"Frantic". Not "Taken".
28 February 2011
I went to see Unknown after reading some baffling mixed reviews here. Some were saying the movie is horrid and just like "Taken", others were saying that it's wonderful and nothing like "Taken". To me the very analogy was disturbing, as I think "Taken" is a bad shoot-em-up video-game pretending to be a movie. Well, for my money, the only commonality between the two movies is their poster. (Neeson, side-facing, gun-toting, grave and menacing -- the resemblance is uncanny, and obviously not accidental. Were the producers trying to capitalize on the success(?) of that train-wreck??)

The movie that one SHOULD make comparisons to, but that requires a tad better cinematic memory, is Roman Polanski's classic "Frantic". See if you can spot the differences: a doctor and his wife visit a foreign city they are unfamiliar with and where they do not speak the language. Soon after they land, something drastic happens, and the two get separated, after which most of the movie is spent with the doctor trying to figure out what happened to his wife. Police are turned to, but to no avail, as he cannot corroborate his own story. Help comes from an unlikely source: a kooky local girl with an obvious crush on the married, older man. She invites him to her small apartment and from there starts a chase on roof-tops, in cars, and through disorienting night-clubs, at the end of which our protagonist finds that the key to all events lies in something he had all along. Once that is cleared up, and reality once again makes sense, the third act is then dedicated to killing bad guys and getting away with a moderately happy ending. Any of that sounds familiar?

With that comparison in mind, under Polanski's direction Paris is grittier than Collet-Serra's Berlin, and Liam Neeson, though widely-recognized as a fine actor, doesn't bring to the role the intensity that Harrison Ford does. Ford's character is jet-lagged, exhausted, flabbergasted, enraged, and frankly at the end of its wits. Neeson's doctor doesn't even come close. The entire movie Unknown is less a grab-you-by-the-throat thriller and more of a joy-ride. The doctor is only matinée-level enraged, the girl is only PG-kooky, and the moderately-happy ending is more of a crowd-pleaser. All these traits probably make Unknown into a more box-office-friendly movie than Frantic, but I don't think 23 years from now I'll have any recollection that I ever saw it. Frantic, on the other hand, is a cinema classic.

The big stand-out here is Frank Langella, bringing to his performance every inch of the intensity Neeson is lacking. His one joint scene with "Jurgen" (Bruno Ganz) is unforgettable.

Regarding the ending: don't expect too much and you won't be disappointed. After having seen the trailer I wrote down to myself what I thought the big reveal is going to be, and I was right. The fact that this twist can literally be spotted a mile away, however, does not detract from its charm. The script provides ample and effective misdirection, and at no point did I feel cheated.

So, bottom line: If you're looking for cinematic genius, you're barking up the wrong tree. But if you want a fun movie, go see it. Have fun. I know I did.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Much better than we've come to expect
4 February 2011
I really envy Paul Haggis his talent. (And perhaps this statement should also refer to the writers of "Pour Elle", which this is a remake of. I haven't seen it.) What makes this film stand out are (1) The economy of the script. Virtually all plot points and character development are communicated via no more than a single sentence, often by a simple nod or a well-placed camera. This is what scriptwriting is at its best. (2) It not asking you, in stark contrast to most films of the past year or more, to check in your brain at the door. Quite on the contrary, the script plays on the fact that our sense of criticism has been lulled by a slew of bad scripts with buffoons for protagonists, implausible and illogical plot points, and a reliance on CGI-driven art-major-physics in lieu of a plot. (3) For an action movie, it is strikingly humanistic. There are no bad guys. Everybody is doing his/her best to live life. There are no 2D characters. (In a film where nobody has more than a few on-screen moments, save for Russel Crowe, this is an amazing achievement, but all characters are fleshed out, likable and believable, and I rooted for every single one of them, cops and black-market hustlers alike. This is clearly by design: the use of a few strategically-placed Hollywood names, such as Liam Neeson, makes sure that even one-scene appearances leave a lasting impression.) (4) Because it's not about car chases. It's about people. It asks a simple question: how far will you be willing to go for the ones you love? The answer is not a simple one. Crowe's character, unlike most action heroes, doesn't implicitly assume that ends justify means, whilst leaving a trail of bodies behind him. Quite on the contrary. He needs to justify to himself each action he takes, and quite often his conclusions go against the grain of his ultimate goal. At no point is there loss of accountability on the part of any of the characters.

Maybe its level of intensity isn't enough for it to rank among Hollywood's great classics, but I enjoyed it, and I miss the days when thrillers used to be as good as this. Most, these days, are junk.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Good job, despite the direction
18 October 2010
This documentary took the road most taken: if you're documenting Python, be Pythonesque. That's why it gets an 8 and not a 10. The mini-sketch at the beginning got to be annoying about half-way through it at the first watching. I really didn't need the joke repeated 6 times. (And it is more reminiscent of the opening scene of Gilliam's Brazil than of anything by Python, anyway.) Then there are the animations meant to be homage's to Gilliam's works. Another miss. And there's the cutting-people-off-in-mid-sentence in interviews (which, of the Pythonesque directorial touches is the one that works best, in my opinion). The interviewee-being-seen-in-a-profile motif also detracted from the documentary. In short, directorially it's in a bad shape.

Having said that, the rest of it I loved. It is a candid tale of a troupe who got together only by some strange series of flukes, remained together for as long as they did because their various antics and inter-group quibbling somehow managed to cancel each other, left us an incredibly funny legacy (the highlights of which were done as quick-and-dirty solutions to some odd problems) and finally were fed up with it and went on to do other great things separately.

At no point does it feel like anyone is holding anything back. For example, the group is very open about their complete lack of interest in each other's personal lives, and how that made them not see what was going on in Graham Chapman's life, even when it was too big to miss.

Intermixed with this are well-chosen bits of archive footage (including interviews with Chapman that are edited in to sound just like the interviews with the five surviving members), some perspective interviews with friends and contemporary comedians (as well as some actors and musicians), and mentions of some notable fans (mostly from the music business).

I am a Python fan, but (like the group itself, apparently) never dug into their personal lives, feeling that their body of work should speak for itself. So, to me, much of this was new, and I thought that just hearing the story of George Harrison's house and its connection to Life of Brian -- that alone would have made the watching of this documentary worthwhile... and there's a lot more where that came from.

A solid, well deserved 8.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rubicon (2010)
7/10
Suspense is a balancing act – and this show's balance is tipping
13 August 2010
If asked after the pilot, I would have given this series a 9/10. An episode later: 8/10. Now, after their third episode, it's down to 7/10.

The good:

The concept: A return to the "paranoia" genre of the 70s, but with a twist. The world-dominating clandestine organization is divided into echelons, and no matter how high up the hierarchy we glimpse, all we see are more and more pencil-pushing bureaucrats. "Truxton Spangler", the head of the protagonist's sub-organization is introduced as someone not powerful enough to open a small crack in his office's window in order to steal a few whiffs of a cigarette. (This is perhaps a tongue-in-cheek reference to The Smoking Man from The X-Files. The show is riddled with such references, such as the pilot's opening, lifted directly from "Three Days of the Condor". I would have preferred originality.) The concept is both innovative and daring, at least in TV, and that alone commands some attention.

The characters: Despite some too-cluttered relationships and an over-populated character list (everybody in the show seems to have a rotten family life), the characters are all well rounded and believable. So far, I still care for them.

The excellent dialogs: (This, perhaps, above all.) It's hard to find these days, in film or TV, dialogs that are as terse as the ones on this show, and that force the viewer to think, to reach into the internal monologues and to mentally fill the gaping silences. You can't zap through this series, but watching it closely is a rewarding experience.

The art direction: In the spirit of the old "paranoia" movies, the colors are all bleached and gray. The only bright colors are the reds of two large "Stop" signs. The series also maintains a somewhat back-dated feel with its lack of cell-phones and Internet presence.

The music: mood-setting and effective.

Arliss Howard: Stellar performance as the shark-in-the-kiddies'-pool. Arliss plays a spook with a killer instinct trying to blend in with the pencil pushers.

The bad:

There seems to be no plot. The pilot sets out with two leading characters, each investigating a death that we know to involve foul play, but since that point, they've been mostly running around in circles, chasing a set of unconvincing and unhelpful clues left to them by the dead (who could have just said, outright, what they mean, but didn't).

The pilot and episode 2 included crossword puzzle questions to the audience that were completely disjointed from anything else on screen. That was annoying and broke the thread of events.

The bottom line: Suspense is what happens when you're glued to the edge of your seat not because something is happening on screen (It isn't) but because you anticipate something to happen shortly. It is a balancing act notoriously difficult to maintain successfully in a TV series. If too many things actually happen, there is no suspense. If not enough things happen, the suspense goes sour. "Lost" somehow managed to pull it off by convincing its persistent audience that answers will, eventually, come, and by continuously raising more and more questions. I think the collective anger at "Lost"'s failure to deliver any answers made viewers even less patient now than they were before. I think this is what axed "FlashForward" (which actually did deliver a constant stream of answers), and if "Rubicon" doesn't start moving the plot forward, and quickly, I fear it will suffer the same fate. Currently, the pace of the show is highly reminiscent of "The Conversation". This may have made it an instant classic in 1974, but in 2010 we just don't have that kind of patience anymore. I am going to give this show two more weeks, three on the outside, and if it doesn't start picking up the pace, it will have lost me. That would be a shame, as the show has so much talent and so much potential. In the words of the dialog between two of the clandestine operatives: "He's on the ledge again." "Do we care?"
42 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Toy Story 3 (2010)
10/10
Pixar pulled it off yet again
12 July 2010
Let me start off by saying that I am not a fan of sequels. Never have been. The idea of squeezing a few more bucks out of people by rehashing a successful title, I find despicable. Even though I am a Pixar fan, I thought "Toy Story 2" was their weakest release to-date. But THIS movie, well, this is a work of art on its own right. Calling it a sequel is like saying that "Wicked" is a prequel to The Wizard of Oz. The love to the characters and the story shines through every scene, and the emotions the movie invokes are genuine: you will laugh, you will cry, and you will sometimes do the two simultaneously. The folks at Pixar continue to amaze me by topping both their CGI abilities and their storytelling abilities each and every time. Here, CGI highlights include clutter, voluminous light and fire effects. (When I watched James Cameron's Avatar I distinctly recall thinking "well, they've got the water, fabric and skin right. I guess we'll have to wait until Pixar makes a fire movie in order to see realistic CGI flames...") Clutter we already saw much of in Wall-E, and other stuff (fur, facial expressions, gravity, wind, etc.) that Pixar pioneered in earlier films now take their places in the background, making the world of "Toy Story 3" much more real and large than in earlier movies, without upstaging anything.

I will not go into the storytelling for fear of spoiling any surprises, but I will say this: it is good. Humor, action, relationships, story, pacing - everything finds its place here, and even though one would rightfully say that parts of the plot have been rehashed from earlier Toy Story movies, Pixar did take (as it always does) some risks with the plot, and these risks paid off: the story comes together better than ever.

Pixar returns to its roots here. The movie, tone-wise, is far from Pixar's latest installments, but in this return to the roots Pixar continues to show that it did not lose its mastery in the art of animation storytelling. The CGI, spectacular though it is, does not serve as an excuse for making a "like live-action only animated" movie. Every character - from Ken the doll to Slinky Dog - is explored for its graphic/physical potential and how this reflects its own emotionality and its relationship with the other characters. In short: an animator's dream.

I had lots of fun watching this movie. It's been a while since I've been able to say that.

Two thumbs up from me. I don't know how Pixar does it every time, but the folks there certainly pulled it off yet again, setting a new bar for all others to gawk at and envy.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Wow. FINALLY somebody got this one right.
17 November 2009
The SF&F genre in Hollywood seems to be under the following curse: "How can one create good SciFi, when the huge special effects budget leaves nothing for good writers, directors, actors, etc.?" So, it's good that every once in a while a movie comes along to remind us all what good SF&F is all about. It's not about the special effects (which this movie lacks almost completely). SF&F is a sharp blade that cuts through the most complicated and delicate topics by use of allegory, thereby making its way straight into our hearts and minds, bypassing all our defenses, prejudices and preconceptions. Here, this blade is directed towards the nature of romantic relationships. It's amazing how, after so many decades of Hollywood movies regurgitating the old boy-meets-girl formula at us, a movie that comes out in 2009 can still make us feel "Wow. FINALLY somebody got this one right."

The treatment of romantic relationships (and the lighter treatment of other types of relationships) presented in this movie is the most keen and insightful study of the topic I have ever seen on film. Henry and Clare DeTamble's relationship is a walk-through of this topic. We see how, despite being clearly meant for each other, the two experience the problems of an asymmetrical first encounter, the need to bolt when they realize "I only just met you, and already you want me to spend my whole life with you?"; they feel the rush of euphoria when their preconceptions of romance are met with real life, and the crash when life doesn't stand up to its preconceived idealization. We learn, through the DeTambles, that no matter how long you've been with anyone, you'll never truly understand the world he inhabits. This will leave you stranded when your partner goes off to where you cannot follow, to places and activities you barely understand. At other times it is exhilarating, because no matter how well you complete each-other's sentences, your partner will always continue to surprise you, sometimes seeming to appear out of nowhere where and when you least expected to see him.

This is real life, and is only the tip of the iceberg of what can be seen and learned here, in only 107 minutes of film.

I saw this movie and felt that I have lived the things it talks about. It's not a perfect movie. Don't go to it if you're looking for some light entertainment. Despite the categorization into "SciFi", you will not see here anybody rushing to save the world or super-bombs exploding. It is also not a competition for movies like "When Harry Met Sally", because it doesn't try to be glib and witty about the idiosyncrasies of human life. It just tries to describe human life for what it is, so that you won't miss it when it happens to you.

I was apprehensive going into this movie: Eric Bana isn't my favorite actor and I wasn't sure Rachel McAdams would handle the complexities of her character well, either. (It seems that the Hollywood Boy-Meets-Girl genre is under a similar curse to that of SF&F. It is: "How can we make a good romantic movie, when the budget for big-name stars leaves nothing for writers, directors, a supporting cast, etc.?" I guess this movie escaped that fate by not casting Angelina Jolie and (executive producer) Brad Pitt in the titular roles.) I was, going in, pretty sure this will be a botched up chick-flick with some fantasy thrown in to give the guys something to do while they munch on their popcorn. In other words, I expected another "Benjamin Button", where time in the theater not only seemed to slow down to a halt, but actually started ticking backwards.

It was anything but.

Bruce Joel Rubin's screen-play is top notch. Director Robert Schwentke handles the subtleties brilliantly, never letting us get distracted from the main topic. The actors -- all of them -- inhabit their characters perfectly and deserve a standing ovation. Go see this movie. It's not without its dark moments, but then again, neither is life, and this movie reminds us what makes it so worth living. As for me, I'll be going to buy the book. I've never heard of it prior to seeing the movie, but it just made my must-read list.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed