Impressive visuals, but this is as much science fiction as science fact - the level of speculation that goes on mars it. It routinely ignores non-degradable garbage and nuclear waste in its prognostication, there are huge leaps in logic - for instance, involving zoo animals. They present the only issue as whether they can get out of the zoos, not if they can actually survive the wild, they will actually mate, if there is enough diversity to even create a gene pool for the species to survive. In essence, this show takes incredibly complicated issues with multiple factors and boils them all down to more simple ones. Plus, they misrepresented an area of Chernobyl in order to make their point! There was something vaguely Republican about the whole thing, the idea that no matter what we do to the Earth, it's okay, because it's going to turn back into a pristine Garden of Eden anyhow! Enjoy this for what it is - a science fiction documentary.
Reviews
22 Reviews
The Last King of Scotland
(2006)
Falls short of its promise
16 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
300,000 Ugandans dead and we have to see the story unfold through the eyes of a Scottish jerk? Unfortunately, my intense dislike for that character only put me at arm's length from the story and made me care not one bit when he is strung up by his nipples at the end. In fact, I was sorry that so many Africans had to die, but this selfish idiot gets away. I understand that was partially the point of the film - it's bluntly stated at the end for those of us who might have missed it the same statements of intent earlier but it didn't service the suspense very well, especially since if you know anything about history, you already know how it will end and also because it's no great insight any longer that white people in Africa are condescending, horrible elitists who have little respect for the people of the continent. There has to be some more insight than a few toss off lines and some oblivious guy looking for adventure. I also would have appreciated walking out of it with more insight to Amin - unfortunately, the story unfolds through the eyes of someone who is naive and selfish, so he doesn't actually notice the horror for most of the film and when he finally does, it's in the form of a very confusing stylized scene that doesn't really serve much more of a purpose than to shock you with brutality. Yes, we GET Amin is brutal, but I also know there's more to the whole damn thing. This could have been a fascinating political and psychological study especially given Whitaker's fantastic performance but instead I found it diversionary but very shallow.
Lost in Space
(1998)
Pleasant surprise after all the jaded eye rolling
1 September 2007
Actually, I was quite surprised at how much fun I thought this movie was. Hardly perfect by any measure and, sure, there were some elements that were intrusive, but I found it to be quite faithful to the TV show - it used plots and elements from the early episodes. Even with the newer designs, they incorporated older aspects - the planet REALLY looked like a better version of one of their old sets.
Furthermore, Oldman managed to peg Dr. Smith perfectly, taking in all the old camp elements and putting them to very good use - even using some old catch phrases in different ways.
As diversionary, light sci-fi adventure goes, I thought this was great and I'm usually very picky about this kind of thing. It was fun and a pretty good kids' movie.
The only thing really missing was Billy Mumy.
Furthermore, Oldman managed to peg Dr. Smith perfectly, taking in all the old camp elements and putting them to very good use - even using some old catch phrases in different ways.
As diversionary, light sci-fi adventure goes, I thought this was great and I'm usually very picky about this kind of thing. It was fun and a pretty good kids' movie.
The only thing really missing was Billy Mumy.
Tideland
(2005)
Bad art
5 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Any film that starts out with a defensive disclaimer from the director explaining to the viewer how the film "should" be viewed is immediately suspect to me. It implies that what I am about to see wasn't done right and the director needs to do a lot of backtracking to make it seem like the whole thing was on purpose.
And that is exactly how "Tideland" unfolded.
Though sold as "bold" cinema for those who aren't happy to be placated by Hollywood junk, "Tideland" is nothing of the sort. It's a pretentious folly - it tries so hard to shock that it comes off like an old John Waters film without the youthful snickering and it seems to think that if you wrap it all in very forced allusions to "Alice in Wonderland," you've got yourself some art.
The first problem with the film is Gilliam's assertion that it is a testament to the resilience of children. The ending implies that adversity is bludgeoned from the soul with the right amount of imagination, but the whole film is populated with horrible adults who were not resilient children in the slightest - they are damaged, broken people lashing out. There is no resilience on display anywhere - and even the ending doesn't reveal resilience so much as dumb luck.
Furthermore, Gilliam's proposition is an either/or one, a simplistic proclamation of a complicated circumstance. Surviving does not mean wholeness, as Gilliam's rose-colored glasses ending implies. There are degrees upon degrees of subtle trauma that such survival entails - surely the topic deserves more than his standard theme of people retreating into their imagination in order to survive in the world they find themselves. It's the same story for every movie the man has made and it feels incredibly tacked on in this one.
The second problem is that Gillliam populates the film with cartoon characters that don't elicit any real sympathy or horror. I understand that he is trying to do the fairy tale schtick, but it doesn't work because the moral he is pushing is so flawed that it needs nuance more than archetypes to address the real thematic concerns that can come out of this story. Jeff Bridges and Jennifer Tilly aren't particularly menacing, they're just goofy. They seem like Hollywood actors pretending to be camped-up degenerates. They are like something out of the Batman TV show.
The third problem is the lead actress, who just hasn't got what it takes to carry a whole film, particularly one that spends A LOT of time with just her talking to herself. She seems so directed, so controlled by what Gilliam wants her to do, that there is nothing natural in her performance at all - she is more like Gilliam's idea of what a child acts like rather than a real person - and the portrayal of this character is so grating between the actress' limitations and Gilliam's inept conception of her that she brings no sympathy to a character who should demand much.
The fourth problem is that it is long and boring. A good half hour needs to be cut out just to stop the meandering. The supposed shocking nature of the film comes off as the desperate attempt of an old director to prove he still has his edge - it's not jarring so much a coma-inducing. And that's the saddest part. For all the implications of the disclaimer at the end, it actually doesn't deliver in its promised provocation and it becomes obvious that it just never occurred to Gilliam that the reason some people didn't like it isn't because it's scandalous or because they don't understand what he was trying to do, but because he just didn't do it very well at any stage of the production.
I respect him for trying something different, but the nature of an experiment is that the chance exists that it might fail and anyone with any real grip on the creative journey needs to accept that and be able to examine what went wrong, rather than be defensive about it.
And that is exactly how "Tideland" unfolded.
Though sold as "bold" cinema for those who aren't happy to be placated by Hollywood junk, "Tideland" is nothing of the sort. It's a pretentious folly - it tries so hard to shock that it comes off like an old John Waters film without the youthful snickering and it seems to think that if you wrap it all in very forced allusions to "Alice in Wonderland," you've got yourself some art.
The first problem with the film is Gilliam's assertion that it is a testament to the resilience of children. The ending implies that adversity is bludgeoned from the soul with the right amount of imagination, but the whole film is populated with horrible adults who were not resilient children in the slightest - they are damaged, broken people lashing out. There is no resilience on display anywhere - and even the ending doesn't reveal resilience so much as dumb luck.
Furthermore, Gilliam's proposition is an either/or one, a simplistic proclamation of a complicated circumstance. Surviving does not mean wholeness, as Gilliam's rose-colored glasses ending implies. There are degrees upon degrees of subtle trauma that such survival entails - surely the topic deserves more than his standard theme of people retreating into their imagination in order to survive in the world they find themselves. It's the same story for every movie the man has made and it feels incredibly tacked on in this one.
The second problem is that Gillliam populates the film with cartoon characters that don't elicit any real sympathy or horror. I understand that he is trying to do the fairy tale schtick, but it doesn't work because the moral he is pushing is so flawed that it needs nuance more than archetypes to address the real thematic concerns that can come out of this story. Jeff Bridges and Jennifer Tilly aren't particularly menacing, they're just goofy. They seem like Hollywood actors pretending to be camped-up degenerates. They are like something out of the Batman TV show.
The third problem is the lead actress, who just hasn't got what it takes to carry a whole film, particularly one that spends A LOT of time with just her talking to herself. She seems so directed, so controlled by what Gilliam wants her to do, that there is nothing natural in her performance at all - she is more like Gilliam's idea of what a child acts like rather than a real person - and the portrayal of this character is so grating between the actress' limitations and Gilliam's inept conception of her that she brings no sympathy to a character who should demand much.
The fourth problem is that it is long and boring. A good half hour needs to be cut out just to stop the meandering. The supposed shocking nature of the film comes off as the desperate attempt of an old director to prove he still has his edge - it's not jarring so much a coma-inducing. And that's the saddest part. For all the implications of the disclaimer at the end, it actually doesn't deliver in its promised provocation and it becomes obvious that it just never occurred to Gilliam that the reason some people didn't like it isn't because it's scandalous or because they don't understand what he was trying to do, but because he just didn't do it very well at any stage of the production.
I respect him for trying something different, but the nature of an experiment is that the chance exists that it might fail and anyone with any real grip on the creative journey needs to accept that and be able to examine what went wrong, rather than be defensive about it.
Life on Mars
(2006–2007)
Don't bring a fine tooth comb if you want to enjoy
13 April 2007
The first series of "Life on Mars" is fun enough, but frustrating in that it doesn't finish the story. Unfortunately, the second series feels like a concept that has been stretch beyond its limits and only the last two episodes are much of interest - everything that comes before them is really more of the same.
The problem lies in the fact that the time travel story is far more interesting than most of the cop drama - and that is because a lot of the cop drama is cartoonish and sometimes a bit sloppy. Investigations often hinge on coincidence and are plagued by the need to suspend your disbelief incredibly - often, you are left wondering why they didn't think to look into this or that, things that seem obvious but they are oblivious to. They're the worst group of investigators since the Torchwood gang. You can write it off to the dream world quality of the series, but one would expect even if the 70s cops are shoddy, Sam Tyler would not be.
It also suffers from the fact that every time the character of Gene Hunt seems to be progressing - which he did in the first series - he is drawn back to square one - brutal, boorish. The character is really stuck in one gear after awhile, which makes no sense within the logic of the actual story and, eventually, just becomes unpleasant.
All that said, if you leave your common sense at the door, the show can be fun - and the performances are often the reason it holds interest. They rise above the scripts astoundingly and are to be highly commended for holding the show together.
The problem lies in the fact that the time travel story is far more interesting than most of the cop drama - and that is because a lot of the cop drama is cartoonish and sometimes a bit sloppy. Investigations often hinge on coincidence and are plagued by the need to suspend your disbelief incredibly - often, you are left wondering why they didn't think to look into this or that, things that seem obvious but they are oblivious to. They're the worst group of investigators since the Torchwood gang. You can write it off to the dream world quality of the series, but one would expect even if the 70s cops are shoddy, Sam Tyler would not be.
It also suffers from the fact that every time the character of Gene Hunt seems to be progressing - which he did in the first series - he is drawn back to square one - brutal, boorish. The character is really stuck in one gear after awhile, which makes no sense within the logic of the actual story and, eventually, just becomes unpleasant.
All that said, if you leave your common sense at the door, the show can be fun - and the performances are often the reason it holds interest. They rise above the scripts astoundingly and are to be highly commended for holding the show together.
For Your Consideration
(2006)
Christopher Guest is coasting
10 April 2007
I wouldn't call it a bad movie by any measure - it's well put together and performed, certainly - I wouldn't necessarily want to portray it as a good one either. Leastwise, it's certainly not a very satisfying one.
The reason for this is that so little of it is funny. That's really the bottom line there. The only things that made me crack up were one line from Ricky Gervais and just about everything out of Jennifer Coolidge's mouth. The rest was met with slight chuckles and silence.
Part of the reason that it wasn't very funny was that the film lacks something very important - a moral and/or sympathetic center. This is usually the function of Eugene Levy, but it was abandoned in favor of a one-joke character that he could do in his sleep. Catherine O'Hara's performance as an aging actress was extremely good, but I wouldn't call it sympathetic.
This leads to two other problems. One, it becomes a big insider joke, which can be boring to the rest of us out here in the real world, and two, because all the characters appear to be treated with maximum disdain by the filmmakers. If the filmmaker hates his characters, why should the audience like them? I have had some doubts about Christopher Guest since "A Mighty Wind," a movie I mostly liked, but was annoyed by as well. I couldn't understand why Guest was giving so much screen time to the cheap laughs from the one-joke entity of the Main Street Singers, thus stealing away precious moments with Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara's tale of funny sadness. Then I saw all these DVD outtakes with some great scenes between those two which were apparently expunged in order to include more porn jokes and I thought "this guy has lost any sense of sophistication in comedy." "For Your Consideration" did not make me feel any better about him.
The reason for this is that so little of it is funny. That's really the bottom line there. The only things that made me crack up were one line from Ricky Gervais and just about everything out of Jennifer Coolidge's mouth. The rest was met with slight chuckles and silence.
Part of the reason that it wasn't very funny was that the film lacks something very important - a moral and/or sympathetic center. This is usually the function of Eugene Levy, but it was abandoned in favor of a one-joke character that he could do in his sleep. Catherine O'Hara's performance as an aging actress was extremely good, but I wouldn't call it sympathetic.
This leads to two other problems. One, it becomes a big insider joke, which can be boring to the rest of us out here in the real world, and two, because all the characters appear to be treated with maximum disdain by the filmmakers. If the filmmaker hates his characters, why should the audience like them? I have had some doubts about Christopher Guest since "A Mighty Wind," a movie I mostly liked, but was annoyed by as well. I couldn't understand why Guest was giving so much screen time to the cheap laughs from the one-joke entity of the Main Street Singers, thus stealing away precious moments with Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara's tale of funny sadness. Then I saw all these DVD outtakes with some great scenes between those two which were apparently expunged in order to include more porn jokes and I thought "this guy has lost any sense of sophistication in comedy." "For Your Consideration" did not make me feel any better about him.
Cracker
(2006 TV Movie)
A waste of Coltrane
9 December 2006
The social commentary was way overblown and the mystery itself is built and solved through a series of implausible coincidences that were entirely unbelievable. Nothing has changed in Fitz's personal life in the past decade that makes it remotely interesting.
I even had trouble understanding why he was complaining about his stay in Australia as compared to the opportunities to solve mysteries that he has in England. Can he not insinuate himself on the Australian police? It seems like a very artificial plot point to get him involved in a crime investigation.
The latter episodes of the original series were pretty melodramatic and implausible, sometimes bordering on silliness, and this one picks up that mantle rather than returning to the focus of series one. Sad.
I even had trouble understanding why he was complaining about his stay in Australia as compared to the opportunities to solve mysteries that he has in England. Can he not insinuate himself on the Australian police? It seems like a very artificial plot point to get him involved in a crime investigation.
The latter episodes of the original series were pretty melodramatic and implausible, sometimes bordering on silliness, and this one picks up that mantle rather than returning to the focus of series one. Sad.
Afterlife
(I) (2005–2006)
Major Disappointment
4 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Given Lesley Sharp's involvement, I had hoped for something as special as "Bob and Rose" or "The Second Coming," where the story-telling wasn't reliant on some obvious clichés. While Sharpe's performance adds uncountable dimensions onto her character, not much else in the show does - it's the most "American style" UK show I have seen in ages.
The set-up isn't very original - skeptical rationalist doubts that the medium is real, but his skepticism isn't drawn from his intellect and desire for actual proof, but from his own personal tragedies that taint his logic. In fact logic and rationality are presented as believing Sharp's character at face value - the dead do walk - and if you don't, it's just a shame that you are so blinded by your emotions. It's an unsettling turnabout in logic and it doesn't help that the skeptic is portrayed as an intellectually bullying, emotionally needling, selfish prat. The decks are stacked, conflict wise, and you already know where the series is going.
I also take issue with the fact that these spirits torture Sharpe's character, demanding that she pass on messages and, yet, show quite clearly that they have the ability to take matters into their own hands - they can affect reality quite easily and often get what they want - which nullifies the entire point of the series. If the spirits are so adept at doing this, why are they bothering with using this woman to get their message across when it is so inefficient - hardly anyone believes her and she ends up having to take two steps backward for each step forward - when the spirits handle their own problems, it is much more efficient.
A waste of the enormously talented Lesley Sharpe, to be sure.
The set-up isn't very original - skeptical rationalist doubts that the medium is real, but his skepticism isn't drawn from his intellect and desire for actual proof, but from his own personal tragedies that taint his logic. In fact logic and rationality are presented as believing Sharp's character at face value - the dead do walk - and if you don't, it's just a shame that you are so blinded by your emotions. It's an unsettling turnabout in logic and it doesn't help that the skeptic is portrayed as an intellectually bullying, emotionally needling, selfish prat. The decks are stacked, conflict wise, and you already know where the series is going.
I also take issue with the fact that these spirits torture Sharpe's character, demanding that she pass on messages and, yet, show quite clearly that they have the ability to take matters into their own hands - they can affect reality quite easily and often get what they want - which nullifies the entire point of the series. If the spirits are so adept at doing this, why are they bothering with using this woman to get their message across when it is so inefficient - hardly anyone believes her and she ends up having to take two steps backward for each step forward - when the spirits handle their own problems, it is much more efficient.
A waste of the enormously talented Lesley Sharpe, to be sure.
LIghten up, it was a sweet little romantic comedy
3 July 2006
In a season that has bee populated by shoddiness - often good ideas are either poorly executed or laden with useless plot gratuities that have become so ho hum lately or the character of Rose is just annoying - this one is more like a little science fiction romantic comedy that just happens to feature the Doctor and Rose and could easily be viewed and enjoyed without ever seeing any other episode of the series ever again.
The plot concerns a guy who becomes very interested in this mysterious figure the Doctor and hooks up with a club devoted to the same pursuit that he meets online. The club is filled with the same kind of awkward but friendly types and their discussions of the Doctor eventually morph into pot luck dinners and a cute, silly little rock band that does ELO covers - until a mysterious fellow shows up and commandeers the group in order to find more out about the Doctor.
Marc Warren is sweet and goofy as Elton and Peter Kay is nicely over the top as the mysterious guy who takes over. It's very light entertainment, but nonetheless touching and funny . . . and out of left field, really. It's nice to see that in this season of retreads and by-the-numbers half thought out junk that writer Russell T. Davies could take a moment to try something a little different for a change.
The plot concerns a guy who becomes very interested in this mysterious figure the Doctor and hooks up with a club devoted to the same pursuit that he meets online. The club is filled with the same kind of awkward but friendly types and their discussions of the Doctor eventually morph into pot luck dinners and a cute, silly little rock band that does ELO covers - until a mysterious fellow shows up and commandeers the group in order to find more out about the Doctor.
Marc Warren is sweet and goofy as Elton and Peter Kay is nicely over the top as the mysterious guy who takes over. It's very light entertainment, but nonetheless touching and funny . . . and out of left field, really. It's nice to see that in this season of retreads and by-the-numbers half thought out junk that writer Russell T. Davies could take a moment to try something a little different for a change.
Zathura: A Space Adventure
(2005)
Waste of Time
27 November 2005
It was a weak book to begin with and the screenplay does little to add anything to it - it smelled like the first book Chris Van Allsburg wrote specifically to be turned into a movie. I prefer the cartoon series of Jumanji to this.
As for the family values, the film is really about the bonding of males rather than the bonding of family - the parents are divorced and the mother goes unseen and the sister is a waste of space, mostly there to be bitchy and self-centered (even at the end, she hasn't changed - is she a stand-in for the mother? Did the screenwriter get divorced recently?) and for the camera to have an unseemly preoccupation with body. Everyone I saw it with was pretty weirded out by the way the camera leered at her.
It's a shame, because Elf was a good movie, but Van Allsburg's quiet books don't seem to translate to the screen very well.
As for the family values, the film is really about the bonding of males rather than the bonding of family - the parents are divorced and the mother goes unseen and the sister is a waste of space, mostly there to be bitchy and self-centered (even at the end, she hasn't changed - is she a stand-in for the mother? Did the screenwriter get divorced recently?) and for the camera to have an unseemly preoccupation with body. Everyone I saw it with was pretty weirded out by the way the camera leered at her.
It's a shame, because Elf was a good movie, but Van Allsburg's quiet books don't seem to translate to the screen very well.
Beneath the Planet of the Very Silly Confused Head Shaking Hollywood Filmmakers
7 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
After viewing this movie for the first time in 25 years, my first reaction is to say "Um . . . okay" and back off as if I had encountered some psychotic rambling junkie who was fascinating but somehow dangerous.
I was a big fan of the Apes movies as a kid and I did remember this for not quite living up to the original, so I was prepared for all that . .. what I wasn't quite prepared for was something so incoherent on its own terms as well as the terms of being a sequel.
I still don't quite understand why Dr. Zaius allowed the gorillas to storm the Forbidden Zone to attack an unknown enemy, that doesn't make any sense.
Why was Brent on a rescue mission for Taylor? I thought traveling to the future was the point of Taylor's mission. And if it was an aberration in time, as they suggested, why was this aberration consistent enough to get Brent there a few weeks after Taylor landed?
Why were the mutants wearing masks? How did they get that big atomic bomb up there anyhow? Who were they trying to hide their faces from?
There are so many details like this that don't quite click about this movie.
Bizarre and incoherent. Sure, worth watching as an oddity but . . . I bet the cartoon TV show Return to the Planet of the Apes was made more sense . . . as a bonus, it did feature Brent and Nova as characters . . .
I was a big fan of the Apes movies as a kid and I did remember this for not quite living up to the original, so I was prepared for all that . .. what I wasn't quite prepared for was something so incoherent on its own terms as well as the terms of being a sequel.
I still don't quite understand why Dr. Zaius allowed the gorillas to storm the Forbidden Zone to attack an unknown enemy, that doesn't make any sense.
Why was Brent on a rescue mission for Taylor? I thought traveling to the future was the point of Taylor's mission. And if it was an aberration in time, as they suggested, why was this aberration consistent enough to get Brent there a few weeks after Taylor landed?
Why were the mutants wearing masks? How did they get that big atomic bomb up there anyhow? Who were they trying to hide their faces from?
There are so many details like this that don't quite click about this movie.
Bizarre and incoherent. Sure, worth watching as an oddity but . . . I bet the cartoon TV show Return to the Planet of the Apes was made more sense . . . as a bonus, it did feature Brent and Nova as characters . . .
Doctor Who
(2005–2022)
Fantastic
25 April 2005
I have now had the pleasure of watching through the fourth episode and can say that I think the new series is a delight - and no less a delight than the classic series. As with each Doctor, this is another take on the concept and it's a sharp one at that.
Eccleston's Doctor is the most alien Doctor of them all and his realization is a pleasure. Piper's Rose is the real surprise of the show, she's just very likable and has chutzpah.
This series seems to be less about the Doctor versus aliens than really examining the Doctor's relationship with his companions - why he does it, the psychology of a guy who would keep taking on these people and showing them the whole of the universe - and using the science fiction action as a backdrop. It's very Alan Moore actually. The Doctor comes off as a mix of over eager, kind, self-serving, egotistical, innocent, and many other traits. This is the most complex Doctor after Tom Baker.
Eccleston's Doctor is the most alien Doctor of them all and his realization is a pleasure. Piper's Rose is the real surprise of the show, she's just very likable and has chutzpah.
This series seems to be less about the Doctor versus aliens than really examining the Doctor's relationship with his companions - why he does it, the psychology of a guy who would keep taking on these people and showing them the whole of the universe - and using the science fiction action as a backdrop. It's very Alan Moore actually. The Doctor comes off as a mix of over eager, kind, self-serving, egotistical, innocent, and many other traits. This is the most complex Doctor after Tom Baker.
From Hell
(2001)
Not what it could be
31 October 2004
I figured I would be seeing a watered down version of Alan Moore's graphic novel, but instead I was disappointed to see that they completely changed characters,
relationships, and tacked on a happy ending. Even worse, it was essential in the novel to know who Jack the Ripper was from the beginning in order for the action to work as an examination of the criminal - here it is turned into a cheap whodunnit. Furthermore, psychic phenomenon is dispensed of in the graphic novel - here, it is a cheap plot device. It seems obvious to me that the screenwriters did not understand what they were adapting.
relationships, and tacked on a happy ending. Even worse, it was essential in the novel to know who Jack the Ripper was from the beginning in order for the action to work as an examination of the criminal - here it is turned into a cheap whodunnit. Furthermore, psychic phenomenon is dispensed of in the graphic novel - here, it is a cheap plot device. It seems obvious to me that the screenwriters did not understand what they were adapting.
Fahrenheit 9/11
(2004)
Think for yourself
12 July 2004
To call this a Bush-bashing film is an embarrassing bit of oversimplification. Moore indicts the Democrats and the national news media, as well as the citizens of our own country. He makes the apparently daring statement that we all have culpability and being able to take responsibility for mistakes and wrongdoing is the first step in correcting them.
Words like manipulation, bias, anger, rant are all being used to downgrade
Moore's opinion, but his is as valid as anyone else's and the only post I have seen on this review thread to really address the specifics of these accusations calls Bush the greatest president since Washington, which shows less a facile scholarship about Bush than it does about Washington himself.
Many of the points in Moore's documentary have been attainable facts for quite a while now, though many are under reported, some have never been strung together in quite this fashion, and few still have been used to an editorial point. But they have been there for those who pay attention.
The right talks about the left being filled with rage as if that honest emotion is shameful. The funny thing is that all I see in the conservative responses to this film - indeed to any criticism of the president - is a seething anger that seems on the verge of popping a vein in their forehead.
The larger message of the film is the same message as in any of Moore's films - that the upper class will always manipulate data in such a way that the lower class will think that what is bad for them is what is actually good for them. It's the way it has been in our country since Washington and it continues to be the American Way.
So just go see the movie and decide for yourself. Who cares what anyone else has to say?
Words like manipulation, bias, anger, rant are all being used to downgrade
Moore's opinion, but his is as valid as anyone else's and the only post I have seen on this review thread to really address the specifics of these accusations calls Bush the greatest president since Washington, which shows less a facile scholarship about Bush than it does about Washington himself.
Many of the points in Moore's documentary have been attainable facts for quite a while now, though many are under reported, some have never been strung together in quite this fashion, and few still have been used to an editorial point. But they have been there for those who pay attention.
The right talks about the left being filled with rage as if that honest emotion is shameful. The funny thing is that all I see in the conservative responses to this film - indeed to any criticism of the president - is a seething anger that seems on the verge of popping a vein in their forehead.
The larger message of the film is the same message as in any of Moore's films - that the upper class will always manipulate data in such a way that the lower class will think that what is bad for them is what is actually good for them. It's the way it has been in our country since Washington and it continues to be the American Way.
So just go see the movie and decide for yourself. Who cares what anyone else has to say?
The Virgin Suicides
(1999)
Quite Liked With Reservations
12 July 2004
I thought this was a very well-acted and beautifully directed film, and completely worth seeing, but there was an arm's length feeling about it that I can't shake. I felt little empathy towards the sisters from the director, as if they were as much a mystery to her as they were to the boys, audience, and parents of the girls. The problem with this is that when the girls commit suicide, the reasoning behind it is a bit of a mystery, since they really don't give any indication of anything that extreme prior in the film. They seem passive and mysterious, more like mermaids lounging on sunny rocks. Suicide is such a proactive thing to do that it almost seemed out of character and I think that Coppola needed to infuse a little more to make that event feel like it was a logical leap in the story.
Space: 1999
(1975–1977)
Incoherent Magnetism
17 February 2004
I loved this as a kid - after watching a couple episodes, I found it mesmerizing without feeling it was very coherent. It has a strange magnetism to it, though, and the visuals are interesting.
I don't understand why they would put Barbara Bain, who was a very cute lady, in an outfit that made her butt look so wide.
This has a lot in common with other Anderson productions like Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet - including the almost fetishistic attention to the procedures of technological travel and such - but it loses something without the supermarionation, which made Thunderbirds so charming and fun.
Just a week ago, I watched the first four episodes of Lost in Space for the first time in as many years and preferred that - it's leaps in logic are less bothersome since it doesn't aim so high and feign complication - also the personalities are far more engaging.
I don't understand why they would put Barbara Bain, who was a very cute lady, in an outfit that made her butt look so wide.
This has a lot in common with other Anderson productions like Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet - including the almost fetishistic attention to the procedures of technological travel and such - but it loses something without the supermarionation, which made Thunderbirds so charming and fun.
Just a week ago, I watched the first four episodes of Lost in Space for the first time in as many years and preferred that - it's leaps in logic are less bothersome since it doesn't aim so high and feign complication - also the personalities are far more engaging.
Raiders of the Lost Ark
(1981)
Questionable taste
11 November 2003
I enjoy Raiders fine, but I watched it last night for the first time in over a decade and I was struck at how it seemed completely comfortable with the notion that it was all right for good guys and bad guys to run the lives and property of Arabs into the ground, all for the entertainment of westerners. I found that a bit unusual.
Pinocchio
(2002)
very underrated
19 October 2003
The Italian language version is gorgeous and very faithful to the wonderful book. People make too big a deal out of Roberto playing a boy. He's quite good in the role and far more restrained than anything else I've seen him in, except maybe Son of the Pink Panther, which was pretty dreadful. That we are so hung up on the age of a man playing a living puppet shows how much imagination we have lost and how much baggage we bring into a film. It's sad to me that my kids won't be watching the film, because they are too young to read subtitles and the English language version sounds awful. I thought this was great.
People Need To Quite Being So Jaded
1 July 2003
Boy, people sure are obsessing about the flying. What's the big deal? Too many are reacting with indignation either because it wasn't realistic or it isn't as good as OTHER Chinese films or it didn't QUITE live up to the hype. That's your fault for having no imagination, becoming a Chinese film pedant, or paying attention to hype when that's a worthless endeavor. Just watched it five minutes ago. Fun, exciting, engrossing, gorgeous, a great movie. Who cares if it was or wasn't worthy of Oscar nominations? The Oscars are hardly a yardstick of quality anyway, so why pay attention to them? Who cares if it's not The Greatest Film In The History Of Cinema. It was fabulous, simply fabulous.
The Lifestyle
(1999)
the mundanity of sex
29 June 2003
A very good documentary that illustrates one more instance where anything -literally ANYTHING - can be turned into a very geeky, boring pursuit when it is taken to heart by people lacking in imagination.
This film taught me one thing in particular: I wouldn't want to attend a pot luck party with any of these people even without the sex part. The conversation alone would kill me. The sex part would just be dancing on my grave.
This film taught me one thing in particular: I wouldn't want to attend a pot luck party with any of these people even without the sex part. The conversation alone would kill me. The sex part would just be dancing on my grave.
gray
15 June 2003
I can't see anyone who isn't a Wilco fan finding this that interesting, though I would recommend it to anyone who is curious just for the music. There's a lot of great music in here, and the footage of the earlier stages of Yankee Hotel Foxtrot shows the how lovely all the songs are on that album, in the early stages and in their current form. And while I would agree that the film does hinge on hero worship, it doesn't make the portrayal of band dynamics less interesting to a fan. The fact is, it became obvious to me before the Heavy Metal Drummer scene that Jay Bennett is an enormously talented but really really grating, brow beating individual who is very hard to work with. I also think that after several decades, people should get over the fact that rock and roll isn't a communist collective, most bands have one or two figureheads, or centers to the wheel as Tweedy would have it, and that's just part of the bargain of being in a band. If Bennett ever thought that he was equal to Tweedy in Wilco, then it's an example of the fishbowl he put himself in. Here on the outside, it's always appeared to be Tweedy's band and it's always seemed to work that way. The after interviews with Bennett betray his ego and miscomprehension of his role. Maybe that's Tweedy's fault for never expressing it well. It seemed to me like everyone in the band was just sick of the guy. Equally, the manager's job isn't to question Tweedy's moral processes, his job is to serve the interests of Wilco, and he seems to do it well. He actually seems to put the band before the business in many ways and that's good for the band. So, sure, the movie is one-sided, and it could be a much better, much more insightful movie, but just because it is one sided, I don't think that means that the one side is always wrong about everything. And Jay Bennett makes some correct points, too. But that's just life. The film may be in stark black and white, but we all know that life is really gray, it's just Sam Jones hasn't realized it yet.
Far from Heaven
(2002)
breaking free
13 April 2003
While certainly this film is about race and sexual preference, I think its observations are actually much more universal. What it is about - and so many of the movies it references are also about - is how social structures work hard to prevent you from stepping outside your little world. People work hard to control attitudes towards outsiders - in this case, black people and homosexuals - in a negative way that not only keeps them out, but also keeps you in. Many people just don't like it when you seek something from the outside and will be manipulative to keep it so. Witness Patricia Clarkson, who is so manipulative that she has to remind Jualianne Moore how old and dear friends they - oldest and dearest - in such a way that it is a threat more than a comfort. And the film does this within the conventions of the genre it is putting itself in. In many ways, it merely uses the tawdry, cliched imagery of Hollywood soapers in such a way that, if you are not familiar, they may appear to be cliches here. But they are very intentional. And in this way, everything is controlled about the film - reactions, colors, everything. No wonder the characters need to break out of their worlds.
Tell Your Friends