Change Your Image
Idril_Lossehelin
Reviews
The Painted Veil (2006)
Marriage and Morality: Non-Hollywood style
It's not often these days that a movie comes out where "following your heart" is portrayed as not always the best thing in the world.
Kitty Fane (Naomi Watts) leads a miserably boring life married to the quiet, uninteresting bacteriologist, Dr. Walter Fane (the ever-excellent Edward Norton). She married him out of desperation to get away from her mother, and moves with him to 1925 Hong Kong. There she meets the charming, handsome Charlie Townsend (Liev Schrieber), and, having "fallen in love," two begin having an affair. When Fane discovers his wife's unfaithfulness, he drags her out to Mei-Tan-Fu, a city deep in the heart of China where a cholera epidemic rages. It is, by all accounts, "no place for a woman," and Kitty must choose whether she will live in misery and (hopefully) die, or mend the mess she's made of her life.
A winning cast, beautiful scenery, and gorgeous music are only the beginning of what makes this film excellent. The characterization of both Kitty and Walter is superb, and I appreciate it more, having read the book. I was inspired to read it because of this movie, and was surprised by how dismal it is, comparatively. The book, by W. Somerset Maugham, is a deep (and somewhat depressing) story that is almost entirely about Kitty, and Kitty alone. This movie, on the other hand, makes some (in my opinion) much-needed changes in both the story and characterization, lending Walter depth and likableness that the book never offered, and exploring more deeply the culture and situation of 1925 China. The book was bitter; the film is bittersweet.
The only warning I offer is that the pacing is a bit sluggish; it hardly offers "thrills-a-minute." However, it is well worth any slowness you may have to wade through.
A Dog's Breakfast (2007)
Trying too hard.
I'm about to confess something no Stargate: Atlantis fan should ever confess: I didn't like "A Dog's Breakfast." I thought the humor was forced and stale for the most part. A lot if it seemed almost cutesy, which is weird for a movie like this. The plot was incredibly predictable, although some of the situational comedy was not.
I only really found crossdressing Paul McGillion funny, because he did it so well. Oh, and the sci-fi spoof that he was supposed to be starring in. But honestly, David Hewlett was playing a character altogether too similar to Rodney McKay, except ten times dumber, which is not a good thing, in my opinion.
Although, admittedly, Chris Judge's couple of scenes were hilarious. Almost worth sitting through the boring, forced mess that is the rest of the film, which has an almost Home Alone meets Sweeney Todd feel, without the stirring musical numbers (which it might have been able to use).
Overall, I think Hewlett was just trying too hard.
The Sentinel (2006)
Disappointingly dull.
On March 30, 1981, a Secret Service agent took a bullet for President Reagan. That agent was Timothy McCarthy, but, for Hollywood's purposes, that agent's name was changed to Pete Garrison, and he just so happened to look like Michael Douglas. Oh, did we mention that Tim--I mean, uh... Pete... is having an affair with the First Lady?
That's right, Pete Garrison is in love with the First Lady, and when a good friend and coworker of Pete's is shot on his own doorstep, evidently as part of a plot to kill the President, things get a bit sticky for Pete. See, he can't exactly tell everyone he's having an affair, with the First Lady, no less, so he fails a polygraph test. When Jack Bau--I mean, Dave Breckinridge (darn these Freudian slips)--shows up at his doorstep, things get even stickier. See, Dave thinks that Pete had an affair with his wife, so he really doesn't mind investigating his former best friend for treason.
That's when Pete makes a run for it, hiding from the law and the bad guys at the same time, desperately scrambling to find the truth, a la "The Fugitive."
As you may have guessed, this film, directed by Clark Johnson, stars Michael Douglas as Pete Garrison and none other than the illustrious Keifer Sutherland as Dave Breckinridge. It's like "24," except Keifer doesn't shoot anybody's kneecaps. And Michael's the one yelling, "WHO ARE YOU WORKING FOR??!?!!"
The principle females are Kim Bassinger as the Presidential Hussy and Eva Longoria as the blatant eye-candy. The camera even leers at her be-slacked backside. I appreciate your blatant chauvinism, Mr. Johnson.
Content: The usual, moderate cursing, some shooting, a couple of punches, a little blood spattered here and there, nothing to merit nightmares. As for sex, well, Pete and the First Lady get jiggy with it, but they make out and the scene cuts away before we see anything explicit.
Summary: Despite having an A-list cast, this B-level movie was tepid and predictable. How predictable? I had the bad guy pinned in the first ten minutes. I could have counted down to the exact moment when Pete was gonna make a break for it. The only thing I didn't expect was for Dave to tell his lovely new sidekick (Ms. Longoria) to put on something more modest. Go Dave! Otherwise, this movie was a bore and left me hip deep in sarcasm.
Troy (2004)
WAAAAAYYYY more of Brad Pitt than I EVER wanted to see...
Okay, call me sappy, but I like it when a movie makes me cry. Not arbitrarily yanking my emotions around, but instead making me care enough about the characters that when something bad happens, I'm sobbing my eyes out. Or at least shedding a regretful tear. Or something...
And I darn well better feel like crying when 90% of the characters in a movie get killed! But Troy evoked no such emotions in me. The only character I actually wanted to live was Hector... but for some reason, I didn't even feel like crying when he got killed... I was vaguely disappointed, but not even the slightest smarting of the eyes...
As for Achilles, I was pretty much celebrating when the sleazy jerk died. A good actor should bring me to care about his character within the first minute. Now I'm not saying Brad Pitt is a bad actor, but it was either his acting or the sleaziness of the character (or both or all three) that prevented me from really caring if he lived or not. Yeah, he had his good qualities, sure, but the first thing I want to see of a hero is not him lying naked in bed with two naked women. Sorry. I mean, seriously, hasn't the man ever heard of a BLANKET?! There is one good thing I can say about this movie... Orlando Bloom did a good job as a sniveling weaselly coward. Excellent casting.
If nothing will satiate your desire for "swords'n'sandals," watch Gladiator. At least Maximus wasn't a sleaze-bucket.
Category 6: Day of Destruction (2004)
Shot... with a *gun*?!
Inevitably, when my brother and I go to rent DVDs, my brother is drawn to the doggiest movie in Hollywood Video. Our last visit was no exception. For one thing, it's a Hallmark disaster movie. I don't know if that sounds good to you, but as my dad so aptly put it, "It's a disaster movie we can all feel good about!" Do three hours of soap opera-y character development and environmentalist dogma give you a headache? I was surprised that I didn't come out of this one with a drilling migraine.
The basic plot is that two storms, on a hurricane raging on the Great Lakes, the other a tornado raging up Tornado Alley, will converge on Chicago. Meanwhile, a corrupt power company is ignoring a computer expert's warnings that their computer system is vulnerable to hackers. And, if you've seen "10.5," you'll know what else to expect. The irritating, attractive, know-it-all heroine who nobody listens to, the sassy, bratty teenage girl who never listens to her parents, the condescending boss who eventually decides that maybe he should listen to Miss Attractive Know-it-all after all.
And, of course, how could it be a Hallmark disaster movie without the no-brainer lines that will have you rolling on the floor from the sheer stupidity of it all? "Shot... with a *gun*?!" Yes, friends, this is an actual line from the movie. Sad, huh?
Unless you're really into self-punishment (or you're a rabid environmentalist), don't watch this movie. An F6 tornado couldn't suck as much.
Napoleon Dynamite (2004)
We can do without plot just fine...
This movie is the most random conglomeration of comedic skits I have ever seen, no exception. Granted, there is a loose thread of something that could quite possibly be a plot, and some of the gags are strung together quite skillfully, but still...
The characters are all indescribably funny in their own little ways; they are the engine that carries this movie. The random lines will have those who have seen the movie laughing for weeks upon the mere reminder of where they come from. If you haven't seen this movie, YOU WILL NOT GET WHAT THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN IT ARE TALKING ABOUT. Believe me, I've been there. They sounded crazy, quoting things like, "Tina, you fat lard, come get some dinner." Now that I have seen the movie, that line gets me rolling on the floor laughing.
Whether it's funny or not is something you will have to decide for yourself. After all, it's a style of humor that can easily become lost on those who don't have a deep appreciation of the random.
The Alamo (2004)
Excellent.
I'm not sure about historical accuracy, having never studied a detailed history of what happened at the Alamo. But I must say, this is a stirring re-enactment, with excellent acting and special effects.
Here's a refresher course for those of you who don't remember the circumstances of the Alamo. As a newly-freed Texas was trying to determine the form of government they would accept, Lt. Col. Travis and Jim Bowie were sent to command a garrison at an old Spanish mission called the Alamo. When the commander of the post left, command was left to Travis; the commander did not expect an attack. However, Santa Ana was marching through the winter. Davy Crockett arrived in the mission, and shortly afterward, Santa Ana showed up. The result was a siege that ended in the death of nearly all those at the Alamo.
Billy Bob Thornton does a rousing job as Davy Crockett, and Dennis Quaid's performance of Gen. Sam Houston is just as stirring. Even the actors playing minor characters such as Juan Seguin (Jordi Molla) shine in this film. Of course, in a movie like this, it's nearly impossible to keep track of every character and actor, but what you can recognize is always superb. And this film does a good job of keeping this film on the main characters.
I would recommend this film to just about anyone who enjoys history and/or war movies.
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)
Kinda stupid, but great fun!
Every 10 years or so, a director likes to go back to the old black-and-white for a comedy spoof of some style that was popular in the twenties ("Young Frankenstein," "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid"). Rarely do they go back to create a (relatively) serious adventure.
Joe "Sky Captain" Sullivan (Jude Law) is called in to combat some gigantic robots terrorizing New York City, and meets up with an old girlfriend reporter, Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow). Shortly thereafter, robots attack his lab, kidnapping his buddy, Dex Dearborn (Giovanni Ribisi). His quest to retrieve his friend and bring the evil Dr. Totenkopf (Lawrence Olivier) takes him to Nepal, where he has a rendezvous with Capt. Francesca "Franky" Cook (Angelina Jolie).
The style and dialogue is *very* thirties. I found it amusing that like a lot of the heroines in the old movies, Perkins was there mostly to state the obvious. You can tell that director Kerry Conran enjoyed taking *all* the old filming tricks out of the bag and mixing them with new ones, creating a very interesting (and entertaining) world.
The acting on some fronts left a lot to be desired (I have yet to see Gwyneth Paltrow play anyone other than herself), and on others, was quite excellent (Angelina Jolie and Giovanni Ribisi were exquisite). Jude Law carried the lead role pretty well. Lawrence Olivier didn't have much of a role; though Dr. Totenkopf is the villain, and his shadow overlays everything in the movie, Olivier was only on screen for maybe a minute.
Altogether, the movie was stupid, and reveled in its stupidity, thereby making it an actually enjoyable movie experience (it's great when they're stupid and know it, as opposed to when they're stupid and don't [see "Red Planet"])
Waterloo (1970)
A truly disappointing film...
The movie begins with Napoleon being exiled to Elba, then returning to France; it focuses on the battle of Waterloo, the crucial battle in which the Duke of Wellington defeated Napoleon, resulting in the second exile (and eventual death) of Napoleon.
Christopher Plummer and Rod Steiger do excellent acting jobs; considering the fact that the movie has one of the worst directing jobs I've ever seen, these actors deserve extra kudos.
The director was obviously rather occupied with historical accuracy, and not good cinematography. Poor camera-work, introduction of characters who are only used in one scene, use of emotional filming tactics in non-emotional scenes--all these things work together to create a truly dismal movie experience. The movie gives you the feel of someone who took several historical counts, found random inspirational quotes and stories, and mushed them all together in a movie that would have been better filmed as a documentary.
The only thing that this movie does right with its characters is focusing on Wellington and Napoleon; these two characters are developed well enough so that you can actually care about them. As for the rest, you hardly remember their names, much less their parts in the story.
What's truly tragic is watching an excellent movie about the Napoleonic era, such as "Master and Commander: the Far Side of the World", and comparing it with "Waterloo". It's quite disappointing when you think about how wonderful this film would have been had it been directed by someone as talented as Peter Weir or Peter Jackson. The director of this film only barely begins to grasp the magnitude of this battle. All in all, this film is very disappointing. If you want info on the battle of Waterloo, I suggest you read a book instead.
Red Planet (2000)
If you want a living definition of "hokey, corny sci-fi bomb"...
Plot: The world's eco-system is going down the drain, and we've been forced to terraform Mars. The only problem: the terraforming has gone horribly wrong (or something like that). The solution: send the cliche crew of six or seven guys and one hot chick on a mission to the "Red Planet", hence the name.
Just one problem: ... okay, more than one problem. The first one being this: that the movie is as riddled with cliches as a rabbit's cage is riddled with... well, you know. I mean, if you want to list Sci-fi cliches, this movie has them all (or pretty darn near)--the robot that goes crazy killing people, the woman saving the guy's life, all the crew members except for the two main characters being killed off one by one... you name it, we got it, with a special two-for-one on spoken cliches!
The second problem? Can we say "bad acting all the way around"? Okay, so I haven't seen everything Val Kilmer's been in... maybe it was the fact that he didn't really have a part to speak of, which brings me to problem number three: bad, bad writing. I mean, we're not just talking about "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?" "Yeah, I think so..." bad writing, we're talking about "::insert name here::, I am your father" bad writing. I mean, if Lucas could do it, so can I, right? No, man, it only works once.
If I were you, I'd rent "Mission to Mars" instead. I mean, it sucks a sour lollipop, but at least it doesn't suck a rotten, run-over, mangled, bug-ridden lollipop.
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
Don't rely on this for your scientific knowledge...
The basic plot is this: due to global warming, the world faces an ice age, and the scientist who predicted this has to rescue his son before the poor boy freezes to death.
If you excuse the hokey science, this film is entertaining and enjoyable. If you take the science seriously, you're going to be scared out of your wits for no good reason.
As disaster movies go, this one is up there; unlike most other disaster movies (such as "The Core" and "Volcano"), the main characters are not killed off one by one. One thing disaster movies seem to love is extending the movie half an hour by giving central characters lingering, painful death (e.g. "Brazz" from "The Core"). "The Day After Tomorrow" avoids this, and though for some minor characters, death is implied, it is not shown (to the viewer's relief).
One thing about the "global warming" issue: at one point, several teenagers visit the American Museum of Natural History ("The world's biggest collection of stuffed animals," quips one boy). A young man points out the stuffed remains of a mammoth, saying that it was found with food in its mouth and stomach, proving that it was frozen while grazing. During the movie, super-storms with the ability to freeze people instantly are shown frequently. If these storms are caused by the melting of the ice caps, and the melting of the ice caps are caused by global warming, which, in turn, is caused by pollution in the atmospher... how did the mammoth freeze? That may sound ridiculous, but think about it: it is implied that the mammoth is frozen by one of these storms. But if there are no humans to pollute the atmosphere, how could that storm have been formed in the first place? All in all, the movie exaggerates greatly the dangers of global warming, creating a hokey (but enjoyable) film.
Ella Enchanted (2004)
I still don't know what to make of it...
If I were to sum up the overall quality of this movie in four words, I'd say, "writing: bad, directing: good." I think the reason this film almost works is that despite some very bad writing (not that the conversations are really bad, or anything, it's just that this movie is EXTREMELY predictable), there are some very interesting and sometimes hilarious ideas. For example, this story's "Prince Charming" has an adoring fangirl club; scenes with this bunch of girls will make those of us who have Orlando Bloom-loving friends laugh out loud. There is a fairy-tale mall (complete with wooden escalators), and the female giants are dressed like any modern-day teenage girls would be.
This movie is targeted toward children and younger teens, but older audiences will find some parts enjoyable. Altogether, while the plot is predictable and somewhat boring, the movie in and of itself, not thinking about the storyline, is very odd and fresh.
My recommendation: see this only if you've got nothing better to do (like me).
Spy Kids 3: Game Over (2003)
If MST3K were still running...
If you watched Spy Kids and Spy Kids 2, and liked them for their witty dialogue, family-focused adventure, and all-around uniqueness, you probably won't like Spy Kids 3.
Spy Kids 3 had probably less than fifteen minutes with the whole family. The plot was almost fresh, but old plot elements ruined it. The special effects were actually rather cheesy, and the acting somewhat less than satisfactory (a plot surrounding Carmen instead of Juni would have been better, since Alexa Vega is much better at acting than Daryl Sabara).
The former two films poked fun at other films in ways that made viewers laugh out loud. I don't remember laughing at all during Spy Kids 3, and not because it was neccessarily more serious than the first two.
As I said, the family as a whole gets probably less than fifteen minutes, while Daryl Sabara is on screen almost non-stop (by the end of the movie, you're begging for relief from his terrible acting). The cameos by Bill Paxton, George Clooney, Elijah Wood, and others are rendered stupid and pointless by the rest of the movie (though Elijah Wood's cameo was almost good enough to excuse the whole film. He obviously enjoyed the role he got).
My advice: don't waste your time unless you're a rabid Elijah Wood fan.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Masterful film. Simply masterful.
"Everybody's so quiet," my dad said after we finished the film. "Well, what do you say to something like that?!" my mom asked. What do you say to a film like this?
Let's look at this film from the perspective of a simple moviegoer, with no religious background, no concept of who Jesus really is. The acting is flawless, the directing masterful, the gore convincing, the story heart-wrenching... this is truly a masterful film. One of the best I have ever seen.
Now let's look at this film from the perspective of a Bible-believing Christian. There are some things in it that the Bible does not say happened, but it does not say that these things did not happen either.
It is an amazing thing to sit there and watch the Romans tearing Jesus's back apart, and realize, "This was my sin! I did this!" It is amazing and convicting to see Jesus on the cross, crying, "My God, why have you forsaken me?!" and realize that your sin put him there. There were parts during this movie when I was sobbing and saying, "God, I did this! Oh, God, my sin put him there!"
Granted, it wasn't only my sin, but every time the hammer pounded, I cringed, realizing that my sin helped put the nails in those hands. And all through the movie, a song by a band called Jonah33 kept running through my head, especially one line, "It was all for you. He bled and he died for you." It was all for you. I cannot imagine anyone coming out of this film without being changed by it.
It is truly an amazing film.
Peter Pan (2003)
An excellent, excellent film!
I thought this movie was excellently done. The casting was nearly perfect (Jeremy Sumpter is one of the best boy actors I have ever seen, whose acting quality is right up there with Elijah Wood's, in my opinion). Unlike many directors with child actors, P.J. Hogan doesn't seem to settle for the kids just having their lines memorized. The acting is realistic and convincing, with quite a bit of chemistry between Peter and Wendy. The chemistry does not, however, make the film unsuitable for children.
As for the script and screenplay, it was witty and fun. My friends and I found ourselves literally screaming with laughter at some points. There is something for everyone in the humor, making it a delightful film experience for young and old alike.
The music was a bit on the corny side, but still good nonetheless. And the seemingly magical scene where the whole worlds starts chanting to bring Tinkerbell back to life will delight children, though older people may find it a little bit cheesy.
All in all, I thought this was an excellent piece of cinematography, but my friends and I all agreed that it was a bad idea to release it within four weeks of Lord of the Rings.