Reviews

I just watched this on the Sundance Channel, and it is awful. I actually felt embarrassed for Cho at times. Histrionics outweigh material. Her co-option of a black accent is grating and unfunny. She spends more time making weird faces than in delivering solid jokes. The people that rate this work highly have drunk the Kool-Aid....they're the ones Cho's baton-waving is meant for. Fans of stand-up comedy, who enjoy the artistry of a comedian in getting an audience to laugh, will be stone-faced...but it is rather interesting to see in a "How bad can it get?" way. It can get plenty bad. At times I wondered if Cho was having a nervous breakdown on-stage...at other times, I wondered if she'd ever heard of a thing called "timing." Whatever you do, don't pay good money to see it; but if you do catch it for free somewhere, give it at least five minutes.

Remakes today are seemingly ubiquitous in Hollywood. Most of them are unnecessary (e.g. Alfie), or unwarranted (e.g. Dawn of the Dead), and damned near every single one is crap. But there is always the exception to the rule: John Carpenter's The Thing is the exception to the Iron Law of Remakes. It goes off in a different direction than Howard Hawks' Thing (which is trite "Doctor, look at the geiger counter!" 1950s rubbish), but stays more faithful to the original source material. This film is a horror masterpiece, without flaws, false notes, or counterfeit nonsense that makes the viewer say to himself "Oh yeah, I'm watchin' a movie." The script is taut, the acting superb, the credibility factor unassailable, and the special effects tremendous. I don't think Hollywood realizes just how artificial and awful CGI is. The effects in The Thing are gross, gory, and organic, and they never made me shake my head once. Let's put it this way: the 1982 special effects for The Thing do the job they're supposed to do--tell the story--better than anything George Lucas and his oodles of nerd-loot managed twenty years later. This is a film to own, and I can't sing its praises enough. Last point: I've seen the movie numerous times, and know how the plot works out...but the film is so well-made, such a classic, that I'll stick with it if I chance upon it on cable because it's that good (cf. "The Godfather).

Before I address the film, allow me a quick paean to its writer/producer/director. Thank Christ for Werner Herzog. It's tough being a cineaste these days, with such creative geniuses as Michael Bay, McG, and whoever directed Deuce Bigalow 2 ruling the Hollywood roost. Even Spielberg and Lucas have lost their mojo...OK, Lucas moreso--much, much moreso--than Spielberg. But what about Coppola? What's Scorsese done recently? Did P.T. Anderson fall off the face of the Earth? It's a bit frightening to think that no one is at the helm of the ship, and nothing good and/or original is being made. Enter Herzog. The guy IS a genius, and besides that, he is not only prolific, but he still has "it." Grizzly Man is just as good as anything Herzog made thirty years ago. Coincidentally, Stroszek was made thirty years ago. It is brilliant. Herzog knows how to use music in films, and here is a prime example. Herzog always has one or two bits of indelible imagery in his films; in Stroszek, we have the premature babies and the dancing chicken. (Another Herzog staple is unforgettable characterization. Who else wanted to punch the banker in the face? The guy's performance as a glad-handing vulture with a big sh*t-eating grin was spot-on.) Now I can see some viewers giving up after fifteen minutes and saying, "This is pretentious, Euro-arty bullsh*t." Fair enough...not all movies appeal to everyone. But I hate pretentious, Euro-arty bullsh*t too (e.g. The Perfect Human), and this ain't that. Stick with it, or wait a few years and try it again (just like reading Ulysses). This film will make demands on you...don't expect Hollywood pap. Last thing: the accusation of "anti-American" has been leveled at this film. I'm a white, male Republican (i.e., evil incarnate) and I do not--NOT--find this to be the case. This film is not about bashing America: it is about the other side of life's coin, and how no man truly decides his own fate.

This is an excellent film. Let's establish that right off the bat. Go see it. (I rated it a "10": anything less than an "8" is ridiculous.) It is beautifully photographed, both by Herzog and Treadwell, with a cast of real-life characters that are far more memorable than anything Hollywood writers have come up with recently. (E.g., the weirdly-demonstrative coroner, the 40-year-old Valley Girl, the helicopter pilot, and last, but certainly not least, Timothy Treadwell himself.) This film is utterly fascinating...a synopsis doesn't do it justice. It is tragic, comic, and tragicomic. It is a glimpse into a very disturbed man's soul, and it is set in one of the most beautiful places on Earth, the Alaskan peninsula. You will be amazed and dumbfounded by some scenes; you will be uplifted and depressed by others. Above all, you will be drawn into the film, never bored, always entertained. (That is, if you have a certain baseline IQ...I'm guessing 115 is on the mark. Anything below that, and Deuce Bigalow 2 would probably be more appropriate.) I guarantee one thing: you will never forget Timothy Treadwell, a man to whom the Alaskan Brown Bears gave life...and took it away..

This review regards the 55-minute version. It is not a good documentary. It has more substance and gravitas than Fahrenheit 9/11--which was pointless propaganda--but it is very amateurish-looking, poorly edited, and you can tell, as director Greenwald himself attests, that it was a rush job. After the run-through of all the interviewees at the beginning, some get only one line (Stansfield Turner, Clare Short), and some are forgotten altogether (Thomas White). There were only about five or six individuals that got the bulk of face-time, and you get the impression that Greenwald overreached a bit in trying to assemble an impressive number of credible people to support the anti-war position. From a political standpoint, whether you think that the Bush administration used WMD as a pretext to invade, or whether the President sincerely thought that the weapons existed is moot: with an all-volunteer army, the anti-war forces were never going to get traction. Had the draft been in place in 2003, Kerry would be President right now. But even if most Americans polled think Iraq wasn't worth it, they still support this administration. Without coercion to fight, the anti-war left is barking in the wind.

I guess the answer must lie with writer/director Raoul Peck. I watched this movie on HBO, with a pretty extensive knowledge of what happened in Rwanda in 1994 and why. I should have been riveted, and yet I was bored most of the time, and angry at how hackneyed and trite the film was the rest of the time. The dialogue was bad, the actors unconvincing (this was a low point for Winger), and I was never drawn into the film. There is no comparison between this movie and the infinitely superior The Killing Fields. I haven't seen Hotel Rwanda yet, but I'm hoping that it managed to do justice to the topic of the Rwandan genocide. I would not recommend this film.

This is the best adaptation of Stoker's novel ever filmed. (I'm referring to the German version.) Herzog is one of the very, very few directors that has an identity. After Bergman, I think he is probably the greatest director alive today. This film combines a brilliant filmmaker (Herzog), a brilliant actor (Kinski), and a brilliant score (Popol Vuh). Very rare to get such a trifecta in one attempt. Those weaned on video games and MTV will undoubtedly dislike this movie, but a mature consideration along with an appreciation for a film's gestalt will lead one to recognize its merits. The sequence where the plague-ravaged townspeople dance in the square while an ethereal Georgian chant plays on the soundtrack is absolutely first-rate.

Dennis Miller's new CNBC show got off to a shaky start but has evolved nicely. His show is certainly better than anything on Fox or MSNBC. Miller is a very engaging host, very quick-witted and funny, and makes sure he has good guests from across the political spectrum. Miller has always been a political animal, but that he can be both partisan and funny simultaneously is quite a feat. Other comedians such as Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo gave up trying to be funny when they underwent similar conversions, albeit on the liberal side. I think his show will have a good run as long as he wants to do it. Which is a good thing, because it is funny and informative, and provides another forum for people like Christopher Hitchens to proffer their opinions.

This was the film that was supposed to be the cinematic "Rite of Spring". I don't think that is the case, but this is still a classic nonetheless. The plot is familiar: older American man and younger French woman (girl, really) have a series of anonymous sexual encounters in a Parisian apartment. Brando's performance has been dissected with a pair of tweezers, but it still holds up as masterful stuff, especially the monologue with his wife's corpse. (This, almost moreso than "The Godfather", solidified Brando's reputation for posterity.) Schneider holds her own (amazing, considering she was only twenty), and does a fantastic job portraying a naive young woman who oozes raw sensuality. Brando's arc of descent is terrifying, as he ends up sexually brutalizing Schneider; later, she shoots him. Very graphic and no-holds-barred, not for anyone under eighteen, but brilliant and one to own.

This movie is ninety minutes of sheer hilarity. Credit must go to writer-director David O. Russell. The characterizations are hilarious, the one-liners are dead-bang perfect, and Mary Tyler Moore and George Segal steal the show. (Who knew Tea Leoni was so good?) One to own.

Caught this one on cable, and was curious to see one of the first films that dealt with 9/11. It was pretty bad, with endless scenes of Barry Pepper and Phil Hoffman talking in bars and restaurants. There is one good performance by Brian Cox (a stage-trained Englishman...they put most Americans to shame), but a big disappointment is Ed Norton. There are moments in American History X where you think this guy could really be the next Pacino. In this film, he's flat and lifeless. The score was also pretty bad, but that is par for the course when you're dealing with a Spike Lee "joint".

This film should have won Best Picture in 1995. I don't know which film did win, but it wasn't as good as this. You cannot predict the plot, you cannot predict the outcome, and you are drawn out of yourself and into the story for the entire duration of the film. One to own.

This film is quite interesting. It is comprised of four separate vignettes, all tied together by the presence of the hapless bellboy, Ted, played by Tim Roth. The first segment sucks, the second one sucks a little bit less, but the third one is hilarious. Roth's performance gets better as the film progresses, and it reaches its apex here. The fourth segment is entertaining enough, though why anyone thinks Quentin Tarantino is a genius is beyond me. He is as derivative as it is possible to be. Credit has to go to Robert Rodriquez for the excellent third segment. Who knew Antonio Banderas could do comedy?

I saw this on cable. Unwatchable. Ludicrous. Junk. Ben Affleck must have sold his soul to the devil for this to be a hit, but evidently the devil reneged around the time of "Gigli." (I have to write four lines for the comment to be valid, which is three more than this piece of crap deserves.)

This was probably the best film of 1993. Anthony Hopkins is one of the greatest living film actors, and here he is at his peak. Everything about this film reeks of quality, and even Christopher Reeve acquits himself well. One to own.

If anyone ever asks for an example of a sequel that is superior to the original, this is your film. Jim Cameron is one of the best directors working today, and this film is his, pure and simple. The subsequent two films (not directed by Cameron) were pretty bad, but this one stands alone. Sigourney Weaver gives a perfect performance, and the rest of the cast is terrific, especially Bill Paxton. This movie never lets you down: once the fantastical elements of the story are established, you believe the characters, you accept their behavior, and you think you are watching "reality." A true classic.

I'm a pretty big Anthony Hopkins fan, plus I like history (and tropical island paradises). Thus, this film naturally appealed to me. "The Bounty" is a period piece, and based on true events, but it is not factually accurate, so the plot should be taken with a grain of salt. Hopkins is excellent, pulling off dialogue that no other actor could, and the supporting cast is mostly English, therefore very good. The photography is brilliant, the script well done, and the score, by Vangelis, a nice change of pace. This film is not a true work of genius, but it will be around for quite a long time (and not just 'cause of the ubiquitous Tahitian mammaries on display).

This film is truly a landmark work, and it is only an unfortunate historical accident that Hitler was involved. Leni Riefenstahl was the first and, so far, only female genius when it came to film-making. Her innovative uses of the camera, lighting, staging, etc., truly laid the groundwork for future cinematic endeavor. If you can divorce yourself from the glorification of the Nazi regime, you can appreciate the merits of this film purely on artistic grounds. It is brilliant, plain and simple. (Ironically, the French awarded it a gold medal upon its release!)

This film is not a work of genius. It is, instead, a very good genre-pic that has some outstanding acting. Eastwood does his thing, and the climactic shootout at the saloon is vintage stuff. Gene Hackman is brilliant, especially in the much-discussed scenes with Saul Rubinek and Richard Harris: Hackman segues from easy-going to murderous and back again effortlessly. The plot is simple, and takes its time, but every second is a treat. This film is not simplistic: one of the villains deserved to die perhaps, but the other certainly didn't, and the film conveys that to illustrate how indiscriminate death can be. Hackman's character is marvelously complex: a tough-as-nails sheriff who is nevertheless an inept carpenter. While capable of brutality, Little Bill also believes in law and order, and doesn't relish meting out punishment. Great acting, great writing, great score equals a classic film.

This movie was wildly overpraised when it came out, and went on to win some Oscars. However, it does paint an accurate portrait of Las Vegas as the seedy, slimy, lowest-common-denominator place that it is. The acting was decent, with Shue doing good work, but Cage hammed it up a bit, I thought. The story is simple and depressing, and the director is a bit too heavy-handed at times. There are some very graphic scenes, and the shot of Elisabeth Shue bleeding in the shower was in poor taste. Not a film I'd recommend paying to see, but if it's on cable it might be worth a look for Shue's performance.

This film is a true sleeper. It's on late-night cable a lot, so there must be some recognition of its merits, considering it is such an old film. In a nutshell, this is pure LA noir, with crazy characters, crazy circumstances, and a lot of weirdness goin' on. The cast is superb, with Billy Zane striking just the right note, Darren McGavin turning in a hilarious performance, and the ageless and beautiful Jennifer Beals playing a subdued but nuanced part. (Kudos also to Harry Shearer, for a great cameo.) This film is truly a keeper, full of little moments that are funnier on reflection. (E.g., Bart starts to get amorous, so Joey all of a sudden starts concentrating on his dinner...hilarious.) Great entertainment.

There was a classic lurking in American History X. Too bad it never materialized. Ed Norton has talent, and here he showcases it to a large, albeit uneven, extent. Stacy Keach is spot-on, and, I hate to say it, but Ed Furlong turns in a pretty good performance. Too bad the acting was scuppered by the script. (I know about the controversy involved with the director, and would hate to think that this film was screwed up for no other reason than dueling egos.) The film starts strong, but devolves into an after-school special. Ed Norton's transformation is wholly unbelievable---a prison gang-rape is a heckuva road-to-Damascus moment--and the writing becomes obnoxiously pat. This film has a "message", but, ironically, the tone makes it unpalatable. Too bad.

Why was there no sequel to this (financially) successful movie? I'll tell you why: 'cause it wouldn't have made a nickel. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...ID4 is an overblown, ridiculous, stupid, insulting piece of drek that was marketed brilliantly. Of course, everyone saw for themselves how awful the movie actually was (akin to Godzilla...now I wonder if there's a connection?).

"The Tall Guy" is an enjoyable little trifle, featuring Jeff Goldblum as an American actor in London. Rowan Atkinson is hilarious as a conceited bugger, and Emma Thompson plays Goldblum's love-interest. An interesting film, not a classic by any stretch, but worth ninety minutes.