This appeared in the top five Rotten Tomatoes best horror films of 2024. It's not even better than the well-meant, but flawed, Fazzbear movie. It's dumb from the get-go. Somehow these nihilistic kids know the exact parameters for stopping and starting sessions-as if the conduit came with an instruction booklet. If one views the first half of the movie as a metaphor for taking psychotropic drugs, then there's something interesting being said. But even that message ceases once the movie shifts into exorcism mode. The Aussie accents are a little too thick at times. The ending was a disappointment. I took nothing positive away from watching it save the relief of it finally ending.
Reviews
12 Reviews
The Velveteen Rabbit
(2009)
A senseless movie to be avoided by the sensible.
9 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Movies like this steaming pile of rabbit droppings make me sad that money gets wasted on their production (and viewing) instead of just given away to the indigent. The story is wretched. The characters morph without apparent justification from one bad stereotype to another. Their actions are equally senseless. For example, the boy--who seems afflicted with dissociative identity disorder--fritters his time interacting with animals he only just met instead of dreaming up scenes with his missing mother and father.
While I hadn't read the book before, I did so afterwards (incredulous that this movie represented what the famous book was about), and I found that a charming story about love, faith, and the nature of reality had been perverted into something so treacly and cloying that they bore almost no resemblance to each other.
There are SO many better ways to spend one's time and money.
While I hadn't read the book before, I did so afterwards (incredulous that this movie represented what the famous book was about), and I found that a charming story about love, faith, and the nature of reality had been perverted into something so treacly and cloying that they bore almost no resemblance to each other.
There are SO many better ways to spend one's time and money.
Hugo
(2011)
A conceit wrapped in beautiful affectation.
11 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
We all have the power to intuit when something is "off"--a skill discussed at length in Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink." With this in mind, there is something more than a little "off" about Hugo. The characterization especially rings untrue, whether it's the kids who are way too advanced for their years and whose actions seem motivated only by the impulses of the scriptwriters; the keystone cop there for slapstick comic relief and a hint of menace; or Papa Georges who is at turns a prick and a pal.
What's also wrong is the way the story reveals itself. It doesn't unfold like a flower, of its own innate potential. It's painted onto the screen (not unlike the picture of the man in the moon drawn by the automaton), purposely confusing but then when it's all suddenly pulled together, we're all expected to gasp in amazement.
The problem is: it's all too unnatural. And at the heart of it all is a giant conceit about how glorious is the "art" of movie-making. "Hugo" is beautiful to just our sense of sight. But with all our faculties engaged, the self-importance of this film's machinations are (in the blink of an eye) annoying.
What's also wrong is the way the story reveals itself. It doesn't unfold like a flower, of its own innate potential. It's painted onto the screen (not unlike the picture of the man in the moon drawn by the automaton), purposely confusing but then when it's all suddenly pulled together, we're all expected to gasp in amazement.
The problem is: it's all too unnatural. And at the heart of it all is a giant conceit about how glorious is the "art" of movie-making. "Hugo" is beautiful to just our sense of sight. But with all our faculties engaged, the self-importance of this film's machinations are (in the blink of an eye) annoying.
Forrest Gump without a heart (or a brain)
3 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This movie irked the he11 out of me. It annoys me further that this dirge of a movie is getting better ratings (and reviews) than Revolutionary Road.
Let's start at the beginning. There's this bit of tedious exposition clumsily explaining *why* Benjamin Buttons might experience life backwards. Then the narration herkily-jerkily jumps to the daughter who while reading a diary, is supposedly articulating Benjamin's accounts. The choppiness of this narrative was unoriginal and poorly executed. Like the time-jump cuts to and from Forrest at the bus stop, this movie time-jump cuts to and from a supposedly dying woman. Except that she only narrates the beginning. For the rest of the movie, she makes guttural noises to let us know she's holding out until the end of the movie to die.
Next, there's the problem with the movie's magic itself. I have no problem suspending my disbelief, but the rules of a magical world have to be honored--or at least make sense within that world. Benjamin is born a very old, gnarled, and ugly baby. Fair enough. But according to that logic, he should have ended his life as a very smooth, chubby, cooing and drooling adult--NOT as a baby again. If he was going to end up a baby, he should have been borne into the world as a full grown (albeit hunched-with-age) adult.
Next, there's the lack of believability in the connection between Benjamin and Daisy. No way for a second did I buy that those two should have or would have had a connection to each other when he was an old youngster and she was a young youngster. Mostly, this is because Brad Pitt's characterization of Buttons wasn't youthful enough mentally or emotionally. Did he need to go as full-blown regressive as Tom Hanks in Big? No. But he didn't go far enough to sell me on the idea that those two would have had any connection. And anyway, it smacked of the whole Forrest and Jenny relationship--but with none of the backbone.
After that, there's the repetitious use of the hummingbird as a symbol. Okay, it makes sense for us to see a hummingbird far, far out to sea, because it symbolized the spirit of the tugboat captain. It was the tugboat captain's avatar--not Benjamin's. Why then would we see a hummingbird at Benjamin's passing? Only because it wanted to employ the same tonal continuity thread as did the feather in Forrest Gump. Trite at best.
I was also left dissatisfied by the premature Benjamin's abandonment of his true love and their child. If he wanted to leave, fine--though wouldn't a person who'd experienced so much personal rejection and abandonment issues as a "child" not be more sensitive to this issue? Why tug cloyingly at our heartstrings one more time by bringing Benjamin back one more time when he's like 17 and his daughter's in her early teens? Surely he had six more sane years left in him to see his daughter through to adulthood. But no. It's more dramatic to have him leave and go on his Gumpian romp through foreign countries than to actually have his character make sensible choices.
Also, it was disappointing to see the National Guard's "Citizen/Soldier" ad campaign so brazenly product-placed in the movie. Not only was this ad campaign the sponsor of the pre-movie's trivia reels, but it also had a full-size placard out in the lobby. This kind of commercialism zaps every ounce of artistic integrity I *may* have been willing to believe the film makers possessed. Yes, Gump had lots of product placement--Nike, Apple, Dr. Pepper, etc--but at least it made sense in the context of the story. The National Guard piece was just synergistic window dressing.
The movie had a few genuine and genuinely heartfelt moments. But nowhere near as many required to sustain a ~3 hour movie. If you have to, wait for a time-compressed, edited-for-TV version.
Let's start at the beginning. There's this bit of tedious exposition clumsily explaining *why* Benjamin Buttons might experience life backwards. Then the narration herkily-jerkily jumps to the daughter who while reading a diary, is supposedly articulating Benjamin's accounts. The choppiness of this narrative was unoriginal and poorly executed. Like the time-jump cuts to and from Forrest at the bus stop, this movie time-jump cuts to and from a supposedly dying woman. Except that she only narrates the beginning. For the rest of the movie, she makes guttural noises to let us know she's holding out until the end of the movie to die.
Next, there's the problem with the movie's magic itself. I have no problem suspending my disbelief, but the rules of a magical world have to be honored--or at least make sense within that world. Benjamin is born a very old, gnarled, and ugly baby. Fair enough. But according to that logic, he should have ended his life as a very smooth, chubby, cooing and drooling adult--NOT as a baby again. If he was going to end up a baby, he should have been borne into the world as a full grown (albeit hunched-with-age) adult.
Next, there's the lack of believability in the connection between Benjamin and Daisy. No way for a second did I buy that those two should have or would have had a connection to each other when he was an old youngster and she was a young youngster. Mostly, this is because Brad Pitt's characterization of Buttons wasn't youthful enough mentally or emotionally. Did he need to go as full-blown regressive as Tom Hanks in Big? No. But he didn't go far enough to sell me on the idea that those two would have had any connection. And anyway, it smacked of the whole Forrest and Jenny relationship--but with none of the backbone.
After that, there's the repetitious use of the hummingbird as a symbol. Okay, it makes sense for us to see a hummingbird far, far out to sea, because it symbolized the spirit of the tugboat captain. It was the tugboat captain's avatar--not Benjamin's. Why then would we see a hummingbird at Benjamin's passing? Only because it wanted to employ the same tonal continuity thread as did the feather in Forrest Gump. Trite at best.
I was also left dissatisfied by the premature Benjamin's abandonment of his true love and their child. If he wanted to leave, fine--though wouldn't a person who'd experienced so much personal rejection and abandonment issues as a "child" not be more sensitive to this issue? Why tug cloyingly at our heartstrings one more time by bringing Benjamin back one more time when he's like 17 and his daughter's in her early teens? Surely he had six more sane years left in him to see his daughter through to adulthood. But no. It's more dramatic to have him leave and go on his Gumpian romp through foreign countries than to actually have his character make sensible choices.
Also, it was disappointing to see the National Guard's "Citizen/Soldier" ad campaign so brazenly product-placed in the movie. Not only was this ad campaign the sponsor of the pre-movie's trivia reels, but it also had a full-size placard out in the lobby. This kind of commercialism zaps every ounce of artistic integrity I *may* have been willing to believe the film makers possessed. Yes, Gump had lots of product placement--Nike, Apple, Dr. Pepper, etc--but at least it made sense in the context of the story. The National Guard piece was just synergistic window dressing.
The movie had a few genuine and genuinely heartfelt moments. But nowhere near as many required to sustain a ~3 hour movie. If you have to, wait for a time-compressed, edited-for-TV version.
Heavenly Days
(1944)
Wistful vistas of the past
10 August 2008
What's not to like about this movie?
I got to see the McGees in the flesh, I betcha'. I got to see the inside of the famed overstuffed McGee closet. I got to hear McGee sing (and nicely, too) along with The King's Men. I got to see some touching tributes to the WWII efforts: rationing, keeping lips zipped, giving up seats for soldiers, tending Victory Gardens, caring for war refugees. I got to hear and see Molly doing her Teeny voice. There was even some neat special effects when Fibber talks to himself in the form of a Revolutionary War flutist.
Yah, maybe it's a little corny and overly sentimental but mostly in charming ways. The signs of racial inequality are as present here as in practically any other movie from the 40's. The plot is flimsy and strains credulity at times, but not unbearably so. Despite its flaws, it's a must-see for any fan of the radio show--especially those who've only *heard* the McGees in action.
I got to see the McGees in the flesh, I betcha'. I got to see the inside of the famed overstuffed McGee closet. I got to hear McGee sing (and nicely, too) along with The King's Men. I got to see some touching tributes to the WWII efforts: rationing, keeping lips zipped, giving up seats for soldiers, tending Victory Gardens, caring for war refugees. I got to hear and see Molly doing her Teeny voice. There was even some neat special effects when Fibber talks to himself in the form of a Revolutionary War flutist.
Yah, maybe it's a little corny and overly sentimental but mostly in charming ways. The signs of racial inequality are as present here as in practically any other movie from the 40's. The plot is flimsy and strains credulity at times, but not unbearably so. Despite its flaws, it's a must-see for any fan of the radio show--especially those who've only *heard* the McGees in action.
The Bishop's Wife
(1947)
Pleasant holiday fare
2 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Compared with the dreadful Arsenic and Old Lace, this movie was spectacular. It was great to see Monty Wooley again (I'd grown fond of him from his performance in The Man Who Came To Dinner), but I was a teensy bit disappointed to find him playing just about the same character.
The only negative for me was that the movie sent mixed messages. On one hand, it emphasized the importance of intimacy and simplicity and charity. On the other hand, it glorified materialism.
The tension between the characters was discomfiting in its realism. We understand Dudley is trying to make a point with the Bishop--to shake him out of his complacency--but we also sense an undercurrent of turmoil, as though Dudley has really fallen for Julia. This is conveyed very well in the acting.
The film reminded me of Mary Poppins--not just because of the presence of the actress who played Katy Nana--but in its use of some pretty nifty special effects and the general idea of a person touching the lives of the people around him very quickly and very intensely...and then leaving.
For me, it's no "..Wonderful Life.." but it's got quiet charms that I think will help it endure at least another six decades.
The only negative for me was that the movie sent mixed messages. On one hand, it emphasized the importance of intimacy and simplicity and charity. On the other hand, it glorified materialism.
The tension between the characters was discomfiting in its realism. We understand Dudley is trying to make a point with the Bishop--to shake him out of his complacency--but we also sense an undercurrent of turmoil, as though Dudley has really fallen for Julia. This is conveyed very well in the acting.
The film reminded me of Mary Poppins--not just because of the presence of the actress who played Katy Nana--but in its use of some pretty nifty special effects and the general idea of a person touching the lives of the people around him very quickly and very intensely...and then leaving.
For me, it's no "..Wonderful Life.." but it's got quiet charms that I think will help it endure at least another six decades.
Arsenic and Old Lace
(1944)
Arse pain and time waste.
27 July 2008
I'm a fan of comedy: everything from Fibber McGee & Molly to Family Guy. Arsenic and Old Lace is not funny though. It is also not warm, not engaging, not interesting, and not even pleasant. In fact, most of its characters are completely unsympathetic (meaning I could not relate to them or care for them in the least).
After a somewhat intriguing start, poor Mr. Grant runs around like a chicken with his head chopped off. The cast of characters is dominated by nut-jobs for whom my feelings ranged from pity to disgust. The brother who thinks he's Teddy Roosevelt is beyond annoying after his first "CHARGE!" up the staircase.
The action and characterization are contrived. And there is more than the usual, period-misogyny. I've been watching lots of movies from the 40's lately. Some (like The Talk of the Town) strained credulity but were still enjoyable. Others (like The Man Who Came To Dinner) featured mean-spirited characters but somehow managed to keep them charming and zany. Arsenic and Old Lace fails on both counts. It's not only a bad comedy but a bad film of any genre.
After a somewhat intriguing start, poor Mr. Grant runs around like a chicken with his head chopped off. The cast of characters is dominated by nut-jobs for whom my feelings ranged from pity to disgust. The brother who thinks he's Teddy Roosevelt is beyond annoying after his first "CHARGE!" up the staircase.
The action and characterization are contrived. And there is more than the usual, period-misogyny. I've been watching lots of movies from the 40's lately. Some (like The Talk of the Town) strained credulity but were still enjoyable. Others (like The Man Who Came To Dinner) featured mean-spirited characters but somehow managed to keep them charming and zany. Arsenic and Old Lace fails on both counts. It's not only a bad comedy but a bad film of any genre.
The Langoliers
(1995)
Not as bad as Maximum Overdrive...
20 July 2008
But it's close. As has been amply stated, the acting is atrocious. I don't care if this was made for television or made for the big screen, good acting can be achieved in either with the right material and direction. Watch just about any episode of X-File for proof. I liked the story upon which this film was based, so I had hoped it might be nearly as good as It. No dice. The only good decent acting comes from Patricia Wettig and the guy who plays the pilot. However, the things they have these two say negate even that.
I also particularly disliked the promotion of cigarettes in the terminal scenes. Again and again, movies slip cigarette smoking in as a bit of pointless action, seemingly designed (and probably financed by a tobacco company) to communicate how helpful cigarettes are for relieving stress. Bleh!
Unless you enjoy cringing at bad acting, avoid this one--even on a lazy Sunday when it's airing on the Sci-Fi Channel.
I also particularly disliked the promotion of cigarettes in the terminal scenes. Again and again, movies slip cigarette smoking in as a bit of pointless action, seemingly designed (and probably financed by a tobacco company) to communicate how helpful cigarettes are for relieving stress. Bleh!
Unless you enjoy cringing at bad acting, avoid this one--even on a lazy Sunday when it's airing on the Sci-Fi Channel.
Almost as bad as the third Matrix
13 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I will never forgive this movie for its opening scene. Gruesome in its visual reality with a discordant inauthenticity of characterization and character tone. The rest of the film blunders along in similar and different fashion.
Other things I hated about this movie: Kiera Knightley's character acting tough is like Sun (from Lost) acting bad-ass: I just don't buy it. She went from understandably spunky to plain annoying. Unnatural and senseless shift of action to the Far East. Amateurishly post-modern staging of an after-life (or near-death) experience. Longer than needed by at least an hour. Bad jokes. Worse-than-normal acting by the extras and non-primaries. Intrusive score.
Other things I hated about this movie: Kiera Knightley's character acting tough is like Sun (from Lost) acting bad-ass: I just don't buy it. She went from understandably spunky to plain annoying. Unnatural and senseless shift of action to the Far East. Amateurishly post-modern staging of an after-life (or near-death) experience. Longer than needed by at least an hour. Bad jokes. Worse-than-normal acting by the extras and non-primaries. Intrusive score.
Caribe
(2004)
Too Many Cooks....
26 October 2007
Caribe feels like somebody said, "Let's make a movie that shows off the splendid beauty and culture of Costa Rica! It will be a magnificent advertisement for our beautiful country." And then someone else (probably a writer) said "But it should have a serious message, too!." And then some produ$er chimed in, "No one wants to watch a boring, preachy documentary--no matter how beautiful. It needs to have plenty of sex and nudity! And while we're at it, let's throw in a bit of violence. *THAT* will make it a good movie!" There was no justification for most of the characters' major decisions. It oscillated between a character sketch of a man at the edge of breakdown and a "movie-of-the-week" with action bits thrown in.
Nobody Waved Good-bye
(1964)
Radio Commercial Transcription: WOR New York City
26 July 2007
The following commercial aired during the April 19th, 1965 broadcast of Jean Shepherd's radio program on WOR: "Unusual news about an unusual, new motion picture. It's called, "Nobody Waved Good-Bye," and here at last is a real, down-to-earth, dramatic film that shows what teenagers feel and never tell; what parents see and never understand. It's a story of what's happening all over America. The story of privileged children, their desperate parents, and the stone wall between them. What's happening on the screen is happening in Derry End (sp?), in Great Neck, in the Bronx. It's what's turning ten millions of homes into battlegrounds. Today's children seem to be growing up so fast, marrying fast, and falling apart fast. Their confused parents ask, "Why?" and confused teenagers ask, "Why not?" The name of this powerful picture is "Nobody Waved Good-Bye," and no parent, no teenager, nobody should miss it. See "Nobody Waved Good-Bye" plus "Lonely Boy" starting Wednesday at Loew's Capitol and Murray Hill theaters."
Seven Samurai
(1954)
The Samurai Has No Clothes
13 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
And no, I don't mean the loose-canon Samurai who runs around the battlefield without his bottoms. Melodramatic to the point of nauseating, I took nothing worth holding onto from this film.
Major quibbles:
What military strategist tells his/her army to drink sake and have sex the night before the final battle?
How omnipotent the samurai were to foresee all the enemy's activities so completely....all except the last soldier making it into the barn with all the women folk. *shakes head*
They could construct spears and elaborate fences, but not more bow and arrows?
Did they not know to kill or maim the horses underneath the bandits rather than reaching way up to hit the soldiers themselves?
Did the bandits not know how to cut their losses and look for the next easy-pickings village for plundering?
Thankfully, I checked this out from a library so I wasn't out any money. I've watched other super highly acclaimed movies, and even if I didn't like those, I at least understood why they were acclaimed. I am stupefied as to how this one rates anywhere near anyone's top 100 movies...much less in any top 10.
Major quibbles:
What military strategist tells his/her army to drink sake and have sex the night before the final battle?
How omnipotent the samurai were to foresee all the enemy's activities so completely....all except the last soldier making it into the barn with all the women folk. *shakes head*
They could construct spears and elaborate fences, but not more bow and arrows?
Did they not know to kill or maim the horses underneath the bandits rather than reaching way up to hit the soldiers themselves?
Did the bandits not know how to cut their losses and look for the next easy-pickings village for plundering?
Thankfully, I checked this out from a library so I wasn't out any money. I've watched other super highly acclaimed movies, and even if I didn't like those, I at least understood why they were acclaimed. I am stupefied as to how this one rates anywhere near anyone's top 100 movies...much less in any top 10.
Tell Your Friends