Monday, June 26, 2006
Thank You For Making This Movie
Ever thought about what kind of villain you would make? Ever watched some movie where the evil genius has a brilliant plan and then messes it up by letting the wrong person live or by confessing their whole plan before leaving their incompetent henchman to off the hero, and thought, “man, I could do that so much better.” Maybe I’m revealing too much about myself here, but I think about that all the time. Of course the key to all of that, to borrow a line from “Thank You For Smoking” is that you would have to have a moral flexibility that is beyond most people. Thankfully, most of us don’t have that type of moral flexibility, but there can still be something seductive about the bad guy. Maybe it’s that black is slimming.
Whatever the reason, I have to say that the main character of this movie, a spokesperson for “big tobacco” made the bad guy seem as cool as possible while forcing me to spend 2 hours wishing I was that clever. The “sultan of spin” as he is called is absolutely brilliant in this very tongue in cheek comedy about the art of spin.
In some ways this movie also hit close to home because, like lobbyists, lawyers are asked to advocate the positions of their clients as if they were their own without making those issues their own. It is a very strange and difficult line to walk and some are better at it than others. Some become true believers and only represent causes they believe in. Some separate themselves from their work entirely and would not bat an eye at representing Osama or Saddam or a serial killer. Most stay in the middle constantly asking themselves if ethics and morality only require honesty, courtesy, professionalism, committed advocacy and playing by the rules. Or does it also require us to examine the causes and people and companies for whom we advocate? It is a very tough question to which most lawyers have at best an unsatisfactory, but functioning answer that changes from client to client
Anyway, this movie examines those issues in a very sarcastic, wickedly clever and above all very funny satire.
What it’s about: The movie follows Nick Naylor who is the chief spokesperson and lobbyist for American tobacco companies. It follows him as he bribes and manipulates cancer victims, slanders cheese, tries to put cigarettes back in the movies and all this while trying to parent his young son. Yes this is the story of the guy who wants your children to start and keep smoking and somehow makes a convincing case as to why they should.
What’s to like: Above all, the writing. Incredibly smart script on a couple levels. First, it is laugh out loud funny throughout the movie. Second it is full of subtle details, symbols, inferences, and wordplays that give the movie some depth and offer up rewards for paying close attention. When you watch this movie, and you really should, pay attention to the names of people and places and the themes and symbols. Make note of things like what flavor of ice cream Nick and son eat on the Santa Monica pier, and what’s going on in the movie showing when Nick and his son go to meet the Hollywood agent. Good stuff.
More than anything else, though, this movie is about the guy with the perfect comeback for everything. You know those great comebacks you think of 15 minutes after you’ve left a conversation, well this guy delivers when it matters. You just spend the whole time going, “oh man, that is perfect.” The writing is really that good.
The acting is also good. All 3 of the MOD squad (“Merchants of Death” – a meeting between lobbyists for tobacco, alcohol and firearms), were great. William H. Macy is as good as he always is. Basically, the script was inspired and the actors have the timing and skill to allow it to come alive.
Also, it didn’t suffer from that dead 30 minutes that kills most comedies. That period of time, when they are trying to advance a love story or just go too far between things that make you laugh. This movie starts you laughing right away and keeps you laughing until the end. Not crying, falling out of your chair laughing, but constant amusement.
What I could have done without: It suffered a little bit from “scripting.” There may be some other term out there that describes this phenomenon, but I’m not aware of it, so I’m stealing this word to describe something I see in movies all the time. This movie only works if you believe that Nick is this unstoppable arguing force of spin and confidence. So, the movie has to convince you he is that guy early and often. The thing is that being clever enough to be funny to watch requires not only a quick wit, but the right situation and opportunity. Lloyd Benson doesn’t get off that line about JFK unless Dan Quayle set him up for it.
You need a good set up to deliver that crushing one liner. That’s why George Constanza flew to Iowa or wherever it was to have a shot at delivering that “jerk store” line. If you don’t watch Seinfeld, just ignore me and move on and rest in the shame of having missed the best sitcom ever made for American network TV.
When movies need to set up their story by convincing you that a character is really smart, or an amazing fighter or super strong or super clever or whatever, they give their characters the right set up. Some movies try to “cheat” with narrators which never works quite as well and then others try to short-cut the process by making the set up just a little too good and the payoff just a little to big and those around the hero just a little too weak. That’s what I mean by “scripting.” We would all be a lot more clever if we knew what other people were going to say and some times this movie tried so hard to convince you Nick was clever, the set ups were a bit forced. Also, his opponents were ridiculously incompetent. Even the one person who makes life hard for him has to use talents other than intellect to best him.
Smart against stupid was pretty funny, but smart against smart might have been better.
Also, while the subject matter and situations in the movie were great, the story was ignored at times which gave the movie a choppy feel, but this was just a “day in the life” movie anyway, so not a big deal.
Also, part of the plat revolved around how hot Katie Holmes is and I’m sorry she’s just not all that.
Who do you like: You don’t want to, but you like Nick. You just can’t help it.. If you’ve never been in a position where you have to argue for something you don’t personally believe in (though I’m not sure that was what was portrayed in the movie), you might have a harder time sympathizing with the characters in this movie, but if you have, or if you do so for a living, these characters have a haunting truth to them.
What’s new: This movie never gets preachy and doesn’t get bogged down in the angst over whether it’s ok to argue for big tobacco. It stays true to itself in a way that most movies do not as they try to further some agenda beyond the mere plot of their movie. So, that was new. It also showed this guy corrupting his son in a way that was funny and disturbing all at once. Usually, movies dodge that reality and want us to believe that people with flexible morals, still teach their kids what is right. Not this one.
What’s the last word: Good ending. A bit Hollywood (which could mean a bit too predictable or happy or forced or tidy, etc). I liked the shot at the reporter and the debate about cheese near the end. I also liked that the movie did not break character and try unnecessarily to redeem things that were not on their way to redemption. Sorry to be vague, but I don’t like giving things away.
Who you should bring: Anyone old enough to deal with some coarse language and some minor sexual scenes. All you need to enjoy this movie is a sense of humor that appreciates sarcasm, subtlety and rapier wit. I think this movie would appeal more to men than to women, but not enough to matter in deciding who to take.
Where you should watch: I think this is the first movie I’ve reviewed so far that does not call for a big screen. This movie will play just as well on your little tv at home as it does in the theater.
I should clarify that many people view a discussion of whether a movie is worth seeing in the theater a bit differently than I do. I hear people talking about whether they should see it in the theater or should just wait and rent it and the real debate is: Is this movie worth paying $9 for and arranging babysitting and such or is this a $3 watch it at home with microwave popcorn kind of movie.
I take a different approach. For me, you’re not paying for the value or quality of the movie, but rather the superior screen and sound. So, when I say, there is no need to see this movie in the theater, it is not to suggest anything about how good a movie it is, but rather that nothing is gained by seeing it on a big screen with the best surround sound. So, I would rather see Mission Impossible on the big screen than this movie, even though MI3 was not very good and this movie was, because MI3 is only worth seeing if you can take full advantage of the sound and visuals whereas a movie like this, just doesn’t rely on that sort of thing.
The net result of this for me, is that I tend to see more bad movies at the theater and the better movies at home, because it is much more rare to see a well made big budget visual feast of a movie these days than the smaller films that rely more on acting and writing. But I want to see both eventually, so I’ll go see the big action movies at the theater even when I strongly suspect they won’t be that good.
What’s the couch rating: This is a tough one. I didn’t see this with Tanya, but would expect my lovely wife to like this movie and appreciate the comedy. That said, if she were lying on the couch after 9:30 and watching this, I think it’s iffy that she makes it past halfway. Usually, my wife has to really care about the characters and what is happening in their lives to stay awake. Other factors come into play, but I think that is generally true. This movie is about the shock of hearing someone argue with a straight face that kids should try cigarettes for themselves and not rely on what their parents or other people tell them. That would make my wife laugh, but I’m giving this a couch rating of only 45 minutes to an hour.
What my gut tells me: I walked out wanting to quote back every line. So much good stuff. Just made me laugh and appreciate that a funny movie could still get made that was smart and didn’t rely at all on jokes about flatulents, sex or people’s private parts.
What it’s like: It seems like I've seen a movie or two that was like this, but none leap to mind. It’s a bit like Swimming with Sharks, it’s a bit like an unCareyfied Liar Liar. It has the same sort of feel as some of the Christopher Guest mockumenaries or a movie like Drop Dead Gorgeous. I’m struggling to find a better comparison, but it’s just not coming to mind. The movie is mostly dissimilar to anything else out there.
Where it rates: 9. Instant classic. Not funny enough to get into the very top tier, but on the verge.
Whatever the reason, I have to say that the main character of this movie, a spokesperson for “big tobacco” made the bad guy seem as cool as possible while forcing me to spend 2 hours wishing I was that clever. The “sultan of spin” as he is called is absolutely brilliant in this very tongue in cheek comedy about the art of spin.
In some ways this movie also hit close to home because, like lobbyists, lawyers are asked to advocate the positions of their clients as if they were their own without making those issues their own. It is a very strange and difficult line to walk and some are better at it than others. Some become true believers and only represent causes they believe in. Some separate themselves from their work entirely and would not bat an eye at representing Osama or Saddam or a serial killer. Most stay in the middle constantly asking themselves if ethics and morality only require honesty, courtesy, professionalism, committed advocacy and playing by the rules. Or does it also require us to examine the causes and people and companies for whom we advocate? It is a very tough question to which most lawyers have at best an unsatisfactory, but functioning answer that changes from client to client
Anyway, this movie examines those issues in a very sarcastic, wickedly clever and above all very funny satire.
What it’s about: The movie follows Nick Naylor who is the chief spokesperson and lobbyist for American tobacco companies. It follows him as he bribes and manipulates cancer victims, slanders cheese, tries to put cigarettes back in the movies and all this while trying to parent his young son. Yes this is the story of the guy who wants your children to start and keep smoking and somehow makes a convincing case as to why they should.
What’s to like: Above all, the writing. Incredibly smart script on a couple levels. First, it is laugh out loud funny throughout the movie. Second it is full of subtle details, symbols, inferences, and wordplays that give the movie some depth and offer up rewards for paying close attention. When you watch this movie, and you really should, pay attention to the names of people and places and the themes and symbols. Make note of things like what flavor of ice cream Nick and son eat on the Santa Monica pier, and what’s going on in the movie showing when Nick and his son go to meet the Hollywood agent. Good stuff.
More than anything else, though, this movie is about the guy with the perfect comeback for everything. You know those great comebacks you think of 15 minutes after you’ve left a conversation, well this guy delivers when it matters. You just spend the whole time going, “oh man, that is perfect.” The writing is really that good.
The acting is also good. All 3 of the MOD squad (“Merchants of Death” – a meeting between lobbyists for tobacco, alcohol and firearms), were great. William H. Macy is as good as he always is. Basically, the script was inspired and the actors have the timing and skill to allow it to come alive.
Also, it didn’t suffer from that dead 30 minutes that kills most comedies. That period of time, when they are trying to advance a love story or just go too far between things that make you laugh. This movie starts you laughing right away and keeps you laughing until the end. Not crying, falling out of your chair laughing, but constant amusement.
What I could have done without: It suffered a little bit from “scripting.” There may be some other term out there that describes this phenomenon, but I’m not aware of it, so I’m stealing this word to describe something I see in movies all the time. This movie only works if you believe that Nick is this unstoppable arguing force of spin and confidence. So, the movie has to convince you he is that guy early and often. The thing is that being clever enough to be funny to watch requires not only a quick wit, but the right situation and opportunity. Lloyd Benson doesn’t get off that line about JFK unless Dan Quayle set him up for it.
You need a good set up to deliver that crushing one liner. That’s why George Constanza flew to Iowa or wherever it was to have a shot at delivering that “jerk store” line. If you don’t watch Seinfeld, just ignore me and move on and rest in the shame of having missed the best sitcom ever made for American network TV.
When movies need to set up their story by convincing you that a character is really smart, or an amazing fighter or super strong or super clever or whatever, they give their characters the right set up. Some movies try to “cheat” with narrators which never works quite as well and then others try to short-cut the process by making the set up just a little too good and the payoff just a little to big and those around the hero just a little too weak. That’s what I mean by “scripting.” We would all be a lot more clever if we knew what other people were going to say and some times this movie tried so hard to convince you Nick was clever, the set ups were a bit forced. Also, his opponents were ridiculously incompetent. Even the one person who makes life hard for him has to use talents other than intellect to best him.
Smart against stupid was pretty funny, but smart against smart might have been better.
Also, while the subject matter and situations in the movie were great, the story was ignored at times which gave the movie a choppy feel, but this was just a “day in the life” movie anyway, so not a big deal.
Also, part of the plat revolved around how hot Katie Holmes is and I’m sorry she’s just not all that.
Who do you like: You don’t want to, but you like Nick. You just can’t help it.. If you’ve never been in a position where you have to argue for something you don’t personally believe in (though I’m not sure that was what was portrayed in the movie), you might have a harder time sympathizing with the characters in this movie, but if you have, or if you do so for a living, these characters have a haunting truth to them.
What’s new: This movie never gets preachy and doesn’t get bogged down in the angst over whether it’s ok to argue for big tobacco. It stays true to itself in a way that most movies do not as they try to further some agenda beyond the mere plot of their movie. So, that was new. It also showed this guy corrupting his son in a way that was funny and disturbing all at once. Usually, movies dodge that reality and want us to believe that people with flexible morals, still teach their kids what is right. Not this one.
What’s the last word: Good ending. A bit Hollywood (which could mean a bit too predictable or happy or forced or tidy, etc). I liked the shot at the reporter and the debate about cheese near the end. I also liked that the movie did not break character and try unnecessarily to redeem things that were not on their way to redemption. Sorry to be vague, but I don’t like giving things away.
Who you should bring: Anyone old enough to deal with some coarse language and some minor sexual scenes. All you need to enjoy this movie is a sense of humor that appreciates sarcasm, subtlety and rapier wit. I think this movie would appeal more to men than to women, but not enough to matter in deciding who to take.
Where you should watch: I think this is the first movie I’ve reviewed so far that does not call for a big screen. This movie will play just as well on your little tv at home as it does in the theater.
I should clarify that many people view a discussion of whether a movie is worth seeing in the theater a bit differently than I do. I hear people talking about whether they should see it in the theater or should just wait and rent it and the real debate is: Is this movie worth paying $9 for and arranging babysitting and such or is this a $3 watch it at home with microwave popcorn kind of movie.
I take a different approach. For me, you’re not paying for the value or quality of the movie, but rather the superior screen and sound. So, when I say, there is no need to see this movie in the theater, it is not to suggest anything about how good a movie it is, but rather that nothing is gained by seeing it on a big screen with the best surround sound. So, I would rather see Mission Impossible on the big screen than this movie, even though MI3 was not very good and this movie was, because MI3 is only worth seeing if you can take full advantage of the sound and visuals whereas a movie like this, just doesn’t rely on that sort of thing.
The net result of this for me, is that I tend to see more bad movies at the theater and the better movies at home, because it is much more rare to see a well made big budget visual feast of a movie these days than the smaller films that rely more on acting and writing. But I want to see both eventually, so I’ll go see the big action movies at the theater even when I strongly suspect they won’t be that good.
What’s the couch rating: This is a tough one. I didn’t see this with Tanya, but would expect my lovely wife to like this movie and appreciate the comedy. That said, if she were lying on the couch after 9:30 and watching this, I think it’s iffy that she makes it past halfway. Usually, my wife has to really care about the characters and what is happening in their lives to stay awake. Other factors come into play, but I think that is generally true. This movie is about the shock of hearing someone argue with a straight face that kids should try cigarettes for themselves and not rely on what their parents or other people tell them. That would make my wife laugh, but I’m giving this a couch rating of only 45 minutes to an hour.
What my gut tells me: I walked out wanting to quote back every line. So much good stuff. Just made me laugh and appreciate that a funny movie could still get made that was smart and didn’t rely at all on jokes about flatulents, sex or people’s private parts.
What it’s like: It seems like I've seen a movie or two that was like this, but none leap to mind. It’s a bit like Swimming with Sharks, it’s a bit like an unCareyfied Liar Liar. It has the same sort of feel as some of the Christopher Guest mockumenaries or a movie like Drop Dead Gorgeous. I’m struggling to find a better comparison, but it’s just not coming to mind. The movie is mostly dissimilar to anything else out there.
Where it rates: 9. Instant classic. Not funny enough to get into the very top tier, but on the verge.
Good Movie Alert
I just saw "Thank You For Smoking." It is brilliant. The review will be posted shortly, but if you're trying to find something to see in the meantime and none of the big budget fair has appeal, find your local art house and check it out. You won't be sorry unles you hate laughing.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
The Da Vinci Code's real secret? This Movie is Really Bad
This was a certifiably awful movie, but let me start with a couple disclaimers. First, I didn’t read the book. I hear that the book tells a fascinating and gripping story in spite of some pretty pedestrian writing. Let me tell you pedestrian writing would have been a breath of fresh air for the movie.
Second, the controversies surrounding this movie completely escape me. Before I get into these, and because of my own sensitivity to spoilers, I must confess, that this discussion gives away some of what the movie is about. That said, if you don’t already know this much about the story, you have likely be living under a rock and are not likely to even own a computer with internet access that would allow you to read this very out of the way blog. Nevertheless if the moss from that rock is still fresh on your shirt and you hate spoilers as much as I do, read the book and then skip the movie and read this review later.
The first mysterious controversy is external to the movie. That is, the Catholic church and many others in Christendom calling for boycotting this movie because it does not accurately depict what is told in scripture, how the Catholic church conducts itself and many other things related to the Christian faith. Uhmmmm….right…it is a work of fiction!!!! No one is claiming otherwise. Neither Dan Brown, the author nor Ron Howard, the movie’s director make any claim whatsoever that anything presented in this book or movie is real or true or should be believed and accepted. Why aren’t the Paris police outraged at how they are portrayed? Why isn’t Harvard coming forward to demand an apology for suggesting that they have a symbols expert who went looking for the holy grail? Why? Because neither the book nor the movie ever claimed to be anything but fiction and everyone except for a select few Christians get that. The mere fact that it references actual people, places and events and then distorts how those things really happened is no reason to be any more upset about this movie than we should be about Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure or Woody Allen’s masterpiece Love and Death.
In my mind, well-meaning church-going folk often get upset over completely the wrong things when it comes to pop culture addressing religion. They raise a huge fuss over an innocuous murder-mystery novel that presents an in your face, easy to identify message about Christianity that you can easily note and choose to reject or accept. And yet a show like “touched by an angel” can turn Biblical theology on its head, but because it seems to have a good moral and because Laura Ingles Wilder’s Pa was on the show, it got a pass from the religious critics. This is backwards.
This movie is no more likely to cause someone to have a crisis of faith than is the National Enquirer making a claim that someone saw the return of Jesus foretold in the markings of their peach pit. Remember, please, this book/movie is pure fiction and never claims to be anything else. If you need further proof consider that they misquoted the “Gospel according to Mary.” If you have to misquote some piece of Gnostic propaganda like that “gospel” to make a point theologically, chances are you aren’t trying to produce a scholarly work.
I also didn’t get the controversy of the story itself. Without getting into a whole philosophical and theological discourse here, why would the discovery that Jesus was married be such a big deal? It would raise some questions about why the Bible makes no mention of it and it would certainly call into question (as common sense and Biblical teaching already do) the Catholic doctrine of celibacy for its clergy, but other than that, what’s the big deal? I believe Jesus was fully man and fully God. Why would His being married make Him less God? I just never bought that this was a big enough deal to kill and go to war over. If an authentic ancient text was discovered tomorrow proving conclusively that Jesus was married, it would not change my perception of Jesus even the slightest bit. It might rattle my notion of scripture a bit, but even that wouldn’t be catastrophic. I just don’t get it. And because I didn’t get it, I couldn’t engage in the drama of the movie.
What it’s about: Tom Hanks plays a symbols expert with a mullet and a mission. He is called in to help in the investigation of a murder and finds himself on a treasure hunt through ancient works of art and history to find the “holy grail” which might just prove that Jesus was married, a fact that would apparently put an end to Christianity and a secret that men who had spent their lives devoted to God would gladly become mass murderers to protect.
What’s to like: The cast. Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellan, Jean Reno, and Alfred Molina are all some of the very best in the business. All fine actors and thoroughly enjoyable to watch. All completely wasted in this movie.
What I could discern of the plot line is really a pretty fascinating concept, so there’s that.
Audrey Tautou is really striking and likeable.
My wife also mentioned that she liked the effects used to show us how Hanks’ character was seeing the different codes in his mind which I agree was pretty cool.
By far my favorite thing about this movie is that I was watching it with my wife in the theater in seats where the arm rests can fold up and I could sit closer to my lovely wife. If ever your seat is the best thing about a movie, that movie is in serious trouble.
What I could have done without: Where to begin…. The writing was astonishingly bad. The dialogue between Hanks and Tautou was so painful at times it was almost unintentionally comical. In one scene, Hanks bursts out with demand that she tell him about her past. The scene is so random and out of the blue and so forced and unbelievable, it prompted me to lean over and ask Tanya, “if you’re Tom Hanks and your last 29 movies were huge hits, why would you agree to do a scene like that? Can’t you say, ‘I’m supposed to say what? C’mon guys, I’m Tom freakin Hanks. The writers from Forrest Gump could fall into a coma and write better stuff than this.’ Doesn’t being Tom Hanks mean anything?”
This movie really played like the writer became overwhelmed with all the history stuff from the book that they had to cram in to make the story make any sense at all. The solution was long scenes of an albino whipping himself and then unending, brutal, brutal scenes of Tom Hanks and Ian McKellan talking about historical events. I’m not sure what was worse. The fact that there were poorly staged action scenes that did nothing to progress the story or add to the tension or drama. Or the fact that the writer gave up on trying to show a story and decided to just let a couple characters monologue the story to death.
As I said, a brilliant cast was totally wasted.
Several scenes made absolutely no sense for someone who has not read the book and we were provided no explanation.
If McKellan’s character already knew the whole story, how does it qualify as such a big secret?
Every aspect of movie making, from the camera angles, to the writing to Tom Hanks total lack of personality, to the editing looked like something an accountant would direct after one year of film school. It was the least creative offering for a high profile movie in a long long time.
Who do you like: Audrey Tautou. She’s a keeper. The characters were fairly sympathetic except that the movie so oversimplified things that we saw none of these allegedly Godly men at all conflicted with what they were doing. This rang very false and put a real distance between these one dimensional characters and us the viewing public.
What’s new: Tom Hanks made a really bad movie. That’s about it. Completely uninspired movie making.
What’s the last word: Ending was predictable, but fine. That movie couldn’t have withstood a real plot twist, it would have just left everyone confused as nothing would have been done to set it up correctly.
Who you should bring: People you don’t like. Friends don’t bring friends to see this movie.
Where you should watch: On your couch when you are staying home sick 5 years from now when it is playing on TNT and you can watch it as you drift in and out of your Nyquil coma.
What’s the couch rating: We saw this one in the theater, but Tanya would have been out in 20 minutes on the couch for this one and if she had for some reason stayed awake, she would have been furious at herself for wasting time she could have been sleeping.
What my gut tells me: I walked out thinking, how does that cast and that director take such a promising story and create that steaming pile of excrement on film?
What it’s like: National Treasure. Also total rubbish with a very similar story. Da Vinci code took itself more seriously, but otherwise, these movies are pretty similar.
Where it rates: 4 It only gets this high because the underlying story they couldn’t figure out how to tell was interesting and very promising. It could have been a good movie.
It wasn’t.
Second, the controversies surrounding this movie completely escape me. Before I get into these, and because of my own sensitivity to spoilers, I must confess, that this discussion gives away some of what the movie is about. That said, if you don’t already know this much about the story, you have likely be living under a rock and are not likely to even own a computer with internet access that would allow you to read this very out of the way blog. Nevertheless if the moss from that rock is still fresh on your shirt and you hate spoilers as much as I do, read the book and then skip the movie and read this review later.
The first mysterious controversy is external to the movie. That is, the Catholic church and many others in Christendom calling for boycotting this movie because it does not accurately depict what is told in scripture, how the Catholic church conducts itself and many other things related to the Christian faith. Uhmmmm….right…it is a work of fiction!!!! No one is claiming otherwise. Neither Dan Brown, the author nor Ron Howard, the movie’s director make any claim whatsoever that anything presented in this book or movie is real or true or should be believed and accepted. Why aren’t the Paris police outraged at how they are portrayed? Why isn’t Harvard coming forward to demand an apology for suggesting that they have a symbols expert who went looking for the holy grail? Why? Because neither the book nor the movie ever claimed to be anything but fiction and everyone except for a select few Christians get that. The mere fact that it references actual people, places and events and then distorts how those things really happened is no reason to be any more upset about this movie than we should be about Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure or Woody Allen’s masterpiece Love and Death.
In my mind, well-meaning church-going folk often get upset over completely the wrong things when it comes to pop culture addressing religion. They raise a huge fuss over an innocuous murder-mystery novel that presents an in your face, easy to identify message about Christianity that you can easily note and choose to reject or accept. And yet a show like “touched by an angel” can turn Biblical theology on its head, but because it seems to have a good moral and because Laura Ingles Wilder’s Pa was on the show, it got a pass from the religious critics. This is backwards.
This movie is no more likely to cause someone to have a crisis of faith than is the National Enquirer making a claim that someone saw the return of Jesus foretold in the markings of their peach pit. Remember, please, this book/movie is pure fiction and never claims to be anything else. If you need further proof consider that they misquoted the “Gospel according to Mary.” If you have to misquote some piece of Gnostic propaganda like that “gospel” to make a point theologically, chances are you aren’t trying to produce a scholarly work.
I also didn’t get the controversy of the story itself. Without getting into a whole philosophical and theological discourse here, why would the discovery that Jesus was married be such a big deal? It would raise some questions about why the Bible makes no mention of it and it would certainly call into question (as common sense and Biblical teaching already do) the Catholic doctrine of celibacy for its clergy, but other than that, what’s the big deal? I believe Jesus was fully man and fully God. Why would His being married make Him less God? I just never bought that this was a big enough deal to kill and go to war over. If an authentic ancient text was discovered tomorrow proving conclusively that Jesus was married, it would not change my perception of Jesus even the slightest bit. It might rattle my notion of scripture a bit, but even that wouldn’t be catastrophic. I just don’t get it. And because I didn’t get it, I couldn’t engage in the drama of the movie.
What it’s about: Tom Hanks plays a symbols expert with a mullet and a mission. He is called in to help in the investigation of a murder and finds himself on a treasure hunt through ancient works of art and history to find the “holy grail” which might just prove that Jesus was married, a fact that would apparently put an end to Christianity and a secret that men who had spent their lives devoted to God would gladly become mass murderers to protect.
What’s to like: The cast. Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellan, Jean Reno, and Alfred Molina are all some of the very best in the business. All fine actors and thoroughly enjoyable to watch. All completely wasted in this movie.
What I could discern of the plot line is really a pretty fascinating concept, so there’s that.
Audrey Tautou is really striking and likeable.
My wife also mentioned that she liked the effects used to show us how Hanks’ character was seeing the different codes in his mind which I agree was pretty cool.
By far my favorite thing about this movie is that I was watching it with my wife in the theater in seats where the arm rests can fold up and I could sit closer to my lovely wife. If ever your seat is the best thing about a movie, that movie is in serious trouble.
What I could have done without: Where to begin…. The writing was astonishingly bad. The dialogue between Hanks and Tautou was so painful at times it was almost unintentionally comical. In one scene, Hanks bursts out with demand that she tell him about her past. The scene is so random and out of the blue and so forced and unbelievable, it prompted me to lean over and ask Tanya, “if you’re Tom Hanks and your last 29 movies were huge hits, why would you agree to do a scene like that? Can’t you say, ‘I’m supposed to say what? C’mon guys, I’m Tom freakin Hanks. The writers from Forrest Gump could fall into a coma and write better stuff than this.’ Doesn’t being Tom Hanks mean anything?”
This movie really played like the writer became overwhelmed with all the history stuff from the book that they had to cram in to make the story make any sense at all. The solution was long scenes of an albino whipping himself and then unending, brutal, brutal scenes of Tom Hanks and Ian McKellan talking about historical events. I’m not sure what was worse. The fact that there were poorly staged action scenes that did nothing to progress the story or add to the tension or drama. Or the fact that the writer gave up on trying to show a story and decided to just let a couple characters monologue the story to death.
As I said, a brilliant cast was totally wasted.
Several scenes made absolutely no sense for someone who has not read the book and we were provided no explanation.
If McKellan’s character already knew the whole story, how does it qualify as such a big secret?
Every aspect of movie making, from the camera angles, to the writing to Tom Hanks total lack of personality, to the editing looked like something an accountant would direct after one year of film school. It was the least creative offering for a high profile movie in a long long time.
Who do you like: Audrey Tautou. She’s a keeper. The characters were fairly sympathetic except that the movie so oversimplified things that we saw none of these allegedly Godly men at all conflicted with what they were doing. This rang very false and put a real distance between these one dimensional characters and us the viewing public.
What’s new: Tom Hanks made a really bad movie. That’s about it. Completely uninspired movie making.
What’s the last word: Ending was predictable, but fine. That movie couldn’t have withstood a real plot twist, it would have just left everyone confused as nothing would have been done to set it up correctly.
Who you should bring: People you don’t like. Friends don’t bring friends to see this movie.
Where you should watch: On your couch when you are staying home sick 5 years from now when it is playing on TNT and you can watch it as you drift in and out of your Nyquil coma.
What’s the couch rating: We saw this one in the theater, but Tanya would have been out in 20 minutes on the couch for this one and if she had for some reason stayed awake, she would have been furious at herself for wasting time she could have been sleeping.
What my gut tells me: I walked out thinking, how does that cast and that director take such a promising story and create that steaming pile of excrement on film?
What it’s like: National Treasure. Also total rubbish with a very similar story. Da Vinci code took itself more seriously, but otherwise, these movies are pretty similar.
Where it rates: 4 It only gets this high because the underlying story they couldn’t figure out how to tell was interesting and very promising. It could have been a good movie.
It wasn’t.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Memoirs of a Geisha was as beautiful as it was thought provoking
This is a movie made from a very popular book which is usually a recipe for disaster. Of course, that is mostly true if you have read the book and loved it since your own imagination is vastly more powerful than even Hollywood and you are bound to be disappointed by the movie version of the book. In this case I solved this problem by not reading the book. I have to say, though, that there was so much depth to what was going on in this movie, if the book does even a mediocre job of telling the story the movie told, I can certainly see why it was so popular.
Before I get to the actual review I have to share what really struck me about this movie. Not surprisingly, the movie is about geishas. As explained by the movie, a geisha was (is?) a paid companion for a man’s entertainment. At least as it was portrayed, except in a few particularly horrifying instances, this was not about paying for sex. Geishas were not prostitutes, at least not in the sense we use that term now, but rather a woman trained in conversation and various forms of entertainment to make a man’s dinner or evening at the sumo match more enjoyable. You might ask, what about these men’s wives, but the movie doesn’t really address the fact that they were apparently left at home with the children while the husbands paid for professional companions.
The movie is beautiful and has some amazing visuals and in some ways is a mirror of the geishas themselves. But what really struck me was the fact that for all the painted on (literally and figuratively) beauty of these women, it was really all an elaborate scheme to cater to the whim of horrifically selfish, narcissistic and cruel men. The painted face of the geisha was the beautiful public face of an ugly culture that robbed poor people of their daughters who were forced to become common whores or the prettified geishas. Neither life was pleasant nor gave any consideration to what these women might want.
Of course, in virtually all cultures, men and women both conform their actions and appearance to one degree or another to make themselves attractive to the opposite sex, but the extreme of the geisha and the picture it painted of Japan half way through the last century was really tragic.
What it’s about: This is the story of a young girl ripped away from her family and forced to try to carve out some kind of life and dignity by pursuing becoming a Geisha. The movie takes place in WWII Japan and shows the beauty and pain of Geisha culture as well as how Japanese culture got a tremendous reality slap near the end of the war.
What’s to like: There was lots to like in this one. First the movie was beautiful and beautifully directed. The Geishas, the countryside, the scenes in the city were all breathtaking and stylistically shot with one amazing image after the next. The brilliant colors often contrasted with the mundane grays of the muddy city alleys much like the beauty of the fully done up Geisha women presented contrast to their peasant countrywomen all around them. The acting was brilliant with especially strong performances from both the younger and older woman who played the lead and the main Geisha rival. All were beautiful women who could be demure and strong and syrupy sweet and wicked all at once.
The director also added depth to the story with great use of symbols and imagery. Most notable was the use of the comparison of the main character to water and the use of that metaphor to add a subtle but meaningful sense of spirituality and mystery to what is already a dramatic story.
What I could have done without: I don’t really have anything significant to say to criticize the movie. It was slow moving at times, but this usually added rather than detracted from the movie. The story was compelling and well told and while not necessarily my favorite subject matter, it was very well done.
Who do you like: The main character is very sympathetic even as she lives her life in a culture that is so foreign. You feel her pain in the loss of her family and you share her inner strength that allows her to thrive in a culture where that was extremely difficult for someone like her.
What’s new: There were images of Japan and of the Geisha’s attire that were uniquely stunning.
What’s the last word: Very good ending to this movie. It perfectly presented in microcosm the balance between the dignified beauty of the Geisha and the harsh reality that she existed only to cater to the whim of men and was never as much distinct from a common prostitute as anyone involved wanted to believe.
Who you should bring: Women. This movie had a distinctively feminine quality. I’m not saying no men would enjoy this movie. I did after all. That said, I think most of my guy friends would rather have to recite Shakespeare in Japanese than sit through this movie. I hope I’m wrong about that as this was a great movie, but there is very little action and most of the drama comes from the pain of being a woman in this culture. Many guys will have a hard time relating, will likely find the whole thing wacky and spend the whole movie wondering when the kung fu starts. Women however, I would expect to enjoy this movie very much. It’s not one for kids. The subject matter is very adult both in its complexity and to some violence and sexual references, though there is nothing graphically depicted in the movie along these lines.
Where you should watch: The movie needs a big screen. It is so beautiful in its scenery, you really miss out not seeing it on a big screen. You probably can’t see it in the theater any more so I recommend breaking into some home theater store with your dvd and watching it in one of their mock rooms.
What’s the couch rating: We watched this movie late at night with Tanya on the couch under the blanket and she stayed awake for the whole thing. She began fading near the end, but the story was engaging enough that she was able to power through. That’s a very high couch score for this movie especially since my wife wasn’t feeling all that good while she watched.
What my gut tells me: I liked it and it really got me thinking, but I can’t say it was entirely enjoyable. Some parts were a bit boring for my taste, but that was just how it struck me. Also, I was really struck by the fact that no amount of face paint and silk could mask the ugliness of treating women so badly.
What it’s like: It’s a bit like a Merchant Ivory production or one of the period movies based on Jane Austen. It is a period piece where subtlety wins out over in your face action or drama. I’m struggling to find a movie that compares well to it. Pride and Prejudice, if it were filmed in Japan might be along the same lines.
Where it rates: 9 – I’m not sure I enjoyed it at that level, but thinking of it from the standpoint of the craft of movie making, it deserves this score.
Before I get to the actual review I have to share what really struck me about this movie. Not surprisingly, the movie is about geishas. As explained by the movie, a geisha was (is?) a paid companion for a man’s entertainment. At least as it was portrayed, except in a few particularly horrifying instances, this was not about paying for sex. Geishas were not prostitutes, at least not in the sense we use that term now, but rather a woman trained in conversation and various forms of entertainment to make a man’s dinner or evening at the sumo match more enjoyable. You might ask, what about these men’s wives, but the movie doesn’t really address the fact that they were apparently left at home with the children while the husbands paid for professional companions.
The movie is beautiful and has some amazing visuals and in some ways is a mirror of the geishas themselves. But what really struck me was the fact that for all the painted on (literally and figuratively) beauty of these women, it was really all an elaborate scheme to cater to the whim of horrifically selfish, narcissistic and cruel men. The painted face of the geisha was the beautiful public face of an ugly culture that robbed poor people of their daughters who were forced to become common whores or the prettified geishas. Neither life was pleasant nor gave any consideration to what these women might want.
Of course, in virtually all cultures, men and women both conform their actions and appearance to one degree or another to make themselves attractive to the opposite sex, but the extreme of the geisha and the picture it painted of Japan half way through the last century was really tragic.
What it’s about: This is the story of a young girl ripped away from her family and forced to try to carve out some kind of life and dignity by pursuing becoming a Geisha. The movie takes place in WWII Japan and shows the beauty and pain of Geisha culture as well as how Japanese culture got a tremendous reality slap near the end of the war.
What’s to like: There was lots to like in this one. First the movie was beautiful and beautifully directed. The Geishas, the countryside, the scenes in the city were all breathtaking and stylistically shot with one amazing image after the next. The brilliant colors often contrasted with the mundane grays of the muddy city alleys much like the beauty of the fully done up Geisha women presented contrast to their peasant countrywomen all around them. The acting was brilliant with especially strong performances from both the younger and older woman who played the lead and the main Geisha rival. All were beautiful women who could be demure and strong and syrupy sweet and wicked all at once.
The director also added depth to the story with great use of symbols and imagery. Most notable was the use of the comparison of the main character to water and the use of that metaphor to add a subtle but meaningful sense of spirituality and mystery to what is already a dramatic story.
What I could have done without: I don’t really have anything significant to say to criticize the movie. It was slow moving at times, but this usually added rather than detracted from the movie. The story was compelling and well told and while not necessarily my favorite subject matter, it was very well done.
Who do you like: The main character is very sympathetic even as she lives her life in a culture that is so foreign. You feel her pain in the loss of her family and you share her inner strength that allows her to thrive in a culture where that was extremely difficult for someone like her.
What’s new: There were images of Japan and of the Geisha’s attire that were uniquely stunning.
What’s the last word: Very good ending to this movie. It perfectly presented in microcosm the balance between the dignified beauty of the Geisha and the harsh reality that she existed only to cater to the whim of men and was never as much distinct from a common prostitute as anyone involved wanted to believe.
Who you should bring: Women. This movie had a distinctively feminine quality. I’m not saying no men would enjoy this movie. I did after all. That said, I think most of my guy friends would rather have to recite Shakespeare in Japanese than sit through this movie. I hope I’m wrong about that as this was a great movie, but there is very little action and most of the drama comes from the pain of being a woman in this culture. Many guys will have a hard time relating, will likely find the whole thing wacky and spend the whole movie wondering when the kung fu starts. Women however, I would expect to enjoy this movie very much. It’s not one for kids. The subject matter is very adult both in its complexity and to some violence and sexual references, though there is nothing graphically depicted in the movie along these lines.
Where you should watch: The movie needs a big screen. It is so beautiful in its scenery, you really miss out not seeing it on a big screen. You probably can’t see it in the theater any more so I recommend breaking into some home theater store with your dvd and watching it in one of their mock rooms.
What’s the couch rating: We watched this movie late at night with Tanya on the couch under the blanket and she stayed awake for the whole thing. She began fading near the end, but the story was engaging enough that she was able to power through. That’s a very high couch score for this movie especially since my wife wasn’t feeling all that good while she watched.
What my gut tells me: I liked it and it really got me thinking, but I can’t say it was entirely enjoyable. Some parts were a bit boring for my taste, but that was just how it struck me. Also, I was really struck by the fact that no amount of face paint and silk could mask the ugliness of treating women so badly.
What it’s like: It’s a bit like a Merchant Ivory production or one of the period movies based on Jane Austen. It is a period piece where subtlety wins out over in your face action or drama. I’m struggling to find a movie that compares well to it. Pride and Prejudice, if it were filmed in Japan might be along the same lines.
Where it rates: 9 – I’m not sure I enjoyed it at that level, but thinking of it from the standpoint of the craft of movie making, it deserves this score.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
X Men 3: The Last Stand...Thank Goodness
I loved the first two X-Men movies, but after seeing the last one and knowing it was the last of the franchise, I had a bit of relief like you have when you’ve watched the starting pitcher dominate a close game and then give up a hit and a walk and then the manager comes to get him. You think, whew, let’s not let this poor kid pitch his way out of a great game. X-Men 3 wasn’t terrible by any stretch, but it was enough worse than the first two to make you relieved this trend wasn’t going to be allowed to continue to the point the whole franchise is tainted.
What it’s about: The battle between men and mutants continues with the good mutants (X-Men – name note: the movie, and I believe the comics offers two possible theories for why they are called X-Men. First, their leader is called “Professor X” since his name is Charles Xavier. Second, the mutant gene that gives mutants their unique traits is referred to as the “Mutant X Gene.” Is there a right answer to the name origin?) and bad mutants (the “Brotherhood”) which are led by Magneto, taking sides with or against the humans.The humans believe they have found a way to “cure” the mutants by turning them human again and the mutants have taken offense at this idea. Magneto decides to take the fight to the humans and the X-Men try to save the day. Lots and lots of cool effects and stunts follow at an exhausting pace.Of course, that’s not the real story of the X-Men movies. The real story is about how we view and treat people who are different than we are. The mutations seen are just extreme differences to help make a point and add some good reason to have lots of kicking, clawing, flying, mayhem and Rebecca Romijn in body paint. There are relatively well placed references to what the Nazis did with the Jews and some thinly veiled references to homosexuality.
The idea is that we should accept and embrace our differences because what makes someone different might also make them great and to assign labels to groups of people who appear different is cruel bigotry and to suggest that there is something wrong with them because of their differences such that they should be changed or want to change themselves, is a form of hate that has resulted in some of the worst atrocities in human history....right? Make no mistake, that is what X-Men is really about, not just a bunch of cool dudes and chicks that can do some wicked, sick tricks.Before you stand up and cheer however, consider the idea that diversity should generally be a neutral term. Differences among people are not good or bad because they make someone different, anymore than someone’s difference in itself makes someone good or bad. Differences must be judged by the standards by which all things are judged. For me, that is my Christian faith and the scripture that captures the will of God, but whatever your standard, don’t be fooled by arguments about acceptance based only in the idea that we shouldn’t judge someone for being different.
That is true to a point, but we can and should judge someone’s conduct, even if that conduct flows from some characteristic that we might be more hesitant to judge. Someone who finds pleasure in hurting other people may be different and add diversity to our society, but this is not a characteristic (nor conduct obviously) that should be embraced for what I hope are rather obvious reasons. Like the movie, that is an extreme example, but makes the point: not all differences are the same or good.
More than anything else, I think the movie aims for you to consider issues like homosexuality and teen rebellion. This is rather overt in some ways and subtle in others, but it is part of what these movies are about whether or not you realize it as you munch your popcorn and take in the cool visuals. The movie wants you to see the painful consequences of suggesting that there is something “wrong” with someone with an “alternative” lifestyle and the plot of this specific movie is no doubt aimed much at people who suggest that our genetic research may someday find the source of sexual proclivities (or other traits/conduct considered out of the mainstream) and provide a way to “cure” someone with “abnormal” sexual (or other) tendencies.
Unfortunately, the setting of the movie where someone is genetically mutated with varying obvious results, does not allow for the greater complexities required in a debate about something like homosexuality. There is no room for a distinction between “being” a certain way and “acting” a certain way and there is little discussion of choice or positive presentation of people who have some good reason for treating someone differently based on their conduct.But, hey, it’s a movie not a philosophical treatise, so we have to cut it some slack even if their presentation is rather one-sided. Plus the movie is also about cool super powers and great fight scenes and whether it would be better to control water or fire and stuff like that. But you should not be so naive to think that this movie is the first ever to have no world view or value system to present in its story. I’m not suggesting the movie makers had an agenda when they made the movie other than making money, but they make a point whether they meant to or not. Before you cheer them on, you should at least think about the point they are making.
What’s to like about this movie: First, great casting/acting. Ian McKellan (Magneto) and Patrick Stewart (Prof. X) add a gravitas to this movie that draws you in even though so much of it is so silly. They make you believe that this is a realistic movie even as everything else screams fantasy. This movie franchise is one of the better ones out there because they went for acting prowess even over star power and Jackman, Berry and Jensen are also great. New comer Kelsey Grammer as “the Beast” was absolutely perfect. In the end, this makes the movie.
I also loved the effects. The scene where Magneto takes on a prison convoy is sensational and even the over the top scene with the Golden Gate bridge shown on the previews is amazing to watch. The costumes, makeup, CGI, fight choreography are all first rate and would compare favorably to just about any movie I’ve seen. I still like some of the stuff from the first two X movies better, but on the visual side, this movie delivers.
What I could have done with out: Like many sequels, this movie tried to do to much without taking the time to do it right. There is some I have to hold back to keep from giving things away, but suffice to say some very dramatic stuff happens involving the characters from these movies, but it all comes off as anti-climactic because the story and set up are given such short shrift. They could have done so much more if they were going to take the plot turns that they took, to make it more meaningful.
There were also too many new mutants to allow any one of them to shine. The fun part of superhero movies is seeing how someone with superpowers goes about life and interacts with mere mortals. Just seeing someone clap shockwaves that knock people over or run through walls, is cool at a certain level, but when the whole movie is made up of people who do these different thing, the coolness is diluted and this movie suffers some from that.
I didn’t like the end. I can’t tell you why without spoiling it, but I didn’t like it. Complete anti-climax I though.
Where was the Nightcrawler? He was missed.I could have done without the line from the Juggernaut to the young girl who runs through walls. Why the profanity? Why then? It just seemed forced and lame.
Who do you like: Come on, you gotta love Wolverine. He’s one of the best superheroes out there. Actually, the character development in these movies is mostly pretty good with the main characters. Even the baddies have a good side that makes the whole conflict more real. This is the real strength of the franchise and was continued in this movie, though not quite at the previous level.
What’s new: the Golden Gate Bridge gets knocked off it’s foundation. A girl who can walk through solid matter uses it to her advantage in a fight, the power of the dark Phoenix on display which I won’t describe, but is very cool. The full power of someone who can control metal. A blue Frasier Crane acting like he’s gone a month without a Late. And I could go on and on. The visuals of this movie are so good, you could enjoy it with the sound off.
What’s the last word: I didn’t like the ending. Watch the movie and then answer me this. Wouldn’t it have been better if it ended up where the bald kid could have balanced the power of the one character most in need of balance enough to salvage things?
Who you should watch this with: Just about anyone over the age of 12 or so (unless you have strong feelings on the effects of violent images on someone that young even in a fantasy setting), and especially boys, though this movie should be fun for all really. About the only people you should avoid taking to this movie are people who by age or personality are just too old or serious to see the fun in superheroes. You know who they are. Just leave them at home until the next Harrison Ford, Clint Eastwood or Tom Hanks movie comes out.
Where you should watch this move: You must see this on the big screen. Some very cool effects in this movie and it will just be wasted on any screen less than 40 inches. If you have a big-screen tv, you can wait, but you should really see this in the theater if at all.
What the couch test says: We saw this movie in the theater where my wife could not fall asleep if she followed a marathon with a full turkey dinner and a Nyquil chaser. No sleeping in public for Tanya. I think my wife liked this movie alright, but to be honest, I give this movie only 55 minutes of Tanya’s wakefulness if viewed on the couch. The story bogs down and leaves you not caring and when my wife stops caring about the characters, it is game over. No amount of action can make up for this.
What it’s like: this is easy here. It is most like the previous 2 X-Men movies, just not as good. Bryan Singer left to direct Superman and was replaced by Bret Ratner. If you liked Rush Hour (Ratner’s biggest movie) more than the first X-Men movie, then you will probably think this movie is just as good as the others. If you didn’t, you might be slightly disappointed in this offering.
What my gut tells me: I was disappointed at a gut level when I walked out. It wasn't bad, but I saw greater potential. It was fun, but left me wanting more.
Where it rates: 7. It is worth seeing and I had a good time, but it could have been so much more. Oh well, at least the risk of a downward spiral is mostly over….there are rumors of a Wolverine spin off, so I will only say “mostly” for now.
What it’s about: The battle between men and mutants continues with the good mutants (X-Men – name note: the movie, and I believe the comics offers two possible theories for why they are called X-Men. First, their leader is called “Professor X” since his name is Charles Xavier. Second, the mutant gene that gives mutants their unique traits is referred to as the “Mutant X Gene.” Is there a right answer to the name origin?) and bad mutants (the “Brotherhood”) which are led by Magneto, taking sides with or against the humans.The humans believe they have found a way to “cure” the mutants by turning them human again and the mutants have taken offense at this idea. Magneto decides to take the fight to the humans and the X-Men try to save the day. Lots and lots of cool effects and stunts follow at an exhausting pace.Of course, that’s not the real story of the X-Men movies. The real story is about how we view and treat people who are different than we are. The mutations seen are just extreme differences to help make a point and add some good reason to have lots of kicking, clawing, flying, mayhem and Rebecca Romijn in body paint. There are relatively well placed references to what the Nazis did with the Jews and some thinly veiled references to homosexuality.
The idea is that we should accept and embrace our differences because what makes someone different might also make them great and to assign labels to groups of people who appear different is cruel bigotry and to suggest that there is something wrong with them because of their differences such that they should be changed or want to change themselves, is a form of hate that has resulted in some of the worst atrocities in human history....right? Make no mistake, that is what X-Men is really about, not just a bunch of cool dudes and chicks that can do some wicked, sick tricks.Before you stand up and cheer however, consider the idea that diversity should generally be a neutral term. Differences among people are not good or bad because they make someone different, anymore than someone’s difference in itself makes someone good or bad. Differences must be judged by the standards by which all things are judged. For me, that is my Christian faith and the scripture that captures the will of God, but whatever your standard, don’t be fooled by arguments about acceptance based only in the idea that we shouldn’t judge someone for being different.
That is true to a point, but we can and should judge someone’s conduct, even if that conduct flows from some characteristic that we might be more hesitant to judge. Someone who finds pleasure in hurting other people may be different and add diversity to our society, but this is not a characteristic (nor conduct obviously) that should be embraced for what I hope are rather obvious reasons. Like the movie, that is an extreme example, but makes the point: not all differences are the same or good.
More than anything else, I think the movie aims for you to consider issues like homosexuality and teen rebellion. This is rather overt in some ways and subtle in others, but it is part of what these movies are about whether or not you realize it as you munch your popcorn and take in the cool visuals. The movie wants you to see the painful consequences of suggesting that there is something “wrong” with someone with an “alternative” lifestyle and the plot of this specific movie is no doubt aimed much at people who suggest that our genetic research may someday find the source of sexual proclivities (or other traits/conduct considered out of the mainstream) and provide a way to “cure” someone with “abnormal” sexual (or other) tendencies.
Unfortunately, the setting of the movie where someone is genetically mutated with varying obvious results, does not allow for the greater complexities required in a debate about something like homosexuality. There is no room for a distinction between “being” a certain way and “acting” a certain way and there is little discussion of choice or positive presentation of people who have some good reason for treating someone differently based on their conduct.But, hey, it’s a movie not a philosophical treatise, so we have to cut it some slack even if their presentation is rather one-sided. Plus the movie is also about cool super powers and great fight scenes and whether it would be better to control water or fire and stuff like that. But you should not be so naive to think that this movie is the first ever to have no world view or value system to present in its story. I’m not suggesting the movie makers had an agenda when they made the movie other than making money, but they make a point whether they meant to or not. Before you cheer them on, you should at least think about the point they are making.
What’s to like about this movie: First, great casting/acting. Ian McKellan (Magneto) and Patrick Stewart (Prof. X) add a gravitas to this movie that draws you in even though so much of it is so silly. They make you believe that this is a realistic movie even as everything else screams fantasy. This movie franchise is one of the better ones out there because they went for acting prowess even over star power and Jackman, Berry and Jensen are also great. New comer Kelsey Grammer as “the Beast” was absolutely perfect. In the end, this makes the movie.
I also loved the effects. The scene where Magneto takes on a prison convoy is sensational and even the over the top scene with the Golden Gate bridge shown on the previews is amazing to watch. The costumes, makeup, CGI, fight choreography are all first rate and would compare favorably to just about any movie I’ve seen. I still like some of the stuff from the first two X movies better, but on the visual side, this movie delivers.
What I could have done with out: Like many sequels, this movie tried to do to much without taking the time to do it right. There is some I have to hold back to keep from giving things away, but suffice to say some very dramatic stuff happens involving the characters from these movies, but it all comes off as anti-climactic because the story and set up are given such short shrift. They could have done so much more if they were going to take the plot turns that they took, to make it more meaningful.
There were also too many new mutants to allow any one of them to shine. The fun part of superhero movies is seeing how someone with superpowers goes about life and interacts with mere mortals. Just seeing someone clap shockwaves that knock people over or run through walls, is cool at a certain level, but when the whole movie is made up of people who do these different thing, the coolness is diluted and this movie suffers some from that.
I didn’t like the end. I can’t tell you why without spoiling it, but I didn’t like it. Complete anti-climax I though.
Where was the Nightcrawler? He was missed.I could have done without the line from the Juggernaut to the young girl who runs through walls. Why the profanity? Why then? It just seemed forced and lame.
Who do you like: Come on, you gotta love Wolverine. He’s one of the best superheroes out there. Actually, the character development in these movies is mostly pretty good with the main characters. Even the baddies have a good side that makes the whole conflict more real. This is the real strength of the franchise and was continued in this movie, though not quite at the previous level.
What’s new: the Golden Gate Bridge gets knocked off it’s foundation. A girl who can walk through solid matter uses it to her advantage in a fight, the power of the dark Phoenix on display which I won’t describe, but is very cool. The full power of someone who can control metal. A blue Frasier Crane acting like he’s gone a month without a Late. And I could go on and on. The visuals of this movie are so good, you could enjoy it with the sound off.
What’s the last word: I didn’t like the ending. Watch the movie and then answer me this. Wouldn’t it have been better if it ended up where the bald kid could have balanced the power of the one character most in need of balance enough to salvage things?
Who you should watch this with: Just about anyone over the age of 12 or so (unless you have strong feelings on the effects of violent images on someone that young even in a fantasy setting), and especially boys, though this movie should be fun for all really. About the only people you should avoid taking to this movie are people who by age or personality are just too old or serious to see the fun in superheroes. You know who they are. Just leave them at home until the next Harrison Ford, Clint Eastwood or Tom Hanks movie comes out.
Where you should watch this move: You must see this on the big screen. Some very cool effects in this movie and it will just be wasted on any screen less than 40 inches. If you have a big-screen tv, you can wait, but you should really see this in the theater if at all.
What the couch test says: We saw this movie in the theater where my wife could not fall asleep if she followed a marathon with a full turkey dinner and a Nyquil chaser. No sleeping in public for Tanya. I think my wife liked this movie alright, but to be honest, I give this movie only 55 minutes of Tanya’s wakefulness if viewed on the couch. The story bogs down and leaves you not caring and when my wife stops caring about the characters, it is game over. No amount of action can make up for this.
What it’s like: this is easy here. It is most like the previous 2 X-Men movies, just not as good. Bryan Singer left to direct Superman and was replaced by Bret Ratner. If you liked Rush Hour (Ratner’s biggest movie) more than the first X-Men movie, then you will probably think this movie is just as good as the others. If you didn’t, you might be slightly disappointed in this offering.
What my gut tells me: I was disappointed at a gut level when I walked out. It wasn't bad, but I saw greater potential. It was fun, but left me wanting more.
Where it rates: 7. It is worth seeing and I had a good time, but it could have been so much more. Oh well, at least the risk of a downward spiral is mostly over….there are rumors of a Wolverine spin off, so I will only say “mostly” for now.
V For Very Big Explosions
This movie was really an excellent opportunity for Hollywood to do two of the things they love the most. 1. Attack George Bush and American foreign policy and 2. blow stuff up. What happens other than that is just window dressing. So, if you think our role in Iraq may lead to chaos and fascism at home and for our neighbors, and you like to see large buildings blown up in dramatic fashion, and you loved Demi’s “GI Jane” look and were sorry it didn’t catch on, and finally you really dig guys who dress and talk like the 3 musketeers even in modern times, then this is the movie for you.
Spoiler-free plot synopsis: In the near future, the American wars in the Middle East have led to wide-spread civil unrest on the home front, apparently resulting in anarchy. Reacting to that, England has embraced fascism, or as is often the case, the fascist leaders have embraced fascism; the rest of the country has embraced being oppressed. In the middle of all this, a single individual has taken it upon himself to put an end to the fascist regime all while dressing like someone from 4 to 5 centuries ago. Specifically, he has based his persona on a guy who tried to blow up English Parliament way back in the day. V as our antihero calls himself wears a mask made to look like this earlier terrorist and never takes it off. Never. Meanwhile, Princess Lea’s mom from Star Wars gets caught up in the terrorist fun. This leads to explosions and battles and lots of action interrupted by V giving speeches about revenge and generally justifying his terrorist activities.
Advertising/Expectations: This movie was actually delayed quite a bit after the subway attacks in England started to look like life imitating a movie imitating art. So, I heard of the movie and it’s rather unfortunately timely and troubling plot long before it came out. It originally caught my attention because I was very interested to see what the Wachowski brothers would do after creating the Matrix trilogy. I enjoyed the Matrix movies and was hopeful that this would prove the Wachowskis to be serious movie makers and that Matrix wasn’t a fluke. Of course, the most noteworthy thing in this section is really the name of the movie which has to be one of the worst of all time. It sounds like you are about to watch a twisted episode of Sesame Street where the real goal is learning our letters. V for vendetta, W for warmonger, X for xylophone (because it is the only thing that starts with X and frankly can be pretty scary), Z for zero tolerance. You get the idea. Horrible, horrible title. Almost enough to make me refuse to see the movie on principal. It is like the stupid names restaurants give their menu items that make you feel ridiculous ordering them. “I’ll take the pig and a poke breakfast with a side of slappy happy ramalamadingdong please, and perhaps you could bring me out a bag to wear over my head or just serve it to me down here under the table. Thanks.” You just feel silly saying “I’ll have one adult for V for Vendetta”. Lame.
Storytelling: The story itself was fairly interesting and I appreciated things like the faceless hero who stayed focused on his mission Jack Bauer like, and didn’t let anyone or anything get in his way. I also liked the fact that it explained things about the world during the course of the movie rather than with a lot of narration or people just telling you how things were. It certainly added to the authenticity. That said, there were some gaps and holes in this plot that you could run that free-way from the Matrix sequels through. Lots of loose ends and unresolved plot twists. Is the general public generally more or less terrified of the government when there is someone running around its city blowing things up?
Acting/Casting: No complaints here. I don’t even like Natalie Portman, but she did good work here, shaved head and all. I believed her when she was broken and weak and when she was tough and fighting for her life. Same with V played by Hugo Weaving, or more accurately played by Hugo Weaving’s voice, the same voice that was so important in making the Matrix movies good when Hugo was Agent Smith. Everyone else from the baddies to the sympathizers had the right look and did their job.
Writing: With good writing there is a fine line between making it interesting without going over the top. The HBO series Deadwood is a good example of good writing pushed right up to the edge without going over. V had some good stuff with a very cool monologue that was incredible alliteration using the letter V. Someone did a very nice job with that. But they also took some of V’s ranting a bit over the top. It was just too flowery and too poetic at times, especially when there is absolutely nothing to explain what has turned this otherwise ordinary guy into some sort of brilliant wordsmith. That said, the writing didn’t get in the way and added to the movie quite a bit in various parts, but it did wander into the “roll your eyes” category a time or two.
Directing: Good job here. The action sequences worked and worked well with the visuals and the story. The actors were allowed to perform and the story moved along, even if there were huge gaps along the way. I could have used a bit more insight into what was going on here and a bit less preaching about the role of government in people’s lives, or at least a consistent theme there. Was this movie about revenge or fascism? It was like the directors couldn’t decide and that distracted them at times. Good editing, though and the movie had a good overall look.
Visuals: This movie came from a graphic novel which is what adults call comic books when they are too embarrassed to admit they still read comic books, and it had a good comic book look and feel. It had some startling signature scenes and looks like the mask, Portman’s creepy little Bo Peep outfit, Portman’s concentration camp look, the exploding buildings. Even the streets of London looked simultaneously futuristic and as if from the distant past. This is definitely a strong suit for the Wachowskis.Sound: Well done. Some of the explosions shook the theater like the building next door had blown up. The classical and modern music mixed well also. Crank the sound up for this one.Need for Screen: So, most movies are better on a big screen, but this one is especially. If you think you might want to see this movie, it is worth finding a discount theater that runs second run movies and going to see it there. The visuals are the best part of this movie, which isn’t a good thing, but means you need the screen.
Gut Feel: I didn’t like this one on a gut level. Not too sure why. Maybe I didn’t care for the glorification of a terrorist, especially as it criticized America. Maybe I got tired of the mask. Not sure really, but it just didn’t do it for me.
Who you should bring: Guys. This is a very male movie in tone and presentation and spends much of its time in heavy action and violence. That is a generalization of course. Some women like violent action movies as much as any man and some men can’t stand them, but for the most part, this is more of a night with the guys movie than a date movie.
1-10 Score: 7 – To be honest, I didn’t like this movie this much, but thinking about it and breaking it down, it was better than how much I liked it so I will score it here. Basically, if you need an action fix with more depth than MI3 or something like that, this will provide it, but if you are expecting something as groundbreaking as the Matrix, you will be disappointed. And if you never end up seeing it, you won’t really have missed out. But if you do see it, you might enjoy it and it won’t be a maddening waste of time.
Movie Review: JJ Abrahms Cashes In...err..I mean "MI3"
Spoiler-free plot synopsis: Super…spy? Agent? …actually, I’m not sure what he is exactly, but he’s Tom Cruise and that’s pretty much all you need to know. He’s not super-human, but no human could the things his character Ethan Hunt does in these movies. In this movie he tries on the never-before-seen action movie premise of trying to save the love of his life and the rest of the free world from a very bad man whose agenda above all else appears to be being bad…especially to Tom Cruise. Even as action movie plots go, this one is pretty basic.Since, action movies basically all follow the same general formula (bad guy tries to kill good guy…and all of man kind, good guy fights back against impossible odds…a fracas ensues), they tend to try to spice up their stories with either twists or layers.
A twist is when you thought a good guy was bad or vice versa and it turns out to be the other way around. Or, the world is really the matrix, or it was all a dream, or "she’s a man, baby." A layer is when you think you know what the evil plan was and who was in charge only to discover that this was all part of a larger plan run by someone even more evil. The tv show 24 has taken layering to a ridiculous extreme, somehow managing to outdo even Alias and the X-Files in this category.Anyway, MI3 provides very little of either and just relies on pure, non-stop action, which it delivers. One more note about action movies in general. To be good, a big-budget action movie must, I repeat must, show me something I’ve never seen before. It can be as subtle as a camera angle or as overt as a giant laser destroying the White House. These sorts of images are critical since these movies tend to otherwise be so much the same. So, when reviewing an action movie, I will have to comment on whether it showed me something new.
Advertising/Expectations: I thought the first MI movie was pretty solid. Lots of twists to compliment the action and a number of things I hadn’t seen, or at least hadn’t seen much. The second one was pretty bad really. That whole helicopter in the tunnel scene was so far over the top it started to become comical…never a good sign for a move that’s trying to make your heart race not your belly ache. I don’t watch commercials anymore thanks to Tivo, but still managed to see this preview about 50 more times than I wanted to. Also, Tom Cruise is now crazy and that dampened my hopes a bit. So, all in all, I was tired of the ads and went in with fairly low expectations.
The ads didn’t give away the entire movie which I appreciated and the movie delivered what I thought it would and maybe even a bit better than I thought it would, so the low expectations ended up making this movie fairly enjoyable.
Storytelling: Definitely the weak point of the film. It needed some twists or layers or something. How about some character development? I didn’t really care what happened to anyone in this movie and I’m a pretty caring guy. On the plus side, this story certainly won’t confuse anyone….I hope. It relied too heavily on action sequences that didn’t advance the story and tried to do all the story telling in a few short scenes where uninteresting dialogue was supposed to advance the story, develop the characters and explain why we should care. That was too much pressure for those scenes and they were generally pretty useless. Basically, you leave this movie knowing nothing about any of the characters and basically having little idea what all the shooting and missiles and what not were really for other than to save a girl we don't know or really care about.
Acting/Casting: Tom Cruise is a whacko, but he still did an adequate job playing a guy who is in a really big hurry to save the world…and the world’s most trusting wife. Let’s just say that my wife would have wanted a bit more explanation as to why I was suddenly going to be gone to an undisclosed location doing undisclosed things for an undisclosed amount of time the day after we got engaged, than a long intense stare and a request that she trust me. My wife trusts me, but she also likes disclosure, mostly because she doesn’t like to miss the action. Philip Seymour Hoffman is brilliant, one of the best in the business. He was fine, but entirely wasted in this movie. Everyone else wasn’t asked to do much and they complied. Basically, the acting didn’t get in the way and the casting was pretty good, though uninspired.
Writing: Uhmmmm….This script could have been written in 30 minutes, which is even less than the amount of time it would take to read the whole script even if you took time to set up each scene. This is the same guy that created Lost? Really? There just wasn’t much said in this movie, and since what was said was usually your basic action movie dialogue (i.e., lots of threats, panicked calls for help, desperate assurances that “you can do it”, and a few moderately funny quips by a sidekick or two), that was just fine. At least, it did not detract from the movie.
Directing: This was pretty well done unless you look at the director as the guy ultimately responsible for telling the story. If you can’t hold a thin story against him, then the movie was pretty well directed. The movie gets you on the edge of your seat pretty much right away and holds you there pretty much the whole way. The scenes fit together and generally it accomplished what a movie like this is supposed to do. You didn’t have to think too much (or at all) and it was something like riding a roller coaster. It’s a thrill while you’re on it, but as soon as you’re off, it’s like it never happened. This movie was a good ride, but you don’t take anything away from it. No great lines or great scenes to discuss over and over, no signature moments, just a bit of a rush for a couple hours and that’s it.
Visuals: Solid. Not a lot of CG or slow-motion which was a nice change. The stunts looked real even when they were impossible. It lacked a signature scene or anything that I haven’t seen before. The closest thing you get is that scene on the bridge from the previews where Cruise gets launched sideways into a car after an explosion. Why sideways? But it was still a good visual experience and the action sequences were tight, impressive and constant.
Sound: I couldn’t tell you much about the music other than Kanye’s song at the end which was fine, but the sound was amazing. My seat shook hard at least twice from some of the explosions and the soundtrack kept you tense without becoming annoying or distracting. And of course, the theme song is a classic, though I was surprised no effort was made to “reinterpret” it for the movie.
Need for Screen: See this on the big screen or don’t bother. You need a good sound system and a big screen to really get what you can out of this movie. This is absolutely a big screen movie.
Gut Feel: This wasn’t a good movie when you break it down, but I walked out feeling pretty good about it. It really was like a roller coaster in the sense of the short-term mindless thrill, but I like roller coasters so there you go. On a gut level I enjoyed the movie, the ending could have been much, much better.
Who you should bring: It is probably mostly a guy movie, so bring guys. But not so much that women who enjoy action movies wouldn’t enjoy this one. It is Tom Cruise after all, and no matter how crazy he gets, chicks dig him. Bring people who don’t over-think movies and are just there to escape for a couple hours and have a good time and move on. If you go with someone who wants to talk about how unrealistic it is or how many holes in the plot there were, it is going to bring you down. (which is why you should never attempt a review like this the moment you walk out of the theater). So, either bring your friends that won’t over analyze or make a promise before hand that you won’t have to talk about how this or that could never really happen.
1-10 Score: 6 – It was fine. I didn’t hate or love it and infact I was pleasantly surprised with how constant and good the action was. It was really pretty unnoteworthy though, which for all the hype and budget, may be the harshest criticism of all for this movie. It will give you an action rush, but you will forget everything about this movie 10 minutes after you see it.
A twist is when you thought a good guy was bad or vice versa and it turns out to be the other way around. Or, the world is really the matrix, or it was all a dream, or "she’s a man, baby." A layer is when you think you know what the evil plan was and who was in charge only to discover that this was all part of a larger plan run by someone even more evil. The tv show 24 has taken layering to a ridiculous extreme, somehow managing to outdo even Alias and the X-Files in this category.Anyway, MI3 provides very little of either and just relies on pure, non-stop action, which it delivers. One more note about action movies in general. To be good, a big-budget action movie must, I repeat must, show me something I’ve never seen before. It can be as subtle as a camera angle or as overt as a giant laser destroying the White House. These sorts of images are critical since these movies tend to otherwise be so much the same. So, when reviewing an action movie, I will have to comment on whether it showed me something new.
Advertising/Expectations: I thought the first MI movie was pretty solid. Lots of twists to compliment the action and a number of things I hadn’t seen, or at least hadn’t seen much. The second one was pretty bad really. That whole helicopter in the tunnel scene was so far over the top it started to become comical…never a good sign for a move that’s trying to make your heart race not your belly ache. I don’t watch commercials anymore thanks to Tivo, but still managed to see this preview about 50 more times than I wanted to. Also, Tom Cruise is now crazy and that dampened my hopes a bit. So, all in all, I was tired of the ads and went in with fairly low expectations.
The ads didn’t give away the entire movie which I appreciated and the movie delivered what I thought it would and maybe even a bit better than I thought it would, so the low expectations ended up making this movie fairly enjoyable.
Storytelling: Definitely the weak point of the film. It needed some twists or layers or something. How about some character development? I didn’t really care what happened to anyone in this movie and I’m a pretty caring guy. On the plus side, this story certainly won’t confuse anyone….I hope. It relied too heavily on action sequences that didn’t advance the story and tried to do all the story telling in a few short scenes where uninteresting dialogue was supposed to advance the story, develop the characters and explain why we should care. That was too much pressure for those scenes and they were generally pretty useless. Basically, you leave this movie knowing nothing about any of the characters and basically having little idea what all the shooting and missiles and what not were really for other than to save a girl we don't know or really care about.
Acting/Casting: Tom Cruise is a whacko, but he still did an adequate job playing a guy who is in a really big hurry to save the world…and the world’s most trusting wife. Let’s just say that my wife would have wanted a bit more explanation as to why I was suddenly going to be gone to an undisclosed location doing undisclosed things for an undisclosed amount of time the day after we got engaged, than a long intense stare and a request that she trust me. My wife trusts me, but she also likes disclosure, mostly because she doesn’t like to miss the action. Philip Seymour Hoffman is brilliant, one of the best in the business. He was fine, but entirely wasted in this movie. Everyone else wasn’t asked to do much and they complied. Basically, the acting didn’t get in the way and the casting was pretty good, though uninspired.
Writing: Uhmmmm….This script could have been written in 30 minutes, which is even less than the amount of time it would take to read the whole script even if you took time to set up each scene. This is the same guy that created Lost? Really? There just wasn’t much said in this movie, and since what was said was usually your basic action movie dialogue (i.e., lots of threats, panicked calls for help, desperate assurances that “you can do it”, and a few moderately funny quips by a sidekick or two), that was just fine. At least, it did not detract from the movie.
Directing: This was pretty well done unless you look at the director as the guy ultimately responsible for telling the story. If you can’t hold a thin story against him, then the movie was pretty well directed. The movie gets you on the edge of your seat pretty much right away and holds you there pretty much the whole way. The scenes fit together and generally it accomplished what a movie like this is supposed to do. You didn’t have to think too much (or at all) and it was something like riding a roller coaster. It’s a thrill while you’re on it, but as soon as you’re off, it’s like it never happened. This movie was a good ride, but you don’t take anything away from it. No great lines or great scenes to discuss over and over, no signature moments, just a bit of a rush for a couple hours and that’s it.
Visuals: Solid. Not a lot of CG or slow-motion which was a nice change. The stunts looked real even when they were impossible. It lacked a signature scene or anything that I haven’t seen before. The closest thing you get is that scene on the bridge from the previews where Cruise gets launched sideways into a car after an explosion. Why sideways? But it was still a good visual experience and the action sequences were tight, impressive and constant.
Sound: I couldn’t tell you much about the music other than Kanye’s song at the end which was fine, but the sound was amazing. My seat shook hard at least twice from some of the explosions and the soundtrack kept you tense without becoming annoying or distracting. And of course, the theme song is a classic, though I was surprised no effort was made to “reinterpret” it for the movie.
Need for Screen: See this on the big screen or don’t bother. You need a good sound system and a big screen to really get what you can out of this movie. This is absolutely a big screen movie.
Gut Feel: This wasn’t a good movie when you break it down, but I walked out feeling pretty good about it. It really was like a roller coaster in the sense of the short-term mindless thrill, but I like roller coasters so there you go. On a gut level I enjoyed the movie, the ending could have been much, much better.
Who you should bring: It is probably mostly a guy movie, so bring guys. But not so much that women who enjoy action movies wouldn’t enjoy this one. It is Tom Cruise after all, and no matter how crazy he gets, chicks dig him. Bring people who don’t over-think movies and are just there to escape for a couple hours and have a good time and move on. If you go with someone who wants to talk about how unrealistic it is or how many holes in the plot there were, it is going to bring you down. (which is why you should never attempt a review like this the moment you walk out of the theater). So, either bring your friends that won’t over analyze or make a promise before hand that you won’t have to talk about how this or that could never really happen.
1-10 Score: 6 – It was fine. I didn’t hate or love it and infact I was pleasantly surprised with how constant and good the action was. It was really pretty unnoteworthy though, which for all the hype and budget, may be the harshest criticism of all for this movie. It will give you an action rush, but you will forget everything about this movie 10 minutes after you see it.
North Country
Spoiler-free plot synopsis: Charlize Theron plays the daughter of a miner who takes a job at a local mine and ends up in a living hell dealing with the worst imaginable kinds of sexual harassment. In fact the word “harassment” is way to light a word. More like gender-based torture. Theron, who, in the opinion of this author, is rather nice looking, has followed Brad Pitt’s lead and tried to take roles that downplay her beauty and play up her acting chops. In a way that makes her the perfect person to play this role. She has to fight against the way the world sees her to succeed in real life and in the movie. Of course, that’s where the similarities between she and her character end.
The movie is a harsh portrayal of life for a woman in this mine and claims to be based on a true story. The movie follows how she starts at the mine, the suffering for her and her fellow female workers, and then the lawsuit that follows, which is based on an actual suit that set some important precedents for sexual harassment cases nationwide.
Advertising/Expectations: I’m a fan of Theron, so when I saw she was in it, especially when I saw she wasn’t playing a super glam role, I was interested. Throw in my interest in this area of the law and some good reviews and I was even more interested. The fact, however, that it was going to deal with the legal side of things also lowered my expectations as I have become all to used to Hollywood botching legal movies.
Tangent Alert, Alert, Alert.
There are not very many good “legal” movies, loosely defined as movies that deal with lawyers and/or the courtroom. As many of my friends and former Business Law students know, I believe the finest legal movie ever made is “My Cousin Vinny.” You can learn all you need to know about how to handle a court room from that movie, plus the wardrobe is faaaaaantastic. …
ok, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Storytelling: Some good and bad here. It does a good job of painting the picture of desperation. You get some good character development with Charlize and her son. It does a good job of showing the pain her father feels not knowing whether to cut her off or stand up for her. Very few wasted scenes. All of them advance the overall point of showing how hard it would have been to stand up for herself the way she did. However, the lawsuit aspect became more of a distraction than a benefit to the story. At first it was a useful device to provide a context for the rest of the story, but then it was like the writers realized, “hey wait, how do we show what happened in a few scenes, keep the drama and still wrap this up in less time than it would take to give an opening statement if this were a real case?” Unfortunately, they didn’t have the answer. Woody from Cheers is fairly unbelievable as an attorney. The court room cross-exam of one of the main predators was painful it was so fake. And I’m not just poo-pooing this stuff because I’m a lawyer and “that’s not really how it is”. It was just bad cinema. The writing was bad, it didn’t even resemble an actual legal hearing and worst of all it didn’t significantly add to the story.
Acting/Casting: Charlize was great. She was believably pretty but not too pretty and was the right mix of tough, charming, feminine, and sympathetic. No complaints there. Her father and son also turned in top-notch performances. I have to really give props, though, to Frances McDormant (sp?). She’s the pregnant sheriff from Fargo. She was outstanding. The subtle twitch of pain when she is swallowing her pride in the face of disgusting jokes aimed at her, the defiance coping with…well, to avoid a minor spoiler, let’s just say coping. She made you buy that she was tough, but also showed you that being tough doesn’t mean you don’t feel the pain, it just means you deal with it.
Writing: The writing in North Country was fairly mediocre. The dialogue rang mostly true, though there was nothing special about it. Not like I expect the people of this mining town to suddenly be speaking in flowery poetry, but some choice and quotable turns of phrase would have been nice. As mentioned above, the court room scenes were nearly unwatchable because of how bad the writing was. Woody’s bit about being yellow was brutal.
Directing: Good work here. The movie moved at the right pace and had the right mix of tough scenes to watch broken up by touching scenes of happiness and then the completely different look of the court room. I like that it showed the various “types” of women that would work in a place like that without spiraling completely into caricatures. It was honest with the violence without just going for shock value. The use of flashbacks in certain places worked well as they were few and to the point. It took time to show you the look of the town and the mine which really added to the whole feel of the movie. Well done here.
Visuals: As mentioned above, there were good shots of the town and the setting as well as the mine. The scope of the mine and the general grayness of everything contributed to the sense of depression and despair that underlie the whole movie. It was Paul Simon’s brilliant “My Little Town” come to life on the big screen: “and after it rains, there’s a rainbow and all of the colors are black. It’s not that the colors aren’t there. It’s just imagination they lack. Everything’s the same back, in my little town.” For a movie that lacked special effects or vivid sets and costumes, this movie’s look really stands out and contributed greatly to what was good about this movie.
Sound: Actually, I don’t even remember about the sound in North Country. I think there were a couple good ‘80s tunes, but I don’t think it was a major factor either way.
Need for Screen: The big screen helps in this movie. Wide shots of the mine and areas around town really jump out at you. It’s gone from the theaters, but if you have a friend with a big screen, make an excuse to watch this at their place.
Gut feel: I felt disappointed after this one. I think the court side of the story just ended so abruptly and for me so dissatisfactory, that it tainted my feeling about the whole movie. The other overwhelming feeling was shame about how my gender behaves at times. If you are a man and don’t want to take a few of these “good old boys” out behind the woodshed for a little “re-education”, then I’m not sure we can be friends.
Who you should bring: For this movie though, it doesn’t matter a whole lot. I guess the one thing I would say, is watch it with adults. The scenes and subject matter are fairly graphic and very adult. Not in a pornographic way or anything, but there are some images you don’t want to share with children. Also, the movie moves slowly. This is actually a good thing for this particular movie, but many Gen Xers and younger demand a quicker pace in their movie watching and this one is likely to make them irritated, which will likely make them irritating and you won’t enjoy the movie.
1-10 Score: 7 – Basically a 7 means it was worth watching, but had some fairly significant flaws.
The movie is a harsh portrayal of life for a woman in this mine and claims to be based on a true story. The movie follows how she starts at the mine, the suffering for her and her fellow female workers, and then the lawsuit that follows, which is based on an actual suit that set some important precedents for sexual harassment cases nationwide.
Advertising/Expectations: I’m a fan of Theron, so when I saw she was in it, especially when I saw she wasn’t playing a super glam role, I was interested. Throw in my interest in this area of the law and some good reviews and I was even more interested. The fact, however, that it was going to deal with the legal side of things also lowered my expectations as I have become all to used to Hollywood botching legal movies.
Tangent Alert, Alert, Alert.
There are not very many good “legal” movies, loosely defined as movies that deal with lawyers and/or the courtroom. As many of my friends and former Business Law students know, I believe the finest legal movie ever made is “My Cousin Vinny.” You can learn all you need to know about how to handle a court room from that movie, plus the wardrobe is faaaaaantastic. …
ok, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Storytelling: Some good and bad here. It does a good job of painting the picture of desperation. You get some good character development with Charlize and her son. It does a good job of showing the pain her father feels not knowing whether to cut her off or stand up for her. Very few wasted scenes. All of them advance the overall point of showing how hard it would have been to stand up for herself the way she did. However, the lawsuit aspect became more of a distraction than a benefit to the story. At first it was a useful device to provide a context for the rest of the story, but then it was like the writers realized, “hey wait, how do we show what happened in a few scenes, keep the drama and still wrap this up in less time than it would take to give an opening statement if this were a real case?” Unfortunately, they didn’t have the answer. Woody from Cheers is fairly unbelievable as an attorney. The court room cross-exam of one of the main predators was painful it was so fake. And I’m not just poo-pooing this stuff because I’m a lawyer and “that’s not really how it is”. It was just bad cinema. The writing was bad, it didn’t even resemble an actual legal hearing and worst of all it didn’t significantly add to the story.
Acting/Casting: Charlize was great. She was believably pretty but not too pretty and was the right mix of tough, charming, feminine, and sympathetic. No complaints there. Her father and son also turned in top-notch performances. I have to really give props, though, to Frances McDormant (sp?). She’s the pregnant sheriff from Fargo. She was outstanding. The subtle twitch of pain when she is swallowing her pride in the face of disgusting jokes aimed at her, the defiance coping with…well, to avoid a minor spoiler, let’s just say coping. She made you buy that she was tough, but also showed you that being tough doesn’t mean you don’t feel the pain, it just means you deal with it.
Writing: The writing in North Country was fairly mediocre. The dialogue rang mostly true, though there was nothing special about it. Not like I expect the people of this mining town to suddenly be speaking in flowery poetry, but some choice and quotable turns of phrase would have been nice. As mentioned above, the court room scenes were nearly unwatchable because of how bad the writing was. Woody’s bit about being yellow was brutal.
Directing: Good work here. The movie moved at the right pace and had the right mix of tough scenes to watch broken up by touching scenes of happiness and then the completely different look of the court room. I like that it showed the various “types” of women that would work in a place like that without spiraling completely into caricatures. It was honest with the violence without just going for shock value. The use of flashbacks in certain places worked well as they were few and to the point. It took time to show you the look of the town and the mine which really added to the whole feel of the movie. Well done here.
Visuals: As mentioned above, there were good shots of the town and the setting as well as the mine. The scope of the mine and the general grayness of everything contributed to the sense of depression and despair that underlie the whole movie. It was Paul Simon’s brilliant “My Little Town” come to life on the big screen: “and after it rains, there’s a rainbow and all of the colors are black. It’s not that the colors aren’t there. It’s just imagination they lack. Everything’s the same back, in my little town.” For a movie that lacked special effects or vivid sets and costumes, this movie’s look really stands out and contributed greatly to what was good about this movie.
Sound: Actually, I don’t even remember about the sound in North Country. I think there were a couple good ‘80s tunes, but I don’t think it was a major factor either way.
Need for Screen: The big screen helps in this movie. Wide shots of the mine and areas around town really jump out at you. It’s gone from the theaters, but if you have a friend with a big screen, make an excuse to watch this at their place.
Gut feel: I felt disappointed after this one. I think the court side of the story just ended so abruptly and for me so dissatisfactory, that it tainted my feeling about the whole movie. The other overwhelming feeling was shame about how my gender behaves at times. If you are a man and don’t want to take a few of these “good old boys” out behind the woodshed for a little “re-education”, then I’m not sure we can be friends.
Who you should bring: For this movie though, it doesn’t matter a whole lot. I guess the one thing I would say, is watch it with adults. The scenes and subject matter are fairly graphic and very adult. Not in a pornographic way or anything, but there are some images you don’t want to share with children. Also, the movie moves slowly. This is actually a good thing for this particular movie, but many Gen Xers and younger demand a quicker pace in their movie watching and this one is likely to make them irritated, which will likely make them irritating and you won’t enjoy the movie.
1-10 Score: 7 – Basically a 7 means it was worth watching, but had some fairly significant flaws.
New Movie Template
This is my new and improved movie review template. I wanted to make it less dry and technical so I made some changes. This is the one I'm using until further notice:
What it’s about: Spoiler-free plot synopsis – I’ve got to keep this one
What’s to like about this movie: This category should be pretty self-explanatory
What I could have done with out: Even the best movies usually have flaws. If you ever read this section and I say “nothing”, run don’t walk to see this movie
Who do you like: This section will concern itself with whether there were any sympathetic characters in the movie. Was there anyone to like, cheer for, relate to, etc? If not, chances are you’ve got a bad movie on your hands
What’s new: So many movies have been made, I’m constantly looking for scenes, angles, techniques, dialogue, twists, etc. that show me something I haven’t seen before.
What’s the last word: A movie needs to end well. The end is usually the most important part of the story really. Many, many great movies have been completely ruined by bad endings, like just about every sci-fi or horror movie ever made. Though I should confess that I don’t really like horror movies as they are nearly all complete rubbish
Who you should watch this with: this is another carryover from the old form that I liked
Where you should watch this move: Theater? Home? Either? Basically, this speaks to how much the screen and sound matter.
What it’s like: This is where I will compare the movie to other movies to give you a better idea of whether you might like it or not
What my gut tells me: Initial, pre-analysis, gutlevel reaction
Where it rates: My 1-10 scale which is detailed in an earlier review
What it’s about: Spoiler-free plot synopsis – I’ve got to keep this one
What’s to like about this movie: This category should be pretty self-explanatory
What I could have done with out: Even the best movies usually have flaws. If you ever read this section and I say “nothing”, run don’t walk to see this movie
Who do you like: This section will concern itself with whether there were any sympathetic characters in the movie. Was there anyone to like, cheer for, relate to, etc? If not, chances are you’ve got a bad movie on your hands
What’s new: So many movies have been made, I’m constantly looking for scenes, angles, techniques, dialogue, twists, etc. that show me something I haven’t seen before.
What’s the last word: A movie needs to end well. The end is usually the most important part of the story really. Many, many great movies have been completely ruined by bad endings, like just about every sci-fi or horror movie ever made. Though I should confess that I don’t really like horror movies as they are nearly all complete rubbish
Who you should watch this with: this is another carryover from the old form that I liked
Where you should watch this move: Theater? Home? Either? Basically, this speaks to how much the screen and sound matter.
What it’s like: This is where I will compare the movie to other movies to give you a better idea of whether you might like it or not
What my gut tells me: Initial, pre-analysis, gutlevel reaction
Where it rates: My 1-10 scale which is detailed in an earlier review
My First Movie Review Template
This was the first template I used to review movies, but have since modified it. Nevertheless for the sake of history, I'm posting this one here.
Spoiler-free plot synopsis: I hate spoilers. I don’t want to know anything about any tv show, book, movie or sporting event until I’m watching it unfold before my eyes. This has proved to be one of the only downsides to owning Tivo. By the way, if you don’t own Tivo, you might as well just throw a brick through your TV and put yourself out of your misery. And I’m not talking about a “dvr” I’m talking about Tivo. There is no substitute. I will not argue about this. Just accept it.Anyway, now I watch almost nothing “live” on TV. The only problem with that is that sometimes I fall behind on a popular show like 24 or Lost and then have to constantly guard against anyone who might talk or write about what happened in some episode I haven’t seen yet. My brothers and wife openly mock how turbo I am about this, but in my mind, as with most things, I’m right and they’re the crazy ones.
I admit it, I am hung up about spoilers more than most, but I’m not alone here by any means. Why then, do movie critics write movie reviews that are almost entirely made up of a description of what happens in the movie? (and don’t get me started about previews…I feel another post coming on) To be sure, explaining why you thought a movie was good or bad requires some discussion of the plot points or story, but most reviews these days are two sentences up front glowing about or trashing the movie followed by 10 paragraphs of what happens in the movie and ended with a single line saying the movie was either great or not. How is that helpful to we the people?
It’s not, of course, but it also requires precious little thought, making it a very appealing formula. I will strive to avoid that when reviewing movies here. I’m not going to give anything away and won’t spend any more time than necessary reporting on what happened in the movie. I’m also going to try to follow the template you see below so that I can make sure to discuss the various aspects I find important about movie watching. Maybe I will add or subtract from this list and maybe I will see how long it makes the reviews and get rid of it, but for now I will stick with it.
I don’t want to give stuff away, but I will spend a bit of time explaining what the movie is basically about so you can determine if subject matter alone might leave you wanting or not wanting to watch this movie and so you can understand the rest of the review.
Advertising/Expectations: In this section I will tell you a little about what I expected going in as I think that greatly influences whether you end up liking a movie. If you think it is going to be like Godfather II and it ends up like Godfather III, then an otherwise good movie becomes a great disappointment. I will also say a bit, when applicable about the advertising for the movie and whether it properly prepares you for what you get when you get to the theater/living room.
Storytelling: A movie has to have a good story, but then it also has to tell it well. Here is where I will talk about how the movie made use of the scenes and actors to get across the story and whether the story was worth telling in the first place.
Acting/Casting: Acting is crucial. Haden Christianson’s groundbreaking performance as a young Darth Vader in the newest Star Wars movies would have ruined those movies all by himself if Lucas hadn’t so badly wanted to get in on the act with his nearly as bad writing and directing. Truly the worst performance by an actor I have ever seen given the circumstances. But casting is almost as important so I will sometimes discuss that here as well. The LOTR trilogy was next level good because everyone in it matched what was described in the books so well. Likewise, sometimes great actors can hurt a movie by being miscast, like Jack Black in King Kong.
Writing: When it comes down to it, this is the most important factor in most movies. The words have to ring true. They have to be dramatic without being hokey. They have to be familiar enough to draw us in and different enough to keep us interested. The Cohens are masters. Fargo, Raising Arizona, The Big Libowski…great, great stuff. I am a harsh critic of the writing because there is so little that is good and it carries or destroys most movies. If you find yourself asking “why would he have said that” or laughing at a line meant to be serious, that one thing can kill some movies.
Directing: In some ways the Director is really ultimately responsible for everything, but I’m going to limit this section to how well the scenes worked, whether the actors were allowed to do their jobs, how the movie was edited or put together and comments about the general art of movie making.
Visuals: This is all about the look and feel and will include special effects, sets, stunts, locations, camera angles, etc.
Sound: This is both “track” and “effects.” The music and the noise. If you like movies and watch them at home you owe it to yourself and your poor needy family to get yourself a decent sound system and then turn it up until the sub-woofer shakes the whole house, then turn it up again until you have been visited by law enforcement at least twice.
Need for Screen: This section is how important it is that you see a movie on the big screen. After kids, the theater was more of a rare treat than a regular date, so in case you find yourself in the same situation, I’ll try to help you decide when it is worth springing for the world’s most valuable corn and when you can safely wait for video.
Gut feel: This is how a movie makes you feel when you first finish watching. Before you have a chance to really think about it or break it down, how did it make you feel? Sometimes, bad movies still leave you feeling good like Independence Day and sometimes good movies leave you feeling violated, like Monster’s Ball.
Who you should bring: Who you watch a movie with can sometimes be the single biggest factor in determining whether you like a movie. Imagine watching “There’s Something About Mary” with your father or mother-in-law. Would you have still thought it was hilarious when you were having to feign disgust at every sketchy scene? This factor is especially true for comedies. If you watch with other people who think the movie is funny, you are going to enjoy that movie a lot more. This is a much underrated movie watching factor. Choose your movie-mates very carefully if possible.
1-10 Score: My whole number scale and what it means is in a previous post, so you should check it out if you haven’t already.
Spoiler-free plot synopsis: I hate spoilers. I don’t want to know anything about any tv show, book, movie or sporting event until I’m watching it unfold before my eyes. This has proved to be one of the only downsides to owning Tivo. By the way, if you don’t own Tivo, you might as well just throw a brick through your TV and put yourself out of your misery. And I’m not talking about a “dvr” I’m talking about Tivo. There is no substitute. I will not argue about this. Just accept it.Anyway, now I watch almost nothing “live” on TV. The only problem with that is that sometimes I fall behind on a popular show like 24 or Lost and then have to constantly guard against anyone who might talk or write about what happened in some episode I haven’t seen yet. My brothers and wife openly mock how turbo I am about this, but in my mind, as with most things, I’m right and they’re the crazy ones.
I admit it, I am hung up about spoilers more than most, but I’m not alone here by any means. Why then, do movie critics write movie reviews that are almost entirely made up of a description of what happens in the movie? (and don’t get me started about previews…I feel another post coming on) To be sure, explaining why you thought a movie was good or bad requires some discussion of the plot points or story, but most reviews these days are two sentences up front glowing about or trashing the movie followed by 10 paragraphs of what happens in the movie and ended with a single line saying the movie was either great or not. How is that helpful to we the people?
It’s not, of course, but it also requires precious little thought, making it a very appealing formula. I will strive to avoid that when reviewing movies here. I’m not going to give anything away and won’t spend any more time than necessary reporting on what happened in the movie. I’m also going to try to follow the template you see below so that I can make sure to discuss the various aspects I find important about movie watching. Maybe I will add or subtract from this list and maybe I will see how long it makes the reviews and get rid of it, but for now I will stick with it.
I don’t want to give stuff away, but I will spend a bit of time explaining what the movie is basically about so you can determine if subject matter alone might leave you wanting or not wanting to watch this movie and so you can understand the rest of the review.
Advertising/Expectations: In this section I will tell you a little about what I expected going in as I think that greatly influences whether you end up liking a movie. If you think it is going to be like Godfather II and it ends up like Godfather III, then an otherwise good movie becomes a great disappointment. I will also say a bit, when applicable about the advertising for the movie and whether it properly prepares you for what you get when you get to the theater/living room.
Storytelling: A movie has to have a good story, but then it also has to tell it well. Here is where I will talk about how the movie made use of the scenes and actors to get across the story and whether the story was worth telling in the first place.
Acting/Casting: Acting is crucial. Haden Christianson’s groundbreaking performance as a young Darth Vader in the newest Star Wars movies would have ruined those movies all by himself if Lucas hadn’t so badly wanted to get in on the act with his nearly as bad writing and directing. Truly the worst performance by an actor I have ever seen given the circumstances. But casting is almost as important so I will sometimes discuss that here as well. The LOTR trilogy was next level good because everyone in it matched what was described in the books so well. Likewise, sometimes great actors can hurt a movie by being miscast, like Jack Black in King Kong.
Writing: When it comes down to it, this is the most important factor in most movies. The words have to ring true. They have to be dramatic without being hokey. They have to be familiar enough to draw us in and different enough to keep us interested. The Cohens are masters. Fargo, Raising Arizona, The Big Libowski…great, great stuff. I am a harsh critic of the writing because there is so little that is good and it carries or destroys most movies. If you find yourself asking “why would he have said that” or laughing at a line meant to be serious, that one thing can kill some movies.
Directing: In some ways the Director is really ultimately responsible for everything, but I’m going to limit this section to how well the scenes worked, whether the actors were allowed to do their jobs, how the movie was edited or put together and comments about the general art of movie making.
Visuals: This is all about the look and feel and will include special effects, sets, stunts, locations, camera angles, etc.
Sound: This is both “track” and “effects.” The music and the noise. If you like movies and watch them at home you owe it to yourself and your poor needy family to get yourself a decent sound system and then turn it up until the sub-woofer shakes the whole house, then turn it up again until you have been visited by law enforcement at least twice.
Need for Screen: This section is how important it is that you see a movie on the big screen. After kids, the theater was more of a rare treat than a regular date, so in case you find yourself in the same situation, I’ll try to help you decide when it is worth springing for the world’s most valuable corn and when you can safely wait for video.
Gut feel: This is how a movie makes you feel when you first finish watching. Before you have a chance to really think about it or break it down, how did it make you feel? Sometimes, bad movies still leave you feeling good like Independence Day and sometimes good movies leave you feeling violated, like Monster’s Ball.
Who you should bring: Who you watch a movie with can sometimes be the single biggest factor in determining whether you like a movie. Imagine watching “There’s Something About Mary” with your father or mother-in-law. Would you have still thought it was hilarious when you were having to feign disgust at every sketchy scene? This factor is especially true for comedies. If you watch with other people who think the movie is funny, you are going to enjoy that movie a lot more. This is a much underrated movie watching factor. Choose your movie-mates very carefully if possible.
1-10 Score: My whole number scale and what it means is in a previous post, so you should check it out if you haven’t already.
My Movie Rating Scale
Here is a my rating scale for movies. Every review I do includes my overall rating of the movie and hopefully this will allow you to understand what the heck I'm talking about when I attach a number to a movie.
10. Transcendent. Leaves you amazed and immediately wanting to watch it again or make others watch it. True brilliance. This category would include The Godfather (I and II), The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Love and Death, American Beauty and Raising Arizona among others.
9. Great and completely satisfying, but with some noteworthy flaw. Good examples include: The Untouchables, Raiders of the Lost Ark, the first 3 Star Wars movies.
8. Very good and entertaining, but not likely to win any awards. Examples: The good James Bond movies (For Your Eyes Only, Octupussy, Diamonds are Forever), Desperado, Fight Club, Anchorman, Pitch Black, The Karate Kid.
7. Ok. Worth watching, but had some significant issues. Sadly, most "good" comedies fall here. Enjoyable movies like Wayne's World, So I Married and Axe Murderer, even Old School maybe, still have long chunks dedicated to the love story, or that are really just extended music videos or basically just take you 20-30 minutes at a time between really funny stuff.
6. I didn't hate it, but it disappointed. This may be where I have to put the most recent 3 star wars movies, though the last one may get a 7. I was excited by the movies coming out and the effects were amazing, but the acting, story, directing, writing, etc., were awful. In fact, I'm still too angry to discuss this, so let's move on.
5. A couple good scenes, but over all a bad movie and not worth watching. A startling number of Hugh Grant movies in this category. Also a favorite ranking of sports movies.
4. Had promise, but so lost its way that it became painful. Fun with Dick and Jane is your basic 4.
3. A complete failure and waste of my time. Charlies Angels might hit the mark here.
2. Makes me angry that I watched it. Just really awful. Most Drew Barrymore movies will go nicely here, but also a number of sequels (Chronicles of Riddick) and super hero movies like Fantastic 4 and Daredevil.
1. If I go to Hell I will get 2 hours off my sentence for time served because I watched this movie. This is reserved for the worst cinematic efforts like Battlefield Earth, anything starring Madonna, The Cat in the Hat, or anything with Keanu Reeves where he isn't an action hero.
10. Transcendent. Leaves you amazed and immediately wanting to watch it again or make others watch it. True brilliance. This category would include The Godfather (I and II), The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Love and Death, American Beauty and Raising Arizona among others.
9. Great and completely satisfying, but with some noteworthy flaw. Good examples include: The Untouchables, Raiders of the Lost Ark, the first 3 Star Wars movies.
8. Very good and entertaining, but not likely to win any awards. Examples: The good James Bond movies (For Your Eyes Only, Octupussy, Diamonds are Forever), Desperado, Fight Club, Anchorman, Pitch Black, The Karate Kid.
7. Ok. Worth watching, but had some significant issues. Sadly, most "good" comedies fall here. Enjoyable movies like Wayne's World, So I Married and Axe Murderer, even Old School maybe, still have long chunks dedicated to the love story, or that are really just extended music videos or basically just take you 20-30 minutes at a time between really funny stuff.
6. I didn't hate it, but it disappointed. This may be where I have to put the most recent 3 star wars movies, though the last one may get a 7. I was excited by the movies coming out and the effects were amazing, but the acting, story, directing, writing, etc., were awful. In fact, I'm still too angry to discuss this, so let's move on.
5. A couple good scenes, but over all a bad movie and not worth watching. A startling number of Hugh Grant movies in this category. Also a favorite ranking of sports movies.
4. Had promise, but so lost its way that it became painful. Fun with Dick and Jane is your basic 4.
3. A complete failure and waste of my time. Charlies Angels might hit the mark here.
2. Makes me angry that I watched it. Just really awful. Most Drew Barrymore movies will go nicely here, but also a number of sequels (Chronicles of Riddick) and super hero movies like Fantastic 4 and Daredevil.
1. If I go to Hell I will get 2 hours off my sentence for time served because I watched this movie. This is reserved for the worst cinematic efforts like Battlefield Earth, anything starring Madonna, The Cat in the Hat, or anything with Keanu Reeves where he isn't an action hero.
Welcome
This is a new Blog dedicated to movies, TV and the world of entertainment. It will likely consist primarily of my movie reviews which to date have been posted on my home blog. I will move those reviews over here and you can review those to see important things like the way my review form has evolved and how to interpret my reviews and rating scale. Please offer your comments to whatever is posted as that is all part of this blogging fun.
Original content, in addition to my past reviews, will be added shortly and will include at least the following topics:
1. Review for Memoirs of a Geisha
2. Review for Match Point
3. Review for Unleashed
4. Do you know what this Movie is really telling you?
5. Rules for selecting a good movie at the video store
6. My favorite TV shows of all time
7. Movie reviews for my favorite movies of all time
If you want to hear my take on a particular movie, leave a comment or email me and I will post a review as soon as I am able.
Next in my blockbuster queue (like Netflicks) are:
November
The Machinist
Syriana
I also have Munich still to be watched and I will try to review as I go.
Enjoy.
Original content, in addition to my past reviews, will be added shortly and will include at least the following topics:
1. Review for Memoirs of a Geisha
2. Review for Match Point
3. Review for Unleashed
4. Do you know what this Movie is really telling you?
5. Rules for selecting a good movie at the video store
6. My favorite TV shows of all time
7. Movie reviews for my favorite movies of all time
If you want to hear my take on a particular movie, leave a comment or email me and I will post a review as soon as I am able.
Next in my blockbuster queue (like Netflicks) are:
November
The Machinist
Syriana
I also have Munich still to be watched and I will try to review as I go.
Enjoy.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
