Change Your Image
fx_man
Reviews
7 Days in Hell (2015)
Funny in places but mostly rushed and shockingly tasteless in the end
I rarely write reviews, but because I love tennis I couldn't remain silent about 7 Days in Hell (which might as well refer to the viewer's experience watching it). So, because I love tennis I was looking forward to what had been advertised as a long-deserved comedy tribute to this phenomenal sport. Kudos to HBO for at least making this happen, then. Sadly, the laudatory comments have to end there. As a I began watching, my exhilaration soon gave way to consternation, which gave way to disappointment, which gave way to mild disgust, which gave way to utter disbelief as the show progressed. Foregoing any real effort at mining comedy from what makes tennis a unique sport in how it affects those intimately involved in it, the film veers into the direction of a no-holds-barred adolescent gross-out fest that I am not sure even a target audience of 14-year old males could continue to enjoy beyond the few initial reaches of explicit excess.
Just to make it clear, no content phases me. That is to say, when nestled in proper context and meaningfully weaved into an effective comedic narrative, I can laugh at the most outwardly obscene and/or shockingly irreverent. For example, I love South Park (truly biting and smart satire), Monty Python (Meaning of Life is superbly absurd in its excesses that drive home the sublime irony of the subject matter to which they are directed), and I also enjoy the occasional juvenile humour when delivered with gusto (I love Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison, and the likes of 40-year Old Virgin and Superbad).
The central storyline is great: chronicling a marathon Wimbledon tennis match between a self-proclaimed bad-boy of tennis (which has been a historically upper class sport - much like golf - with Wimbledon considered its apex tournament) and Britain's great hope (a simpleton with Mommy issues). The movie is framed as a documentary with real life tennis greats on hand to provide interviews and commentary (Serena Williams, John McEnroe, Chris Evert), and a host of high caliber comedians and actors acquitting themselves quite well in their respective roles. For example, Fred Armisen and Will Forte are amusingly understated as tennis historians and journalists, and Michael Sheen is especially hilarious as a lecherous TV talk show host.
Conceptually, then, the show is funny. Samberg and Harington are perfect as the players, Samberg drawing mostly on his days at SNL in providing a broad portrait which plays perfectly into the flamboyance of his character, and Harington excelling as the contrastingly understated and somewhat lost foil for Samberg's brashness. The interviews, played straight, are genuinely funny, as are the scenes with Sheen. The stuffiness associated with much of Wimbledon is lampooned effectively with an irreverent portrayal of the Queen Mother worthy of Monty Python.
Unfortunately, the funny bits never coalesce into a cogent whole and are overtaken way too early in the proceedings by outrageously excessive and sophomoric "porn funnies" (don't know how else to characterize them). Again, the problem isn't as much with the face value of what comes next as it is with why it comes next. Basically, it isn't organically integrated and is thrown in simply because of its expected shock value, which simply renders it unfunny. And when the outrageously inappropriate and lewd isn't funny, it becomes tasteless. And tasteless makes one cringe, not laugh.
It appears that Muray Miller (the writer) had run dry of real ideas, and in order to extend the running time he began to resort to CGI porn (which, in another context might have been funny). Thus, very sadly, 7 Days in Hell simply degenerates into excessive crudity with no real comedic underpinning. Apparently, to some an oversized CGI schlong flopping around is funny enough in and of itself. I am simply not one of those people who thinks it is (in contrast, I find South Park's "Floppy Wieners" ersatz "tribute" to Game of Thrones hilarious in its astute skewering of the show).
I am not sure if Murray Miller was rushed for time or if he simply fulfilled a longtime dream of getting some extreme and crude porn parodies inserted (pun intended) into a mainstream production. Be that as it may, it ruined this one for me because it seemed out of place and self indulgent. And self indulgent is never a good thing in comedy, especially when it results in unfunny parts outstripping the funny bits by a ratio of 2:1.
Hungry for Change (2012)
Some common sense truth and lots of misleading propaganda
I just saw this movie on Netflix, and I have to agree with the reviewers who have voiced their concern about some of the misinformation present in the film. The agenda of the filmmakers becomes obvious about halfway through, and by the end it does turn into a full blown infomercial for juicing. An activity that has been soundly committed to the nutritional dustbin years ago as questionable at best and quite dangerous at worst.
What is ironic is that the interviewees spend much time talking about what is natural and unnatural to put in one's body, then try to convince the unwitting viewer that gulping down glasses of fruit and vegetable juices is natural. Well, it isn't any more natural than eating Twinkies. It results in the same sugar overload delivered by sugary sodas and sweets. Fiber is the natural delivery system of vitamins, minerals and other nutrients found in vegetables and fruits. For example, our bodies are suited to eat an apple or two at a time, not to drink the juice extracted from a dozen or more apples in one sitting.
It's too bad, because the film does also provide some good common sense information, though most of that information has already been widely disseminated elsewhere in the past. But since they do include it, and it does provide some contrast to the misinformation, I gave the movie 5 stars. But for someone who is not aware, the movie can be dangerously misleading.
Paranormal Activity (2007)
Over-hyped and underwhelming
Just like the Blair Witch Project, this film has been turned into a "phenomenon" by savvy marketing folks who know a goose that lays golden eggs when they see one. I am sure that half-drunk college students in a dark, crowded theatre may possibly be freaked out by some of what happens in Paranormal Activity. Hell, after someone's had a few pints and maybe a joint or two, getting in his/her face yelling "boo!" would achieve the desired effect.
However, any sober person trying to convince me that there is anything remotely frightening, clever, or original about this movie is most definitely one of said savvy marketing folks. If you can suspend your disbelief about when and under what circumstances a halfway intelligent person would walk around his house lugging a somewhat bulky camcorder, refusing to relinquish it and put it down no matter how dire the situation and how badly his significant other needs help, then you might be able to sit through this cavalcade of boredom. Otherwise, you'll constantly be thinking to yourself how anyone could be this dumb and unaware.
Successful fright fests tap deep into one's psyche. The problem with Paranormal Activity is that while it's attempting to do just that, it is simply not well executed. The conceit of the "home footage" doesn't work because the protagonists do things that ordinary people just wouldn't do. If the idea is that this is found footage of a couple who were taping some weird events at their house, then you need to write a screenplay in which the couple behaves in a believable manner, one that audience members can identify with. I shudder at the thought of thinking that audience members would identify with the couple in the film.
The wholly unrealistic reactions of the actors in what is supposed to be a hyper-realistic setting immediately neutralises the documentary feel, which is central to the film, and yanks the audience (well, at least this writer) out of the movie. After witnessing the implausible behaviour of the leads in the face of what they were experiencing, boredom began to set in. I was no longer watching "found footage", I was watching a contrived and amateurish movie.
I can understand how the movie has become popular at colleges, considering the state of mind required of one to remotely enjoy this movie. But there are many other such communal experiences that don't work outside the very specific milieu in which they find success. Consequently, as a film that stands on its own, Paranormal Activity is inconsequential and flaccid. It doesn't frighten and only occasionally holds one's interest.
I was disappointed because I wanted to have a good time, and I believed the hype. At least it was a matinée.
Mystery Team (2009)
I laughed a lot
Went into this film with zero knowledge of DERRICK comedy (the name reminds me of a famous German TV detective series) or the movie. Well, I must say I laughed more during this film than any other comedy I've seen this year. The dialog and deadpan delivery coupled with a truly clever script result in some genuine hilarity.
For the uninitiated, like myself, the following might help you decide whether this is something you'd like to watch. The film centers around three young (high school senior) "detectives" who've been solving various mysteries (disappearing kitty, stolen lunch, etc.) for a dime a pop throughout their childhood, when they are suddenly thrust into the midst of an honest to goodness real crime investigation. The plot is motivated by a basic fish out of water storyline, whereupon the three chaps stumble around in the adult world mostly unaware of what is going on around them, which makes for some genuinely funny situations.
The lead actors are affable and quickly pull the audience to their side. Unfortunately the supporting cast provides uneven performances, and the entire movie has a "homemade" feel to it. That doesn't begrudge the film's strengths though, carried by the three principals and the comic situations and dialog, which are presented and delivered perfectly. Considering the minimal budget with which they must have worked, one can look past the deficiencies.
I gave the movie 8 stars because I laughed an awful lot, and that's what a comedy is supposed to do, make one laugh. This also reminded me of the Broken Lizard comedy team and Super Troopers. Hopefully the DERRICK team will be able to sustain the momentum and keep making movies as funny as this one, with a better supporting cast and more sure handed direction, which could easily get them atop the current comedy heap.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008)
Better than I thought it would be - raises valid issues
The vitriol in many of the negative reviews and the dogged defense of the "mislead scientists" is more indicative of the reviewers own biases than what is actually presented in the film.
I was dragged to this one by friends, to be honest. I had read about the film even before it was released and how it was "creationist propaganda", and how P. Z. Myers was not allowed in to a screening but Dawkins got in, etc. So I already had a negative bias going in. However, by the end I have flipped around quite a bit.
Stein is more interested in dissecting whether there really is stonewalling in academia, and more importantly, whether important issues regarding science, philosophy and metaphysics are being conflated and misrepresented to the public.
ID as a "scientific theory" might not be meaningful or even valid, but it becomes clear from the film that the issues to which ID is directed are not necessarily the "how" of biological processes but the "why". Of course many will recognise that science is not meant to tackle "why", science concerns itself with the "how". So where's the problem, then? Well, that is precisely where the problem is, as it becomes clear from the film. Dawkins and many like him have set up a straw man, claiming an explanatory scope for one particular interpretation of Darwin's theory of evolution far beyond its capacity to explain. In other words, they stretch science beyond the "how" to the "why", by hypothesising about life origins even though Darwin himself has not done so, save in some private letters, and Darwin's theory has never meant to encompass it. By doing this, Dawkins and many like him have created a false dichotomy, pitting science against religion, conflating science and metaphysics to the point of arguing metaphysics doesn't even have a place in the human quest for knowledge. Well, that is a strict philosophical position one can hold independent of empirical science. But it isn't any more valid than the metaphysical claims of ID.
The film wasn't deceptive or misrepresentative of any of the scientists, with the exception maybe of William Dembski, who was given a pass by Stein. Dembski has exhibited some of the same tendencies as Dawkins, on the opposite extreme. The documentary would have been stronger, had Stein asked Dembksi about some of Dembski's own statements regarding ID as the basis for a greater cultural movement, not really representing a scientific theory per se. Dembski is guilty of the same scope-stretching as Dawkins.
David Berlinski came across as the most incisive mind of the bunch, articulating issues for what they were. For example, he correctly pointed out how difficult it is to even talk about Darwinism since the concept of species itself is not well understood and continually redefined and refined. Reading the wikipedia entry on species and the species problem confirms this.
Finally, some have complained about the connection made between Darwin's theory and eugenics, and the connection to Hitler. For the record, connections have been made between Wagner's music and Hitler, and between Nietzsche's philosophy and Hitler. All this merely indicates that when arguing from the theory as a premise, one can easily end up devaluing human life. Thus, the main idea is that science cannot remain neutral in the sense that ideas it raises will have consequences. Berlinski, again, rightly points out that Darwinism was not a sufficient condition for the development of Hitler's "ultimate solution" and modern racism, but it was a necessary condition. If one thinks about it, it does provide a "scientific" basis for an already existing latent racism, giving it impetus and elevating it to what some consider justifiable actions.
The same connection has been made between religion and some horrible philosophies, and no one denies that the given dogmas of that religion might have been necessary for those philosophies.
So in the end, Expelled fulfills its mission in raising awareness of a very real problem today when it comes to discussing certain scientific and philosophical issues in academia and in the scientific establishment. I don't agree with the specifics of ID when it comes to biology, but as a general metaphysical world view, it has as much support in human history and evolution (yes, evolution) as atheism. And really, as it is clear from Dawkins' words, his real agenda is no less than to claim that atheism is the only intelligent choice. And apparently this should not be debated or arrived at by rational discourse,but by de-facto pronouncements and edicts, from Dawkins and those who think like him.
I don't think so. If anything, this film should encourage people to look into this for themselves and study what is at issue. In the marketplace of ideas truth eventually triumphs. History has taught us at least that. Why stonewall? I recommend this film to those with an open mind who enjoy a good debate now and then.
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
Sadly, very boring. Almost fell asleep twice. *minor spoilers*
***** very minor spoilers below *****
I enjoyed Stargate. I enjoyed ID4. I even liked Godzilla. Yes, I am here to tell you that I found all three Emmerich directed films listed above entertaining. Many would strongly argue that none of those films were entertaining. Nonetheless I had a great time watching them and I could watch them again.
Along comes The Day After Tomorrow, a snooze-fest of epic proportions, parading the worst cliches of the disaster movie genre, sloppy and sappy and downright idiotic towards the end. I was so disappointed. Fortunately I saw the film with a rambunctious enough crowd, which provided a great MST3K atmosphere complete with people hollering at the screen, whooping and even standing up cheering when Laura hugged Sam to "warm him up with her body heat". The entire theatre lost it and was laughing for a good minute.
I understand that films like TDAT are not supposed to be taken seriously, but lines such as "it's pulling down super cool air from the upper troposphere" would trigger howling laughter in even the laziest of brains. And worst of all, the film was boring. The spectacle isn't that awe-inspiring anymore, we've seen most of this before.
Spectacular FX have become commonplace. It's time to start taking screenwriting seriously again. I mean REAL seriously. I don't need to plunk down $8.00 to fall asleep. I can easily fall asleep for free. Shame on Emmerich for being such a lazy bum.
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
Demented and decrepit bore...
I never thought a Tarantino film could be boring. He has proven me wrong. Having read about the subject matter of Kill Bill I had my reservations from the onset, but a friend rightly pointed out that unless viewed, a film has not been given a fair shake. Indeed. After having fulfilled my "duty" I can say without blinking an eye that I will not watch Volume 2 of this massive, self-indulgent bore.
I am neither squeamish nor a novice to Hong-Kong chop-sokey, Japanese martial arts films, the oeuvre of Kinji Fukasaku or any of the multitude of 70's genre films and B-offerings. Maybe that is the reason I could hardly stay awake. Obviously many critics will heap praise on Kill Bill and maybe even write books about how it carries a pop-culture angst drenched subtext, blabbering effusively about the genius of filmdom's premier geek. If this is sufficient for them, so be it.
The moment I heard Herrmann's famously tormented theme from Twisted Nerve I knew trouble was coming. If you take away the gore, the fighting, the ridiculously presented code of the warrior and the escalatingly embarrassing pop-culture references ("Trix is for kids" - good grief, that's supposed to be clever and funny?) we are left with nothing more than a grinning Tarantino who knows very well that he has pulled yet another one over most everyone's eyes.
Steve Oedekirk's "Kung Pow: Enter the Fist" was a funnier and more cohesive experiment along the same lines, demonstrating how one may hit its targets while being way over the top without ever taking itself seriously. And from the looks and feel of it I'd venture to say that Oedekirk actually understands his source material ten times better than Tarantino ever will. That spells trouble for a filmgeek whose only forte is recycling old genres and splicing together portions of his favourite films to the point where he actually resorts to directing entire sequences - and more than a few - to original scores written for other movies.
As much as I loved Pulp Fiction, I have to say that this emperor has no clothes. Tarantino is a one-trick pony whose act has worn thin.
Spider-Man (2002)
Raimi and Koepp got it right!
One of - if not THE - best comic book movie to come along yet. Tobey Maguire and Willem Dafoe live their respective roles and the script grows out of the development of the main characters themselves. As a result the film finds a down to earth tone that belies its larger than life hero and comes across as a true coming of age story. Filled with genuine emotions, thrills and great fx (some of the shots of Spidey swinging from skyscraper to skyscraper are almost awe-inspiring in their choreographed beauty) this is a bona-fide hit, one that not only avoids insulting its audience but manages to treat it to what a real adventure movie is supposed to be like.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Breathtaking
A simple review: the film is breathtaking in its scope and depth. It may not be exactly what Tolkien imagined but I would think that it comes very close, and as a film it succeeds on all levels. The viewer does not merely watch but participates in Frodo Baggins' mission, and not once but many times he is overcome with emotion. This could very well be the most beautifully realised film this, or any, year and it deserves all the critical praise it has been getting. And more... I want to see Peter Jackson up on that podium in March! This is a grand cinematic gift that deserves to be recognised. It is the first time I have been truly enchanted watching a movie since I was a kid.
The Mummy Returns (2001)
Spectacular and empty...
Spectacular and extremely well made, and also suffering from lack of a coherent plot (though the story itself is interesting) and some of the worst acting to come along in a long, long time. The director, Stephen Sommers, must have had all his time taken up with directing the action and helping with the camera set-ups because he sure didn't spend much time on any of the characters. Brendan Frasier sleepwalks through this one and the little kid needs to take some serious acting lessons, quickly! Rachel Weisz is ok as are the villains, but it's all so over the top and at times so overbearingly cutesy that you cannot help but to wish for Hollywood to release a real film sometime. This is an overwrought video game blown up to 35mm film.
Check your brain at the door and don't expect any halfway interesting characters. Expect lots of CGI and noise, though. Some of which is worth a matinee price. But that's about it.
Spy Kids (2001)
Inventive, good natured and big hearted fun!
Finally, kids and their parents can equally get a kick out of a film. That film is Spy Kids. A nonstop fun filled "carnival spy ride" that never lets up and never gets stuck in its own syrupy mess like so many similar pictures have in the past. Robert Rodriguez may have found his niche. This is by far his best film to date. My only two gripes are: 1. The unmined riches of the characters. Character development is something on which Rodriguez seems to spend little time; a pity considering how adept he is with the action sequences. I am sure with a little more effort he could have combined all the daring-do with a more intimate look at what was stirring inside those diminutive super agents and their parents. 2. The often times horrendous effects including a high speed chase on water featuring speedboats that looked like they were being jerked back every half second and some all too obvious CGI vehicles. A bit more quality control in the future would be advantageous.
In all, especially considering what passes for family entertainment these days, this one's a 10.
The Exorcist (1973)
Interesting how the reactions this movie elicits are so strong!
I see some people who claim to be writers take the opportunity to make this a forum for their hate-propaganda against what they call "christians." This ignorant attitude blinds them to what makes this film so great. It is by far one of the most thought provoking and effective chillers ever made. It covers the gamut from faith to God to the devil to puberty to parental dedication and scientific understanding and how we humans grapple with these issues. A deeply emotional study of the human psyche and the human being.
And another thing: the movie doesn't scare you because it was made in 1973? Well, I guess being desensitized to violence has its effects.
This film isn't meant to shock as so many viewers and even critics seem to think so. Not at all. A quick look at Friendkin's other films clearly demonstrates why. What's the scariest thing about the Exorcist is how many people just don't seem to get it.
Wild Wild West (1999)
Wildly imaginative it ain't...
A lifeless, humourless, heartless, crassly exploitive waste of perfectly good celluloid and workstation rendering time. Besides a few funny one-liners ("shoot first, shoot later, then shoot some more...") this exercise in cinematic vanity (on both Will Smith's and Barry Sonnenfeld's part) is completely devoid of life as it trips over itself in its attempt to be hip, cool while simultaneously trying to evoke the the original TV series' "James Bond meets Jules Verne" spirit. Most of the jokes are anachronistic in a bad way (unlike the high concept of the series) and the plot is just plain boring. I guess the best way to describe this movie is: boring. And that spells death not only for a summer blockbuster wannabe but any action/comedy. I was also disappointed in the usually brilliant Elmer Bernstein's lackluster and unimaginative score. I guess it must have rubbed off on him from all other parties involved in this unmitigated mess. I guess I'll just have to go see Phantom Menace again. 4 out of 10 stars.
South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)
South Park:Fouler, Over the Top and Still Funny
As Stan Marsh himself would say: "Dude! This is pretty f****d up right here!" And that describes this movie. Never have I cringed and laughed so hard all during the same film. Parker and Stone manage to be vulgar, funny, outlandish, funny, gross, funny, extremely disgusting, funny, childish, funny, inordinately blasphemous, funny and just plain rude, all within 90 minutes. And oh, did I mention the film was funny? Many critics were right in their assessment that beneath the crude and crass exterior hides a surprisingly witty satire that takes aim at everything from our preconceived notions of right and wrong to the hypocritical attitude we have towards the media. The film spares no one and in the process provides some truly hilarious moments. Unfortunately many of the gags are unnecessarily vulgar to the point of being downright embarrassing, but then again, that's probably the point. Maybe... The musical numbers are a hoot, especially the duo with Terrance and Philip with a rather peculiar musical bent. I'm still trying to decide whether or not to recommend this film. It is definitely not for everybody, and ABSOLUTELY NOT for kids. They wouldn't understand the humour and the extremely foul language and vulgarity taken out of context would certainly give them all the wrong ideas. This is an ADULT film in every sense of the word. If you're a fan of the show, go see it. Otherwise spend your money elsewhere.
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
Much better than the naysayers think!!
I was 12 years old when Star Wars came out. It blew me away. Then I grew up (you do the math :-)) The Phantom Menace brought back memories. It also brought into focus the main storyline of the entire Star Wars saga by introducing many of the characters who will become central in episodes IV-VI. And therein lies the interest in this film. In all honesty it could not stand on its own as a separate movie. Why? Because its main purpose is to set up the next two episodes, and ultimately tie in to the first film that introduced us to Luke, Han, Leia, Obi-Wan, and the droids.
I felt that the film was anchored by the fledgling relationship between the Queen and young Anakin and the re-emergence of the dark lords of the Sith. There were more questions raised than answered, and while the movie was by no means perfect, it was a worthy and successful Episode 1.
I am disappointed in the criticisms leveled against the film. Why? Because I believe most of them are invalid and spring from a lack of understanding or at least a willingness to accept that at the heart of this film lie 2 kids!! No Han here! Just get over it. It's different. As it should be.
Finally, Williams' music is for the most part outstanding. It is a change of direction and pace from the music in the first three films as he masterfully weaves together new themes with themes from the previous trilogy. Note the imperial march making an appearance in Anakin's theme. Also note the musical "overlap" between Queen Amidala's and Anakin's theme. These are but a couple of observations.
In all, this movie delivers and one has to view it through the eyes of a child. And that's not a bad thing. We may have grown up but the story was written over 20 years ago. Remember that. I cannot wait for the next 2 installments. The possibilities are amazing.
I just wish the critics and some hardcore fans expecting a retread of the first trilogy (quit whining about the new characters) would look at the movie for what it is and discover the subtle elements in it, which by the way are plentiful. At no point did I feel that Lucas either compromised or had become conceited thinking only of toys and merchandising. The film has plenty of heart, and stays true to the spirit of the originals, thus the saga itself.
I've already seen the flick twice and I will probably go see it again. 9 out of 10.