cecrle Reviews

Primer (2004)

Why was this movie even made?!

[2/10 · 6 February 2006]

First of all, the technical quality of this film sucks. I didn't realize at the time that it was made for $7,000, but that sounds about right. BORING scenery, a bunch of ugly lighting and bland, office-type rooms and buildings. Visually this film is completely tedious and monotonous. The look and feel of _Primer_ is extremely sterile and barren--that might work in a film like _THX-1138_, but in _Primer_ it's just plain dull. There's more interesting cinematography in most people's home-movies than in this flick. _Primer_ looks like the inside of an empty fridge--drab, boring, ugly lighting, and a disappointing dearth of any nourishment inside!

The actors suck. I see users commenting, "Their acting is a little wooden, but that works because it shows the limits of human communication..."! Give me a break! It's OK to like the movie, but don't tell me that they were actually expressing anything much. These are clearly not skilled actors (they could have done worse, I'll admit, but they still suck), and they are not emotionally engaging in the least. On top of that, they stand around in white-collar shirts with ties on and their sleeves rolled up throughout the whole damn movie--probably not just because of the budget, but because they need to appear as business-class scientists so that all the pseudo-scientific pseudo-jargon they throw around seems more fitting, more believable. But that too fails.

There was no reason for this movie to be made. Maybe the director had some cool ideas, but I someone tell me WHY did he turn to the medium of film? He had nothing to offer in the way of visual style, cinematography, dialogue, or acting. He obviously should have saved that $7,000 and spent his time writing a BOOK called _Primer_, not a film!

As for the plot itself, OOOOOH, TIME TRAVEL PARADOXES! Dull dull dull! Maybe this excites people who don't know much about physics and feel like they're in deeper territory than they actually are. This kind of plot has been beaten to death over the past several decades. The idea of time-travel is so silly, thin, and well-tread that it would take quite a movie to make it exciting or interesting again--but this movie is neither exciting nor interesting.

I do not plan on viewing it again in order to "understand" all the plot complications, because I know that they don't matter. I don't care to "unravel" the plot, because it's all so illogical and implausible to begin with. This movie doesn't allow you to suspend your disbelief for even a moment! Create all the plot-twist loopholes you want around an illogical notion, but that doesn't necessarily make a deep, quality film.

One user commented on how interesting it was to consider, "What tense do you use when something is in the past but hasn't happened yet?" as if this is a deep philosophical quandary. But the notion of traveling into your own past is so illogical and impossible that any discussions on the paradoxes of it are moot. YEP, there WOULD be a lot of paradoxes if you could go screw around with the past! That's one of the reasons physicists think it's impossible! Notions like "It happened in the past but not yet" only serve to highlight how ridiculous the concept is! If _Primer_ had been the first movie or story to take on these notions of time-travel paradox, then I'd cut it a LOT more slack. But fiction (and popular physics written by scientists such as Hawking, etc.) have covered all this stuff.

For a movie about time-travel to be fun and entertaining, it should look a lot more like _Back to the Future_ than _Primer_. _Back to the Future_ has fun with itself, fun with going back into the past and seeing a different time-period, fun with the idea of creating time-paradoxes, fun with humor, action, cinematography, acting, etc. _Back to the Future_ doesn't take itself that seriously, and that's what allows it to open up and have a lot of fun (if you're in the mood for a time-travel movie).

But _Primer_ doesn't have fun with itself--it's not about having fun. It takes itself way too seriously for that. _Primer_ is about making the viewer sit through a bunch of boring details to make us feel that it was all something profound by complicating things with time-paradoxes that try so hard to sound deep and scientific, but really aren't. Time-travel is just too wacky a concept to portray in the austere, low-budget, near-documentary style that _Primer_ employs. (The cover of the box compares _Primer_ to _2001: A Space Odyssey_. I am beyond flabbergasted by this comparison, as there is no sound basis for it.)

Ask yourself: if you want to see a movie about traveling into the past, do you want to see a couple white-collared guys do little more than stand around and mumble to each other in ugly, drab locales for an hour and a half? A time-travel movie where the times/places that they visit look exactly the same as the times/places that they just came from?! Why did this guy even make a film about this particular subject when he was so obviously ill-equipped to deal with it?

Regarding the many positive user comments, I guess I have to agree with one of the dissenting users who commented, "A lot of people think something is brilliant if they don't understand it." I'd wager that most people who like _Primer_ don't really spend much time thinking about philosophical or scientific ideas. These people apparently mistake the muddled, illogical mess of _Primer_ for something deep and thoughtful. Being confused isn't always the sign of a good movie--it could just mean that the script and plot (not to mention the subject matter!) are themselves confused.

High Tension (2003)

So much potential squandered in the end!

[5/10 · 1 January 2006]

(First of all, an important viewing recommendation: when you watch this DVD make sure that you turn the language to French, and the subtitles to English; I watched the first several minutes on the DVD's default setting, which was spoken English, but this dubbed English does an AWFUL job of matching the characters' lips (probably one of the reasons Ebert gave it only 1 out of 4 stars, although he had another good reason--) and would have been nearly unwatchable had I not switched the spoken language to French. The movie feels much more natural and solid when spoken in French and subtitled in English.)

For most of this film, I was REALLY into it. Very frightening, a lot of tension, a very effective villain, etc. But the ending is what very nearly ruins this movie. As soon as you see the twist you feel cheated and wish they'd just skipped trying to be so surprising or clever. Other movies have used similar tricks to much greater effect, so why did the director decide to muddy up his straight-forward thriller with a juvenile stunt? It doesn't make the movie any more deep, it just kinda throws things off track.

Although very disappointed overall by this film, I still think it's worth seeing (if you're a fan of the genre), because even with its fatal flaws, it's still more exciting & scary and well-shot than most horror movies out there--which is why it's such a let-down when the last part of the film comes along!

I felt a bit cheated automatically, but not enough to really think through every inconsistency in the film. But I read Ebert's review, and the last few sentences of his review really remind you how illogical the film actually is. In other words, if you were to watch this movie a second time with the ending in mind, you'd realize that there was no way several important events could have happened in the first place! There's no excuse for the writer/director to have neglected eliminating this inconsistency.

For most of the film I was thinking, "Damn, this is a good thriller! I'm gonna have to recommend this!" But the last section of the movie sends my opinion sliding back down the ladder to a 6 out of 10 (and I'm probably being generous since I really like scary movies). Watch this film if you're entertained by thriller/horror/suspense films, because you'll appreciate a lot of it, but it's too flawed to be called a good, solid movie.

Suspect Zero (2004)

Dull stupid story hidden beneath some nice touches

[6/10 · 19 December 2005]

This movie does a pretty good job of evoking a creepy atmosphere in some ways, such as the soundtrack and some of the early scenes. Before long it degenerates into boring, dull scenes of arid dull boring New Mexico landscape. This is one of those movies where, after you've seen it and thought about it for a few minutes, you say to yourself, "Wait, what? Well maybe...mmmm, no....nope, that was mostly just stupid. Thumbs down!" Without going into too much detail or spoiling anything, let me just say that the whole notion of "Suspect Zero Theory" (the supposed 'subject' Kingsley's character becomes obsessed with) is meaningless non-sense intended to *sound* deep and technical and interesting. "What if there was a serial killer who killed a BUNCH of people without getting caught?!" OOOH, NOVEL IDEA! Sounds pretty stupid when you just come out and say it like that, so instead the writers throw in obtuse gobbledy-gook analogies between such a killer and the HIV virus, etc.

The notion of "remote viewing" is indeed interesting (and a factual topic at that, at least in the sense that the U.S. government did indeed fund such research efforts during the Cold War with the Soviets), so the movie should have just focused on that. But to make things more cohesive & tidy so as to be neatly resolved in the end, they throw in this totally extraneous junk about the extra Suspect Zero character. All this does is distract attention and energy away from the remote-viewing subject matter at the heart of the story, as portrayed by Ben Kingsley (and he does a pretty good job).

The conflict between the two main characters at the end of the movie feels needless, contrived, and illogical. Does Kingsley seek to punish the other agent or save him? There really don't seem to be good answers for some of these questions--well, answers other than the obvious fact that it was merely written this way to be an "edge of your seat thriller" with a typical Hollywood climax & resolution. Pointless, needless. Starts with creepy tension and promise, but quickly disintegrates into barely-above-average, typical-thriller junk.

Mulholland Drive (2001)

reflection

[10/10 · 16 October 2005]

Enough has been said in user reviews regarding the movie's interpretations (and of all Lynch's movies, I'd say this one has the most solid core of discernible plot hiding beneath the strangeness). I just want to make a few comments on the negative reviews posted by some viewers-- An ironic and extremely frustrating aspect of ignorance is that it cannot recognize itself, doesn't seek to expand itself into knowledge or understanding.

This is evident in many of the negative reviews of Mullholland Dr. posted here. Just because certain viewers couldn't make sense of this film, or wouldn't even TRY to make sense of it or think about it, many of them reacted with anger & insults of David Lynch. Unfortunately for those people, there ARE answers to this movie, very real and satisfying answers. How unfortunate for American audiences that our film industry is constantly spewing out such boring, predictable, clichéd drek that when something of substance and artistic creativity & quality comes along (Mullholland Dr.), many are left puzzled and angry, and follow their knee-jerk impulse that it must be the MOVIE's fault, not THEIRS! A creative, artistic film that's daring and original--no wonder Hollywood-suckled zombies are left so confused!!!---"WHAT?! The director wants me to actually THINK about what's going on?! It's not all wrapped up for me in a clichéd 'surprise-ending' that spells it all out for me?! I might have to see it several times to understand it?! Then I don't WANT it!"

Sorry, but if this film makes you angry, then it's YOUR fault--your fault for being so intellectually lazy that you want everything to be cut & dried then spoon-fed to you. So lazy that you wouldn't know a good piece of art if it came by and bit you on the nose. This doesn't apply to the thoughtful viewers who saw the film more than once, thought about it, figured some things out, and came to the conclusion that this film just wasn't up their alley. But the negative comments by so many users here display a belligerent refusal to stop for a moment and consider things.

So keep these things in mind as you peruse the user comments and see all the moronic comments of, "This movie is garbage!" "This movie is stupid, it's meaningless!" "This is a waste of time!" "The only reason people say they like this is because Lynch made it!" My honest first reaction is anger at the ignorance of these people, anger at that very ignorance of much of American's viewing public that has in part caused our entertainment industry to overflow with so much soul-less, brain-less junk. But really I feel sorry for the people who can't get anything out of this movie, especially those who think they "love film" but still can't understand why anyone would like this movie! It's a crime against art to see this film dismissed by some while so many pieces of crap garner loads of gushing praise. Thankfully the majority of IMDb's users realize the worth of Mullholland Dr.

All I can say to those who so quickly dismiss and insult this film is this--you can keep your John Grisham adaptations, your action-explosion blockbusters, your Jackie Chan non-sense. A film like Mullholland Dr. is for those willing to view a piece of art from the standpoint of an intelligent adult, but unfortunately there are way too many juvenile, ADD-afflicted boneheads dictating the direction of "entertainment" in America these days.

Nico Icon (1995)

Worth Watching, but Seriously Flawed.

[7/10 · 12 July 2005]

This documentary is worth watching if you're interested in Nico or related subjects (my interest in the Velvet Underground is what got me to watch it, and VU are so important to modern music history that it's worth watching just for that), but it is seriously lacking in several respects.

First of all, the movie is only 67 minutes long and ends too abruptly. Another half-hour of more extensive interviews would have greatly strengthened the film. Maybe people like Lou Reed or the surviving members of The Doors simply refused to take part in the movie, but the absence of their opinions leaves definite holes in the story. In the film's defense, maybe there's just not much elaboration anyone can give about Nico--she was pretty, had a striking voice, and was a depressive junkie; that about sums up the impression I'm left with (which probably isn't all the film's fault!). But couldn't they have at least given us Lou Reed's take on Nico, even if it was only via anecdotes shared by others?

The creation of her solo songs & albums is very glossed-over. Suddenly Andy Warhol's crew is talking about hearing a single of Nico's--the viewer is left to wonder, "Well, when & how did that recording come about?!" We are shown pictures of her solo albums while clips of her songs are played, but that's about it--no real discussion of the circumstances surrounding the writing, recording, promotion, dates of release, etc. It's left unclear how much of the actual CREATION of those songs was done by Nico herself--did she learn to play any instruments, did she direct other music writers to produce what she was envisioning? Maybe these things were addressed and I simply missed them, but if so, it was a sentence or two at most, which might have been inaudible--

--which leads us into the problem of the poor sound quality; the music sometimes drowns out the poorly recorded interviews, so that when the interviewees lapse into softer voices, mutters & mumbles (their various accents add to this problem), it can be very hard to understand what is being said. Also annoying is the cheesy method of occasionally superimposing words on the screen as they are spoken by interviewees or sung by the soundtrack. This technique feels cheap and superficial--like a commercial trying to convince us that what is being said is important or deep.

Overall, it's definitely worth seeing if you like documentaries & music/pop history, but not a great documentary by any means. I'm almost tempted to go back and change my vote to 6, but I think I'll leave it at 7 because I did enjoy watching it. Worth renting, but not worth owning.

The Hunger (1983)

Boring, dull, repetitive.

[3/10 · 1 June 2005]

I didn't expect this movie to be a classic or anything, but even so I was let down. Very boring. Tries to be so stylish and dreamy, but just repeats itself ad-nauseum and doesn't even feature anything worth making a movie about. The only things I liked in this film were the very beginning (i love the band Bauhaus, so seeing them featured in the club at the beginning was very cool & sinister/dramatic--too bad that feeling ends so quickly, it had me psyched for a good movie!), and the make-up work done on Bowie to make him appear to age. Also, one of the revelations about Miriam's past lovers is cool. But that's pretty slim pickings for 96 minutes.

This movie is slow, boring, dull, not worth watching--unless you really like hearing slow piano music while watching curtains drift in the wind; if that's your type of thing, then you'll love this movie! If you like plot, dialogue, interesting characters, good acting, drama, then look elsewhere!

Team America: World Police (2004)

Looks great, but lacks humor & intelligence.

[4/10 · 27 May 2005]

Overall, I was let down by this movie and disappointed with the makers, whom I usually find quite funny. Parker & Stone have shown in other films & shows that they can be funny, intelligent, AND absurd/childish/over-the-top/etc., all at the same time. But Team America is seriously lacking in the humor department, as well as the intelligence department. Why make a movie like Team America unless you're really going to think about the issues involved (terrorism, the role of the U.S. as "world police", opposition to the war in Iraq, etc.)? Parker & Stone have shown that they can make fun of BOTH sides of a given issue, but their slant in this film just feels weak, skewed, and not so much lop-sided as just plain LAZY and LAME. Don't get me wrong; visually this movie is amazing and worth seeing just for the ingenious sets built from all sorts of random odds & ends to suit the smaller-than-life-size scale of the movie. In fact it looks so good that you'll look right past most of the amazing details without realizing just HOW good it all looks unless you watch some of the bonus features and pay close attention to background details.

But the movie almost goes out of its way to ignore many aspects of the subject matter it addresses. Sure, Team America is seen tearing apart whatever locations they're sent to, and congratulating themselves on a job well done. But that's about the only criticism shown of the "world police" and their hypocritical mission to thwart terror & destruction. MUCH more time is spent making fun of those who oppose the war, namely members of the Film Actors Guild, a.k.a. FAG. This lame joke is used many times. It would be fine if it was used once to make fun of a specifically lame actor, but no, this movie does its best to point out that those who are concerned about the immorality & illegality of the war-on-terror are FAGs. MUCH less attention is paid to the absurdity of those waging the war in the first place. No mention at all of President Bush and his posse of chicken-hawks. Nope, to watch Team America, you'd think it was American actors who are the ones behind so many of the world's current problems. Actors may be annoying when they're wrong or stupid, but when armies & governments are wrong and stupid, thousands of human beings are killed & maimed. So given the choice between emphasizing the idiocy of ACTORS vs. GOVERNMENTS, I think the intelligent choice goes without saying! Unfortunately, Parker & Stone don't make many intelligent choices in this movie.

The film's two main jokes are the above-mentioned use of FAG, and the arch-villain Kim Jong-Il's pronunciation of words involving the letter 'L'. Like a good little Asian stereotype, Kim Jong-Il REPEATEDLY says things like "I'm so *rone-ry*", etc. It's kind of funny at first, but after awhile you start to wonder why Parker & Stone didn't take some more time to come up with quality jokes (they've shown elsewhere how clever they can be, but this movie is quite lacking in that department), or at the very least, a wider VARIETY of easy, lame jokes instead of the same few again & again.

I even like their "stupid" humor in movies such as _Baseketball_ and _Orgazmo_, but _Team America_'s humor is stupid AND irresponsible. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died due to actions taken by the "world police" of America, and all Parker & Stone can do is sneer at the whole thing, as if anyone who cares about it one way or another is stupid for even caring. What a hopeless, Generation X mindset. Listen to their little diatribe against actors ("worst people in the world", I believe they claim) in the bonus features section and you'll realize they have some maturity "issues" to work out within themselves. They appear to be stooping quite low to appease the most common, immature denominator (young, dumb American males) who will laugh at "fag" jokes and give zero thought to the meaning behind the subject matter.

Did they chicken out under pressure from the major studio and back down from any overt political "friction" or satire? I don't know. But it takes a lot more guts to speak out against government-sanctioned violence than it does to be so apathetic as to insinuate that anyone who is informed & sympathetic about the issue is nothing more than an annoying "fag." Parker & Stone lose some serious points in my book for _Team America_. I think they got too wrapped up in the puppetry & set-building and forgot to give their script as much work as it needed. I know they're intelligent guys, but their IQs seem to have been on a real holiday with this movie. I thought there would be intelligent criticism of all sides of the matter in this movie, a la The Daily Show, but I was wrong. See it for yourself and decide.

Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (2004)

No way to defend Fox---not about Left vs. Right, but True vs. False & Honest vs. Dishonest

[10/10 · 20 May 2005]

There is just no way to defend Fox News after seeing this movie. It's funny to read the negative comments people have posted about this film: it's obvious that those angry at the movie are already in way over their heads as far as allegiance to Fox News goes--their minds must be VERY made up, because how could you defend Fox news after seeing this movie if you were being intellectually honest with yourself? The MAIN POINT is that Fox swears up and down that they're "FAIR AND BALANCED" and this movie proves beyond ANY shadow of a doubt that they are NOT Fair and Balanced!!!

So while I would like to respect the people who still watch Fox News (I know some intelligent people who like the station, unfortunately) because they tend to agree with it (although it's hard to respect a station that is statistically proved to be the #1 news network when it comes to misleading its viewers into believing falsehoods!), I simply CANNOT respect the opinion of those reviewers who have seen this film and still try to claim that they are FAIR and BALANCED! It's interesting to note that the reviewers here who support Fox News conveniently sidestep addressing any of the facts & legitimate criticisms of the station (for example how do you account for the fact that you are more likely to believe falsehoods if you get your news primarily from Fox?!) and devote their comments to macho trash-talk. They are the type of people who love authoritarian father-figures like O'Reily & Hannity & Bush who tell them what to think and how to feel good about themselves--it makes them feel more sure of themselves (something they must desperately lack), and the instant their heroes are challenged, they stop listening, stop thinking, and begin fuming about "liberal cry-baby garbage", and other immature phrases which betray much knee-jerk reaction but little critical thought. (No wonder they like Fox so much--it specializes in specious name-calling in favor of FACTS and open, honest discussion--just watch the movie and listen to the people who used to work for the station!)

So fine, keep watching Fox News if you tend to agree with it (be forewarned you're more likely to believe things that simply are NOT true--such as WMDs being found in Iraq; there being proved links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, etc.) or if it simply entertains you--it's not nearly so bad if you can honestly acknowledge its serious shortcomings. But if you can convince yourself that Fox News truly IS "fair & balanced", then you could probably convince yourself that 2 + 2 = 5 or whatever else those in power want you to believe.

Freddy vs. Jason (2003)

So awful it made me angry.

[1/10 · 30 May 2004]

This movie is a perfect example of soul-less corporate nitwits sitting around and hatching a hollow excuse to drain the pockets of stupid teenagers. I'm not exaggerating when I say that the script probably took a few hours to write. The movie has no cohesion, no flow, no pacing, no plot. Some special effects like the morphing look professional, but that's the only professional thing about this movie. Full of stupid cliches designed to relate to teenage audiences (raves, slang, plastic surgery references, pointless shots of smoking and drinking, etc.). This makes the original Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the Thirteenth series look like masterpieces of American cinema. Of course I *knew* it would be a bad movie, but I thought it would be bad in an enjoyable way or at least entertaining in parts. But it's not enjoyable. It's depressing to think that American audiences are being fed this kind of drek (and giving it fairly good ratings, by the looks of IMDB's polls!). So slapped-together, so hokey, so empty of any atmosphere or scares or anything worthwhile to redeem its existence. If you see this movie and don't think it's AWFUL, you seriously have something wrong with you. Seriously. Robert Englund (the actor who plays Freddy) shouldn't have sunk so low as to accept the role in this movie--he couldn't have needed the money *that* badly. All in all, I think this movie represents the inevitable extinction of the human race.

Pin (1988)

good creepy thriller

[8/10 · 5 May 2003]

No huge innovations or anything in this flick, but the overall effect is very creepy and eerie, without having to resort to gratuitous gross-outs or slasher imagery--just a disturbing little tale that's developed and paced in an amazingly effective way. See _Magic_ starring Anthony Hopkins for a similar tale of schizophrenic projection...

Hellraiser: Inferno (2000 Video)

good for what it is

[29 December 2000]

This is a straight-to-video release, the 5th movie of a series, and a horror film on top of that--so if you're expecting it to be a cinematic epiphany, it's your own fault for such an unreasonable expectation. But for what it is, this movie is good. The first two Hellraiser films are quite interesting for the Cenobite visuals, dialogue, and mythology. Hellraiser III and IV ("Bloodline"), however, are pretty weak. Inferno tries to add some suspense, thought, and diversity to the Hellraiser series, and I think it works. Yes, unfortunately the Cenobites play little part in this one, but I think they are sufficiently included, in such a way that is reasonable as pertaining to the story. The other Hellraiser movies have a lot of hyped dialogue on what the Box and the Cenobites are all about, but it seems to be just a lot of talk without any real display of what exactly goes on. "Inferno" does a good job of exploring the effect of the Box on one man's life--how it introduces suffering to him and takes him to a Hell that is more creative than an obvious, literal interpretation. I think the minimal inclusion of 'Pinhead' is actually kind of tasteful--I mean c'mon, III and IV merely exploit his image and voice for gratuitous horror-hype. But in this one, his part in the plot is more controlled and subtle. 'Pinhead' is indeed cool to look at, and yes he makes the series, but the Hellraiser movies have already used up his verbal masturbation about suffering and Hell. "Inferno" attempts to put Pinhead's money where his mouth is, so to speak, to go deeper and flesh out some details of the Hellraiser concept, and despite the Cenobites' relative absence--perhaps *because of* their absence--I think the movie succeeds.

Leaving Las Vegas (1995)

big disappointment

[4/10 · 18 December 1999]

I had heard that this movie was great and depressing. I mostly just found it to be a disappointment. Cage as an alcoholic intent on drinking himself to death, and Shue as a prostitute intent on whoring--not that we know *why* or anything. The best scenes of the movie are when Cage's character fires quips and witticisms in the midst of his drunkenness. But it's not very depressing, because we just aren't given enough information about the characters to care; Cage is drunk from the start, and never really stops, so it's not like we're witnessing the downfall of some great character. All we know about him is that his wife and son left him somehow, and that Shue has a deranged pimp and keeps on whorin'. That's about it. They proceed to act screwed up and hopeless, as *Sting* sings tepid love songs on the soundtrack (yes, *Sting*). The soundtrack selections are so silly, they really ruin the mood of certain scenes--when we would naturally be feeling glum or sorry for the characters, there's goofy jazzy crooning and crap going on in the forefront of the sound; music that says, "Oh, those crazy kids! What wacky things will they do next!" Does not go well with the visual aspects and storyline at all (unless you consider songs playing that mention "kissing" and "love" as the same stuff happens on the screen to be an amazingly creative example of synchronicity and visual-aural interwinement). Very poor, and downright harmful to the atmosphere. By the time the flick ends, you realize: "hey.....nothing much happened in that movie..." Yes, the acting is pretty damn good from both Cage and Shue, but their characters aren't examined/explored/explained enough for us to get any sort of attachment or lasting interest invested in them, and nothing much happens in terms of plot. Cage keeps getting drunk, Shue keeps whoring, and every now and then something a-little-more-screwed-up-than-screwed-up happens. That's about it. Maybe the best things about this movie could be summarized and translated into a piece of some other excellent film, but in and of itself, this movie is blatantly lacking.

Nobody's Perfect (1989)

ohhhhhhhhhhhh.....

[1/10 · 11 August 1999]

This movie was on the Romance channel, and I thought it might be a goofy 80's movie that would be enjoyable on some level, so my brother and I watched it. Boy did it suck. Boy gets crush on girl--correction, his *dream*-girl (apparently there is a difference; and I'm surprised he realized she was his dream girl--he was smitten with her from over 30 feet away. I guess that just goes to show the power of dream-girls), boy ends up masquerading as a female to be near dream-girl (creative in the sense that it's a far-out plan, but un-creative in the sense that there are probably better solutions one might think up), awkward situations ensue, a match is made (all of which takes seems to take place around late afternoon--either the location was somehow responsible for this odd lighting, or the actors had to wait until they got off of their day-jobs to come to the set; I suspect the latter). Very clumsily done, very pathetic. It's almost never even amusing *accidentally*, so there really is nothing to redeem it. Unless you're interested in seeing Chad Lowe's early days, before he finally got his piece of the pie with his role as the HIV-positive gay guy on the series "Life Goes On", or Gail O'Grady who was on NYPD Blue and probably got to stare at Dennis Franz's buttocks). But those are unlikely motives--I'd say "systematic derangement of the senses" would be a more justified purpose. I'm surprised I watched it all. I guess it's the kind of thing where, halfway through, you find yourself *still* watching due to some morbid, self-flagellistic inner-issue, and think you might as well finish it so you can tell your friends and family that you actually sat through such a horrible movie, on the off-chance that it'll garner you some sympathy for the questionable state of your mental health. Can *You* Take the Challenge?

Snake Eyes (1998)

not much room for suspense

[9 August 1999]

This movie is not as good as the trailers made it appear. The premise seems interesting: an assassination occurs during a big, televised boxing match, and whoever is behind it is still in the building--and with the aid of security cameras, Nicolas Cage will track the killer down. It sounds interesting, like a lot can happen...but not much does. Cage's character, Rick, is shown to be a greedy pleasure/power-hungry jerk at the beginning, and De Palma tries to show this in an amusing way--but it struck me as sophomoric, childish. The way Cage acts out his character's "wild side" is just plain goofy. The plot and action are interesting during the few moments before, during, and after the actual assassination. But soon we know who's behind it all, and while that's partially interesting in itself, it's mainly a suspense-killer. It becomes a game of cat-and-mouse, and there's no real mystery/suspense there, mainly just action and "hide! hide!" sorta stuff. I haven't seen/studied many Hitchcock films, but it seems to me that De Palma is trying hard to make a Hitchcock movie here. And it just doesn't work--maybe back in the days of Hitchcock something like a 1st-person POV shot would be tricky and interesting, but in "Snake Eyes", it just comes off as silly and contrived. And the whole atmosphere of the casino is a drag--the boxing arena is interesting enough, but the rest of it detracts from any sense of mystery or suspense, and just fills it with a miasma of boredom in a flashy manner that comes off as garish, and not as visually interesting as "flashy" should be. Once we learn the motives for the entire thing, it's obvious that the film is *trying* to explore Cage's character, which is a really boring way to go. We're shown that he's a jerk in the opening scenes, then there's action, then at the end we're supposed to care about what he's like "deep down"? It's done too quickly and simplistically, and the movie goes astray by neglecting the primary features of itself. The reason we're watching the movie is for the mystery, and the thrills of action & suspense it can bring. So when we see how boring the "bad guy" and "motive" aspects are, it really doesn't matter what happens--the interest tries to occupy such a shallow, thin place that it is bound to evaporate quickly. But I suppose it's worth watching for those moments when the mystery and suspenseful possibilities *do* seem deep enough to immerse ourselves in. (Just don't be surprised when you're a gasping, beached fish by the end of it all...)

Dead Man's Curve (1998)

entertaining, but shaky...

[6/10 · 7 August 1999]

I get a kick out of Mathew Lillard's wackiness, so this movie was enjoyable, but by the time it's over it has seriously weakened itself with its desperate plot contrivances. It starts out solid and interesting, without boring pauses or over-long set-ups. It's suspenseful to see Tim's (played by Lillard) obnoxious behavior after pushing his room-mate, Rand, off of the cliff (beginning of the movie, not a spoiler). But the movie goes awry when it tries too hard to force twists & turns into the plot. It's a little suspenseful, but it's really more unconvincing and plot-holed than anything else by the end. One of those times where you say, "Oh!" when the surprises first occur, but then start scratching your chin and saying, "Wait...if he did this and she did that, and they knew this, then why did he ever say that and why did they even do that? Would he really have done that?" etc. It sacrifices its plausibility for cheap shocks, which aren't all that great. But it is an entertaining flick, and I'm not disappointed I rented it. Pretty good as far as these types of movies go, I suppose. I enjoyed the music and movie references (The Smiths, Joy Division, and "The Deer Hunter" becomes "The Beer Hunter"), they made it kind of witty and "hip" before it scrambled to out-do itself with run-of-the-mill plot-twists. Watch it for casual kicks.

Patch Adams (1998)

A manipulative, shallow movie.

[13 July 1999]

This movie has no substance; it is pseudo-*everything.* It is not touching for touching's sake, it is not funny for funny's sake, it is not romantic for the sake of romanticism. All of the techniques it employs are basically tricks used to manipulate the audience into thinking they've just seen a profound, heart-warming film. It's painfully obvious that the film-makers sat around saying, "Okay, we need a scene to make the audience cry. What's the best (easiest) way to do that?" But a good film doesn't warm hearts that easily or cheaply--ya can't just throw a heart into a microwave and "nuke" it, and that's what this film tries to do. Yet again (sigh), Robin Williams plays a hero who is too far-out for his companions, most of whom somehow can't sense, or fear, the charm which the audience is supposed to feel astute for instantly recognizing. It's pathetic. The first thing that's provided is a quota of uptight, humorless jerks to serve as the dull background from which Patch will inevitably stand out and shine. But that's irresponsibly unrealistic, IMO. I think it's a little cheap of the film-makers to suddenly paint doctors as coldhearted, insensitive jerks (near the climax of the film, the main "bad-guy" doctor actually says to Patch, "I'm glad you finally chose to conform." What a contrived, blatant set-up) just to serve the goal of their movie, which is to paint Patch Adams as an emotional superhero who'll get butts into theater seats and earn them $$$. Patch takes *every* opportunity he can to make condescending speeches about these human *beings*, who have *feelings*, and *hearts*, and *love*, and *souls*, and--alright, we get the picture. Yet we're supposed to feel touched by these, um, "insights" every time he launches another didactic speech. It's blatantly obvious that he's really *in*sensitive, and despite all his speeches about treating everyone humanely, he's constantly condescending and arrogant. His mission is not to make people feel better, but to get people to bow down to him as a being superior in every possible way. "See, I'm *funny*, I *care*..." And to cover their bases, they tack on the plot-tidbit that Patch gets better grades than 98% of his peers--without ever really studying. Boy, how convenient--over and over they drive into the ground how loose and carefree Patch is, how stuffy study-sessions aren't his "thing." But how are his *grades*? Oh, nearly perfect. That Patch, he's *smart*, too!! How tired. Yet another formulaic plot, with Williams riding the same one-trick pony yet again. Chances are that the people who react so warmly to this movie are reacting from knee-jerk emotionalism, without any critical judgement or thought as to what the film really is, and what it's really doing. It is contrived, simplistic, and manipulative. It's bitterly ironic that such a cynical, soul-less, synthetic manipulation of audiences is bound to garner such warm responses. Look past the emotional smoke-screen and you'll see this movie for what it is: a sterile, insensitive, heartless scam.

BASEketball (1998)

more wit than you'd expect

[7/10 · 20 June 1999]

Critics have complained that BASEketball is too crude and dumb to be funny. I don't think those critics really "get" the movie. The movie *is* funny, because Trey Parker and Matt Stone have a certain charisma and wit that give a spark of humor and creativity to even the lewdest, simplist jokes. Part of the humor of this movie *is* their character's stupidity, but it's not the old Beavis and Butthead stupidity, where the characters don't even know they're stupid. BASEketball's characters seem like insightful, intelligent people who revel in wackiness with a witty edge. Their spark of charisma gives a sense of awareness to their gags that makes them funny--they know some people will think their sense of humor is dumb and crude, but they don't care, they do it anyway. It's not humor in terms of, "ha ha, he cussed!" It's how, when, and why they do it that makes the movie work. One gets the sense that these guys have a creative, fresh feel for humor--their style seems more original than a lot of recent comedies and tired comedy set-ups.

Cube (1997)

too one-sided (har har)

[3/10 · 17 May 1999]

A disappointing, frustrating movie. It starts out like it's going to have a lot of cool effects and ideas, but that is soon disproven. The acting's not very good, and the dialogue sure doesn't help things--the characters find themselves in this horrific death-trap, yet goofy little dialogue bits and mannerisms are supposed to be amusing in the midst of it. Doesn't work. The movie teases with various "what-ifs" and theories as to what could be going on--which is cool, and the only reason for watching the movie--but then it goes about negating all of the interesting possibilities, so that all the viewer's left with is a frustrated hope that something more will come out of the flick...but nothing does (except more frustration). If the characters are annoying, the dialogue is stupid, the setting barely changes, and the plot/premise is barren and admittedly pointless, one can't really consider this a good movie. Has some possibilities at the beginning, but soon sets about wiping them out...