imddaveh Reviews

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

Spielberg Poured Through the Kubrick Filter

[25 July 2002]

(spoilers) You know how if a 12-year-old boy were to make up a story for you, the story would combine an incredibly disjointed number of elements, and the story would paint itself into several corners and somehow squeek out of them, and you would patiently listen to the story, and when it finally ended you would ruffle the kid's hair and privately thank God that the story was over while politely cooing to his parents about how creative and imaginative the child was? Further, you know how you would never take that story and spend millions of dollars on translating it verbatim to film with no adult editorial input? You know what I mean?

I really, really wanted to like "A.I.", and perhaps setting my expectations so high only contributed to the crushing disappointment I felt watching this film. I found the concept of robots becoming more integrated with society because they do not eat or require much in the way of living quarters (in the wake of over-population due to melting ice-caps) to be though provoking. However, my first danger signal came as David, an artificial boy who is introduced into the home of a couple who's biological son is in a coma (or dead, or whatever), is initially rejected by the wife who is horrified at this ersatz replacement of her own son.....and suddenly, for no real reason, not only accepts David but begins to love him. Indeed, this transformation is important to the story but it comes out of left field with no development whatsoever. David comes into the household as a cold, semi-vulcan like automaton, but the mother activates David's "love circuit" causing his cold stare to soften. He immediately starts calling this woman "Mommy"... and the woman just melts and accepts him. Uh, who's the robot here?

Suddenly, ta-dah, the couple's biological son is restored to health and comes home, creating a sibling rivalry situation. The returned son has a mean streak in him and starts tormenting David. Through a series of misinterpreted fear responses in David, his "parents" deem him dangerous. Knowing that returning David to the company that made him will result in his destruction, the mother instead drives him into the woods and dumps him there at the mercy of a world in which robots are hated, feared, and destroyed for entertainment by the mass majority of people. Nice. Kinda like someone who would rather let thier pet die slowly instead of having them put to sleep at the vet.

Anyhoo David, familiar with the "Pinochio" story, decides that his "mommy" would love him more and wouldn't have abandoned him if he were "a real boy". In order to achieve this, he must seek out The Blue Fairy. He does indeed find her at the long-submerged Coney Island amusement park, where his repeated requests to the Blue Fairy's statue go unheard. And so he sits at the bottom of the ocean for two thousand years until aliens dig though the ice and find him. And the aliens clone his "mommy" for him so he can spend one day of happiness with her. Yay.

This would be a very emotionally involving tale if it were not for the lack of character building and progressively treacly story telling. Between the "mommy's" willingness to abondon her "child" to the cruel world and David's cold treatment at the hands of the very people who created him to feel emotions, the central message of this film seems to be that people suck. There is no real redemption for David, and no indication that the human characters in the movie are capable of the feelings that David has. This might be interpreted as a clever irony - that the robot has feelings and the people do not - except that there is no other atorytelling skill evident in the film to suggest that such an irony would have occurred to the filmmakers in the first place.

Haley Joel Osmet turns in yet another convincing and impressive performance as the boy who feels nothing until his emotional circuits are activated. The other amusing, if not stand-out performance comes from Jude Law as Gigolo Joe - a comical sex-worker robot who befriends David. As a whole, the story is very cold-and-stark Kubrick while the film is wonder-and-ohh-ahh Speilberg, kinda like a banana split sundae with whipped cream and rainbow sprinkles served in your grandmother's skull....a grim story with a gooey-sweet coating. Yuck.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)

The Impossible Film Made Possible

[25 July 2002]

I read Hunter S. Thompson's "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" when I was 16, just barely old enough to not be completely corrupted by the book. The book is a simutaneously hilarious and horrifying read. Now, almost 20 years and one heart attack later, I 've lost some of my sense of immortality and find the book slightly more horrifying than hilarious. Nonetheless, a fascinating read providing a journey to a time and a place and a culture long gone.

Terry Gilliam's film is very faithful to the book and nicely captures not only the hellbent-for-self-destruction antics of Thompson and his frightening attorney, but it also captures the very essence of early-1970s Las Vegas. Typical of Gilliam's films, the production design is astounding. Actor Johnny Depp's portrayal of Thompson is as accurate as it is funny - a considerable feat considering the fact that Thompson himself was on the set, coaching and observing the actor's portrayal. If you've read the book, you know that Thompson is a man you don't want to upset.

The problem I had with the movie is that...well, it's almost too faithful to the book. When you read the book, the print is clear and clean, and you miss not a single horrifying/hilarious detail. However, the movie is hyper-realistic in that the drug-addled main characters speak in slurred mumbles and grunts...much the way you would expect someone to do after consuming an entire pharmacy's worth of drugs. One of my favorite scenes from the book is when Thompson finds his attorney in the hotel room's bathtub, listening to Jefferson Airplane....the dialog between the two is darkly hysterical. When watching the movie, it helps to have certain passages of the book memorized (as many people do) so that you can understand the dialog. I'm not sure if the sound is poorly recorded, poorly mixed, or just deliberately muddy, but the main characters are often difficult to understand. I'm sure the movie is almost exactly as the events described happened, but the genius of Thompson's writing is his ability to recount the events in clear detail. Ironically, the book is a sharp photograph while the movie is a fuzzy memory.

This is another "2% of the population movie" (see my review for "1941"). It's definitely not for everyone. Fans of the book will enjoy seeing the fear and loathing brought to vivid life, and despite some technical problems, some parts of the film are very amusing. If you've never read the book or seen the movie, you could take two approaches. You could read the book so that you can better understand what is happening in the movie, or you could watch the movie and then read the book to find out what was going on. In either case, the film needs the book more than the book needs the film.

The Black Hole (1979)

One of those "just bad enough to be good" movies.

[13 November 2001]

Disney's "The Black Hole" captures that moment in Hollywood history when The Walt Disney Company was tumbling in the wake of the major studios like an annoying, tag-along kid brother whining, "Me too! Me Too!". It's hard to believe now, with the Disney media juggernaut having devoured the animation market as well as Miramax and Capital Cities/ABC, but in those pre-Eisner/Katzenberg days, there was a popular joke in Tinseltown that went: Some people work in film, and some people work for Disney. Ahh, but "the Black Hole" comes from a tense period in Disney's history when the studio was till trying to find it's way after Walt's death, still trying to live down all those god-awful Kurt Russel/Joe Flynn movies, and was being run by the man Walt himself appointed as heir to the throne, Ron Miller. At the time, Ron was Walt's son-in-law, a former USC football star, and a future ousted Disney CEO branded with the unaffectionate moniker of "Tron Miller". "The Black Hole" was Disney's attempt to get a piece of the "Star Wars" action. "The Black Hole" follows the adventure of an exploration spcaeship that finds a long-missing space station perched on the rim of a massive black hole that is animated on twos. Upon investigation, the explorers find the station under the command of Dr. Hans Reinhardt (Maximilian Schell), seemingly the only human occupant among a ship populated with spooky robots with black robes and mirrored faces. Reinhardt, of course, is a space-going mad scientist, and instantly befriends the exploration crew's resident nutcase, Dr. Alex Durant (played by resident Hollywood nutcase, Anthony Perkins). Of course, Reinhardt has a suicidal scheme to travel into the black hole, and wants the exploration crew's help...whether they want to give it or not. Also along for the ride are several funny robots that serve the purpose of showing the audience how far technology has come in the futuristic world of "The Black Hole". The robots fly instead of walking or rolling, and if that isn't hilarious enough, one of the robots even has ESP! Reinhardt even has his own pet monster (as any self-respecting mad scientist would), in the form of Maximillion, as scary, flying robot that looks a lot like a Transformer and has these unique blender-like attachments that are useful for killing visiting scientists. Maximillion does not speak, and emits an unnerving bass hum for extra spookyness. Rounding out the cast are Robert Forster as the Captain, Joseph Bottoms as his Lieutenant, Yvette Mimieux as the scientist, and Joe Flynn as they befuddled college dean (just kidding!). Of course, the film features a very Dineyesque moral message in which both the bad and good characters go to their just rewards There are some nice special effects (like the glowing meteors bounding through the ship) and some really lame special effects (like Maximillion obviously swinging on a rope to simulate his flying in the path of our heroes), and there are moments of pretentiousness and lame science that make this movie an entertaining snickerfest, if not totally engrossing. All in all, it's a fun movie for anyone with a ten-year-old's attention span but it suffers from the technique that a lot of Disney live-action films of the period did, which is talking down to the kiddies in the audience. Kids know when they are being talked down to, and it never works. However, taken with a grain of salt and looked upon as cheesy pop culture rather than science fiction, "The Black Hole" is fun to watch. It's just bad enough to be good, not so bad as to be unwatchable, and unintentionally funny enough to be entertaining.

Time After Time (1979)

A Fun Twist on H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine"

[29 October 2001]

Often overlooked, "Time After Time" is probably one of the best time travel movies (if there is such a genre) ever made. The time travel effects are cheesy and mercifully few, but the film puts story and character way above visual effects, making for a good trade off.

Malcolm McDowell is H.G. Wells who, in this movie, actually invents a time machine rather than just writing about one. "The Time Machine" is told in flashback as "the time traveler" emerges from his time machine and recounts his adventures to a gathering of friends at his home. "Time After Time" borrows that scene from the book, having Wells announce that he has built the time machine and will embark on an adventure to the future utopia as soon as he works up the nerve. The proceedings are interupted by police at the door conducting a search in the wake of a new attack by Jack the Ripper. As it turns out, one of Wells' guests, Dr. John Leslie Stevenson (played by David Warner), is the Ripper. While the police comb through the house looking for him, Stevenson makes his way to the basement. There, he enters Wells' time machine and escapes to the future.

Feeling responsible for having turned the maniacal Jack the Ripper loose on the future utopia, Wells enters the machine (which returns to it's point of origin unless a special key is used) and follows Stevenson 90 years into the future. The time travel sequence consists of cheesy optical effects accompanied by a clever audio montage that depicts most of the 20th century. Wells emerges from the machine shocked to find himself in San Francisco, California in the year 1979. The time machine, as well as most of his possesions, are on display in a San Francisco museum.

While searching for Jack the Ripper he meets Amy Robbins (Mary Steenburgen), a foreign currency exchange officer at a bank. She reveals that she exchanged very old pounds for dollars with another Englishman, wearing similarly antiquated clothing. This leads Wells to find Jack the RIpper, now decked out in 70s threads, well integrated into modern society...and continuing his fiendish deeds.

From there, the movie engages the audience in Wells' and Robbins' pursuit of the Ripper through the streets of San Francisco with an entertaining mix of close-calls, sly humor, and the inevitable romance between Wells and Robbins.

Malcolm McDowell plays the part of H.G. Wells with his usual intensity and skill, and comes off as very believable. Mary Steenburgen is well cast as the feminine but strongly independent bank employee, and is adorably frail but surprisingly tough. As for David Warner....well, villians don't get much better than Warner. A fine actor, Warner plays Stevenson/Jack the RIpper as a cool, sophisticated psychopath - exactly, in my humble opinion, as Jack the Ripper should be played.

"Time After Time" makes good use of artistic license to integrate fact with fiction. Scotland Yard has always suspect that Jack the Ripper might have been a surgeon, as he is in this film. Also amusing is the fact that in real life, H.G. Wells did marry an Amy Robbins who was an outspoken feminist. All in all, 'Time After Time" is a well written and acted romantic adventure, and remains one of my favorite time travel movies.

Popeye (1980)

So close, yet so far. I'm disgustipated.

[12 October 2001]

Here is a movie that is far less than the sum of it's parts and textbook example of how one element of production - in the case, the direction - can destroy what otherwise may have been a delightful film. The film is splendidly cast, most notably with Robin Williams (in his first feature role) as Popeye the Sailor, Shelly Duvall as Olive Oyl, and Ray Walston as Poopdeck Pappy. The story is perfunctory but entertaining, the art direction and set design are perfectly suited to the film, and the town of Sweethaven is flush with comical characters creating a believable live-action cartoon world. It would seem that with all these elements, you couldn't go wrong.

Well, you can.

Director Robert Altman must have let the actors have free reign of the characters - a wise move as all the actors really seem to be totally into their roles. Unfortunately, the film is so badly staged and paced that the viewer becomes impatient for things to move along. There are many comical moments in the film, but they are stretched and overplayed to the point of becoming annoying. The slapstick concept seems lost on the director...that Charlie Chaplin wasn't funny because he dressed in mismatched, ill-fitting clothes or acted silly: he was funny because he had brilliant comic timing. The gags in "Popeye" have no sense of timing at all.

Perhaps the worst offense of pacing and timing in the film is the boat chase. It's set to uptempo bluegrass banjo music, but features two rickety, pokey, slow-moving barges. Sounds kinda amusing, except that it goes on WAY TOO LONG. Fast paced music, slow paced chase: it just doesn't work.

It was an ambitious idea, and great care was taken in the casting. Even the baby playing Swee' Pea was obviously chosen for his hysterical lopsided, winking grin. Indeed, every single penny of the budget is up there on the screen. Unfortunately, "Popeye" completely disintegrates in the execution. In someone else's hands, the film might have been much, much more.

Amusingly, the Sweethaven set has become a Malta tourist attraction.

The World According to Garp (1982)

A Slightly Twisted View of Our Own World

[2 October 2001]

"The World According to Garp" must have been a challenging film to make for all involved. The film spans nearly forty years and requires the actors to not only age four decades, but to emote four decades of their respective character's development. All involved do this astonishingly well, especially Robin Williams in his first dramatic part, and Glenn Close, who plays his mother despite actually being younger than Williams. Even the film itself grows in character - it starts in our own world, and then rapidly snowballs into a world wildly different from our own, but not unbeleivably different.

Close plays Jenny Fields, a woman who grows from being oddly independent to becoming the symbol of ultra-feminism over the next 30 years. She sets a world-changing series of events into place with the unorthodox conception of her son whom she names T. S. Garp after his father, Technical Sergeant Garp. The boy (known simply as Garp) is brought up in the fifties and sixties as the only child of a single mother - unheard of in those days. This unique childhood gives Garp an unusual view of the world, which inspires him ot become a writer. As the young Garp struggles to become a writer, his mother (inspired by his writings and her own warped world view) also decides to be a writer. Her first and only book,"Sexual Suspect", is a radical feminist manifesto and becomes an instant bestseller in the already unstable and turbulent 1960s...as if Garp's life wasn't wierd enough.

It gets wierder still as Garp courts and married his college sweetheart, becomes an author in his own right, and raises a family. Garp's own family life is quite normal with it's rewards, fights, wonders and tragedies, but it is played against the backdrop of a world wildly twisted in it's values by his own mother. Meanwhile, his mother has created a home for women who are unable to integrate into society - probably as a result of having read "Sexual Suspect". At the home, Garp makes several new aquaintences. Among them are the twisted Ellen Jamesians, women who have cut off their tongues in protest of the rape of a young girl named Ellen James - and Roberta Muldoon, a transsexual former tight end for the Philadelphia Eagles struggling with "being a hopeless romantic in a male chauvanist world".

If there is a message in "The World According to Garp", it might be that the world is a strange and wonderful place filled with both horror and delight. Garp's world makes you look at your own and realize how wierd it really is, and makes you appreciate the delights of your world a little more.

Glenn Close, Robin Williams, and Mary Beth Hurt (who plays Mrs. T. S. Garp) are all outstanding in their ability to create likeable characters, and to mellow and age them convincingly. The other standout role is John Lithgow, who plays Roberta Muldoon with touching hilarity and beleivability. There are no bad performances in this film: it is populated with characters that are as solid and quirky as those in real life. The only flaws in the film are that the second act has some draggy slow parts, and there is one gag involving an airplane that tries a little hard for laughs.

In an alternate universe, "The World According to Garp" might be a biographical documentary. It creates a world that is somehow familiar and completely distorted at the same time.

Hollow Man (2000)

Passing the baton from Hitchcock to Veerhoven

[27 September 2001]

(Spoiler Alert) I had always regarded Paul Veerhoven as the Alfred Hitchcok of action/thriller movies. Veerhoven, as did Hitch, has both the ability to create well-crafted, fun-to-watch movies and a flagrant disregard for women. Hitchcock took great pleasure in demeaning (or at least terrorizing) women in films like "The Birds" and "Frenzy". Veerhoven's most succesful American films, "Robocop", "Starship Troopers", and "Total Recall" all feature gleeful, cartoon-like violence. I have no problem with that, and hey - someone's gotta be good at that sort of thing, right?

Then we come to "Showgirls". "Showgirls" was one of those films so bad that it was good. Indeed, I saw the film in a Burbank theater with an entire audience that was giving it the Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment. It made what was otherwise an utterly terrible film quite enjoyable. Sure, the movie was exploitive of women, but with a title like "Showgirls" you kind of expect that. However, even as I watched the glittery showgirls up on screen mixing it up to the audience's agressive cat-growling and hissing, I got the uneasy feeling that I was getting a glimpse into the darker recesses of a director's mind...recesses perhaps best left unexplored. That uneasy feeling was violently confirmed watching "Hollow Man".

"Hollow Man" has a very promising premise: A brilliant young scientist discovers a means of making people invisible, but the process also makes them go a little crazy, too. Sort of like "The Invisible Man" crossed with "Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde". Of course, the brilliant young scientist (played by Kevin Bacon who is rapidly taking over Christopher Walken's place on the "Top Ten Creepy Actors" list) decides to be the first human invisibility subject. The only problem is, he's a fairly unstable sociopath even without the mental side-effects of the invisibility treatment....not to mention the clandestine possibilities of invisibility itself.

What happens throughout the rest of the movie is very disturbing in that someone would even think of these things, let alone commit them to film. The invisible scientist starts fondling a sleeping female associate within only hours of recovering from the invisibility process. He also makes several unwelcomed advances on other female colleagues (lifting skirts, following them into the restroom, etc..) that finally culminates with the assault and presumed rape of a total stranger. It's the stuff of prepubescent male imagination...at least up until the rape/assault. It rockets past tawdry right to the upper reaches of sick.

Sadly, some of the best special effects to come along in a long time are wasted on this degenerate film. The invisibility is believeable and well-integrated into the film to the point that you forget that you are watching effects and just accept that one of the principal actors is invisible. The transformation sequences are well-executed and fascinating to watch.

"Hollow Man" left me very cold. Yes, these thoughts might occur to someone who had become invisible, and there are certainly people in the world evil and/or sick enough to do the things Bacon's character does in the movie. But none of it really advances the plot or are necessary to the development of the character. We know what a twisted, sick (expletive deleted) the character is: we don't need it spelled out. It's offensive and detracts from what could've otherwise been an interesting film. I have no problem with violent or "dirty" movies, but "Hollow Man" is a dirty movie pretending to be science fiction, almost as of the filmmakers were ashamed of what they had done.

Maybe they should be.

$50,000 Reward (1924)

Just a few dam comments

[20 August 2001]

"$50,000 Reward" is an entertaining if fairly typical 1920s silent western. In it, Our Hero in the White Hat (Ken Maynard) avails himself of The Damsel in Distress (Esther Ralston) to help save the dam construction project that would otherwise bankrupt her Poor Old Father (Burt Lindley). Horse chases, shootouts, fisticuffs, and et cetera.....and of course, Our Hero and the Damsel fall in love at the end.

What makes this film interesting is that in later prints, there is a lengthy disclaimer at the begining telling how the film was shot at the construction site of The St. Francis Dam which a few years later failed, releasing a devastating flood that killed over 500 people. And while it's true that there was a St. Francis Dam near Los Angeles that collapsed and killed hundreds, it is actually the St. Francis Dams nearly identical sister, the Mulholland Dam, that is seen in the film!

The Mulholland Dam, which still stands today, is located in the Hollywood Hills, conveniently only a few miles from all the major studios. Only recently, experts on the St. Francis Dam disaster have studied the film and determined that the topography around the dam under construction in "$50,000" is that of the Hollywood Hills, and not San Francisquito Canyon - the site of the St. Francis Dam, some 35 miles away.

It's an interesting piece of obscure cinema trivia, and know you're stuck with it in your brain cells. But you never know - it might come up on Jeopardy!

Enjoy.

Jurassic Park III (2001)

"Jurassic Park III", or "The Island with Really Scary Dinosaurs that Eat People"

[25 July 2001]

(Spoiler Alert!) Were it not for a dose of slightly twisted humor, "Jurassic Park III" would be a completely predictable, boringly linear, typical threequel. However, there are just enough cute little jokes that you are distracted from the tissue-thin plot, cardboard characters, and logical inconsistencies. Basically, the movie goes like this: Young city boy gets lost on island - Group of adults goes to island to look for boy - Eeeeek! A dinosaur eats someone - They find the young city boy's belongings - Eeeeek! A dinosaur eats someone - They find the young city boy -; Eeeeek! A dinosaur eats someone - They make for the shore to get off the island - Eeeeek! A dinosaur eats someone -They get off the island - Happy pterodactyls (or however you spell it) flying off into the sunset in search of greener pastures and lucrative sequels. Very linear, undercooked story, but not a bad start. Unfortunately, that's as far as they take it.

I also found that some distracting demands were put on my suspension of disbelief. For example, when they find the young city boy, he's been on the island alone for two months. Somehow, in this time, he has become a Dinosaur Commando - not only evading the purple people eaters, but surviving by his wits. But okay, I'll deal with it. It's no worse than the unbelivably thin characters inhabited by Sam Niel, William H. Macy (a personal favorite of mine, but again not given much to work with here) and Tea Leoni. The people are in the movie just to give the dinosaurs something to chase and eat. Which is fine, actually.

As I said earlier, the saving grace of the movie is the cockeyed humor. There's a great gag involving a cel phone, and an even funnier juxtaposition of raptors terrorizing humans intercut with Barney the Dinosaur. Beyiond that, I'd say that some of the film's strengths lie in things NOT salvaged from JP1 and JP2 - mostly, the absence of truly irritating children and Laura Dern, who is a lovely woman but completely unbelievable playing a paleo-botanist....especially with the sound of the wind whistling through her empty head.

There's some nice blood and guts for the 13-year-olds and the dinosaurs look neat, if a bit too colorful. But please don't be an idiot like the couple in front of me at the theatre who brought thier 5-year-old to see the movie. JP3 lacks the suspense and sheer horror of the original, but it could still be pretty disturbing to little kids to watch people get thier heads ripped off by what are basically monsters. Otherwise, "Jurassic Park III" is a okay diversion. Given the oddly short running length (about 90 minutes) and watery story and characters, you might want to wait for the bargain matinee.

Thirteen Days (2000)

Thirteen Days, Two Hours, and Fifteen Minutes

[17 July 2001]

It takes truly masterful filmmaking to take one of the most terrifying and unthinkable moments in world history and make it into a movie with all the drama and excitement of C-SPAN. After signoff. During a power failure.

Uhhhhh, no - I didn't much care for this movie. Too bad, too. I was very anxious to see it. When I saw trailers for "Apollo 13", I was excited because, after all: here was a true stroy with real suspense and a happy ending. How could you possibly screw that up? Well, good thing that Ron Howard never asked "Thirteen Days" director Roger Donaldson that question, because he evidently has the answer. I was hoping for a repeat of the satisfaction I got from "Apollo 13" with "Thirteen Days". I was sorely disappointed.

"Thirteen Days" is badly written. Characters launch into pointless silioquies that sound very profound and affecting if you don't actually listen to them. Unfortunately, I listened and heard many words with very little said. Again, this is like watching C-SPAN (Let me explain for the benefit of our friends outside of the U.S. C-SPAN is a television channel that broadcasts from a camera bolted to the floor of the Senate and/or the Congress. It is very useful for torturing schoolchildren and as a sleep-aid for adults).

"Thirteen Days" is a failed epic. The film occasionally slips into black-and-white which, given the historical content of the film, might have been used to give it a feeling of history. However, the black-and-white scenes seem to occur at random. There is also an incredibly annoying amount of stock footage used. I can understand the use of atomic bomb test stock footage, but there's also a huge amount of stock footage of crowds and "people on the street". Again, some might argue that the filmmakers were trying to achieve a sense of history, but it just comes off as cheap and distracting. The film seems to go out of it's way to break your suspension of disbelief and remind you that you are watching a movie.

"Thirteen Days" is badly cast and acted. Kevin Costner is stiff as a board and his Boston accent comes and goes as randomly as the black-and-white scenes. Bruce Greenwood acts competently, but he's not a very convincing John F. Kennedy. Steven Culp is fairly acceptable as Robert Kennedy, although the weak script doesn't give him much to work with. Michael Fairman plays Adali Stevenson, a perenially weak politician who overcomes his weakness while telling off the Soviet ambassador during a U.N. conference. Unfortunately, the only real indication that he overcame his weakness is that the rest of the cast cheers him while watching on TV. Nope - no character development there.

"Thirteen Days" basically fails on every level. It's insufferably dull, uninteresting, bereft of sympathetic characters, and despite dealing with the near end of human civilization, does nothing to fire the imagination or provoke thought...other than what might be good at the snack bar. Instead, I reccomend watching two and a quarter hour's worth of C-SPAN. The characters are much more believable.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

My jury is still out on "Eyes Wide Shut"

[17 July 2001]

I always ask myself two questions when crticizing a film. The first question is, "What is this film trying to be?". And the second, "Did it succeed?". In other words, I judge films on whether or not I feel that filmmaker accomplished what he set out to do. Holding films to a certain standard doesn't work for me - there's no point in comparing "Porky's" to "Citizen Kane". One is a intriguing portrait of an almost unknowable character, brilliantly painted through flashbacks of his associates with a thread of mystery thoughout which is finally revealed to the audience, but not the characters in the film, at the very end. The other is a rip-snorting goofball beer-and-pizza T and A movie with some pretty hilarious, if pedestrian, humor. Both films become exactly what they set out to be.

Given that method, I'm undecided about Stanley Kubrick's final film, "Eyes Wide Shut". This is not to say that I think it's a bad film. I was completely absorbed during the entire film...at times by the psychological conflict between the characters, at others by the bizarre suspense offered, but at all times by the photography. It is a magnificently crafted film. However, I'm not sure what Kubrick intended "Eyes Wide Shut" to be. It's not a character movie, although the characters are intriguing. It's not pornography, although the film is perpetually sexual. It's not a thriller, although there is suspense and tension. And it's not a horror movie, although at times it's very disturbing. Kubrick's films are usually fairly specific in tone or message, with technology running amok in "2001: A Space Oddysey", society run amok in "A Clockwork Orange", and stupidity running amok in "Dr. Strangelove". "Eyes Wide Shut" is certainly thought-provoking, but I'm not sure what Kubrick was going for. If his intention was to jar the viewer from one emotional state to another, the film is a great success.

A fascinating aspect and example of the emotional ping-ponging of "Eyes Wide Shut" is that there is much sexuality in the film and much nudity, but rarely are the two occurring simutaneously. The entire film has an undercurrent of raw sexuality, however the nude scenes are mostly cold, clinical, or disturbing. The only time nudity and sexuality occur together, the actors involved are far from the camera and only peripherally part of the scene. The close up, in-your-face nude scenes are scenes of tension or peril, almost as if Kubrick was saying "I'm going to wave this gorgeous nude woman before your eyes and not allow you to enjoy it!" . Also, I should mention that as far as the nudity is concerned, this is a film for the guys: I can't remember if there was male nudity in the film...if there was, it was buried (so to speak) in the female nudity. So ladies, I can only tell you that there's not too much for you to look at as far as beefcake is concerned. But guys, I can only say two words to you: Nicole Kidman. And she ain't all there is in that department, either.

The photography, as in all of Kubrick's films, is at once stunning and exsquisite. I still can't quite identify exactly how Kubrick achieved the look of all his films, but the cinematography in "Eyes Wide Shut" is distinctly Kubrick: it's so good that it's almost distracting. The lighting in this film is especially well done. It is either meticulously crafted to look like available light, or it actually is available light perfectly captured. It's really too good to tell.

It's difficult to say what I thought of "Eyes Wide Shut". It's definitely not for everyone, although I think it's a fitting farewell from the late Stanley Kubrick. Like life, dreams, nightmares and even death, "Eyes Wide Shut" is enigmatic and defies definition. It must be experienced personally.

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988)

A Pure Flight of Fancy

[28 June 2001]

(Warning - Spoilers) To me, "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" is the film in which director Terry Gilliam unleashes his wild and wicked imagination to the best effect. Although the story is merely a thin platform to support the lavish production design and hilariously fascinating characters, "Munchausen" is otherwise a delicious feast of eye candy and fanciful diversion.

Based on an archaic piece of literature, "Munchausen" is a tale about a dottering, seemingly senile old man who recalls past adventures so astounding as to be beyond belief. He claims to be the cause behind the siege of a small town, and as the enemy is breaking down the gates, the Baron sets off to find his talented servants (who are each endowed with a super-power like speed, strength, eyesight, hearing, etc...) and save the day. The film then concentrates on Munchausen and his young stow-away Sally, going everywhere from the surface of the moon to the depths of hell in search of the Baron's comrades.

The characters and worlds encountered in the Baron and Sally's travels are at once startling, disturbing, and delightful. The sets and costumes are rich and engaging, and they are further enhanced by the mesmerizing cinematography of Giuseppe Rotunno and hauntingly beautiful score composed by Michael Kamen.

Particularly strong performances are given by John Neville as Baron Munchausen, a character who's age spins back and forth about 40 years or so, and Jonathan Pryce who plays the despicable city official, the Right Ordinary Horatio Jackson. Sarah Polley plays the part os Sally skillfully for her age, and never becomes an irritating tag-along child - she is, in fact, the Jiminy Cricket to the boyishly foolish Baron. Eric Idle is his usual amusing self as Berthold, the fastest man in the world.

All the players are very talented, but there are a few in particular that are great fun: Oliver Reed as Vulcan, Uma Thurman as Venus, Peter Jeffrey as The Sultan, and Robin Williams as The King of the Moon. Also included is a very funny cameo featuring former Police frontman Sting.

Apart from a thin story (the Baron looking for his friends), "Munchausen" is a wonderful treat for the eyes, ears, and imagination. The film carries a few messages about the importance of imagination and the horrors of war, but it is presented in a charming, comfortable manner. The dialogue sparkles with wit and cynicism, and just before any message becomes too heavy, comic relief (usually in the form of Idle) keeps the film light and moving along. It's not great storytelling, but "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" is delicious fantasy filmmaking and enjoyable diversion.

Cast Away (2000)

Zemekis Owes me for this one.....

[22 June 2001]

(Warning - contains spoilers, not that there is much to spoil) Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob....what happened? I truly expected better from the director that gave us the outrageous comedy of "Used Cars" and the warm-and-fuzzy whimsy (not to mention airtight continuity) of the "Back to the Future" films. I can't say much that is positive about "Cast Away", except that whoever it was that got Federal Express to go along with this could sell ice cubes to Eskimos. Tom Hanks is Chuck - an annoyingly ambitious yuppie who trots the globe for FedEx, verbally whipping third-world FedEx employees about time being money. After some scenes with his girlfriend, including a huge family holiday dinner and melodramatic marriage proposal that do nothing to develop character, he hops aboard a FedEx plane to dispense some more boot camp motivational tactics at some far-flung FedEx hub. You'll notice that I mention FedEx a lot, because FedEx shows up in the movie so much that I think the film muist have been financed by FedEx product placement fees paid by FedEx, when it absolutely positively has to be there overnight.

Anyhow, Chuck's plane encounters a storm on the way to Tahitti and plummets nose first into the ocean, an experience that he miraculously - almost unbelievably - survives. Chuck finds himself on a small, uninhabited island. For the next hour, we watch Chuck bang cocoanuts on rocks, bang rocks on cocoanuts, develop an unnatural relationship with a piece of sports equipment, and then we suffer through an interminable amount of failed exposition with Chuck trying to light a fire. When he finally gets that fire lit, the scene is not triumphant...instead, you find yourself wishing that this insufferable yuppie corporate tool would just throw himself on the burning driftwood. Then, in a most flagrant cinematic cheat, the film flashes forward four years. Zap! Just like that! Thank goodness, or we would have spent another hour watching Chuck learn to weave vines into rope. One four-years-later morning, a chunk of a construction site porta-potty washes up that, for the weakest of reasons, makes it possible for Chuck to build a raft and sail it off the island. He does, is picked up by a passing freighter (surprisingly not a FedEx ship), and is returned to civilization.

Once there, he finds his finacee married and his life literally at a crossroads. Then the movie ends. No resolution, no further character development, no sense that the character learned anything or was changed by his four years of solitude. He comes back, catches up on the missed sports scores, accepts that he's lost the love of his life, and carries on...proving again that the character is nothing more than an insufferably shallow yuppie corporate tool. I hate this man so much that I don't even want to ship things via FedEx anymore. There's not even a scene of him reuniting with his gigantic family, probably because he doesn't care about them, either. All he cares about is delivering one of the FedEx packages that washed up on the beach while he was stranded....Corporate tool! Corporate tool! I was hoping the FedEx package contained a ham radio and a flare gun. That would have been great. But no, the film ends with him standing at a crossroads, with no hint of what he might do next, or what he wants to do. Two hours of nothing ending with a big nothing.

Tom Hanks is a fine actor, but he doesn't have much to work with in "Cast Away". The film is like taking a vacation by shipping yourself FedEx - there's no time to enjoy the scenery or make friends, you just barrel through to the conclusion. Unfortunatley, when this package arrives, the box is empty. Instead, I reccomend "The Harlem Globtrotters on Giligan's Island". The characters are much more likeable, there's a better plot, and the sports equipment is put to more entertaining use.

Wired (1989)

It could've been a good movie about Belushi, but nnnoooooooooooo!

[22 June 2001]

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** It's truly a shame that Michale Chiklis' dead-on characterization of John Belushi was wasted on this film. Director Larry Peerce, in a weak effort to create high-concept, avant-garde art has instead created a disjointed mess that trashes Belushi and bewilders the audience. Based very loosely on Bob Woodward's book, "Wired" is a sort of cross between "It's a Wonderful Life" and "Naked Lunch". John Belushi dies and is whisked off to the morgue, where a cynical, jaded attendant wheels his corpse to the autopsy room and admonishes Belushi's body for being stupid. Then, complete with hokey lightning, Belushi unzips the body bag, sits up and ambles out of the morgue to a waiting cab. The cab is driven by "Angel", a fellow druggie who ODed in Central Park. Angel then proceeds to drive Belushi through his life in a series of unconnected vinnettes, confusingly and distractingly presented in no order whatsoever.

As if the film hadn't engaged in enough lame cliche, it gets worse. While Belushi is taking a ride through his life, Bob Woodward is contacted by Belushi's widow who asks him to investigate his death. Woodward flies to Los Angeles to trace Belushi's last days. In the only interesting technique employed by the film, Woodward finds himself witnessing events in Belushi's life firsthand. Unfortunately, this effect is destroyed when the characters in the flashbacks start to interact with Woodward. Cathy Smith, as Woodward watches, looks up as she is administering the fatal injection of heroin to Belushi and says, "Wanna shot, Woodie?". Lame. Then, as Woodward is alone in Belushi's room, watching him die...the two get into a conversation which ends with Woodward telling Belushi, "I would help you John, but you did this to yourself". In another scene, Belushi is awake for his own autopsy. The film is ruined by several such lame attempts to be shocking, disturbing, or artsy, and only succeeds in being crude and offensive.

John Belushi's death rocked Hollywood and changed attitudes about drugs. Drug humor was no longer funny after his death. "Wired" thankfully does nothing to try to reverse this or glamourize drugs. Unfortunately, what could have been a entertaining-if-tragic tribute to Belushi's talents is instead a muddled mess with no sympathetic characters, no warmth, no message, no point, and Chiklis' brilliant performance wasted on a film of virtually no value.

Rest in peace, John.

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968)

James Bond goes to Romper Room

[22 June 2001]

I'm one of many thirty-somethings that grew up on this movie and later suffered nightmares featuring the Child Catcher. To this day, I still feel an uneasy chill when I hear the words "kiddie-winkies". Bit I still love this film on several levels. I loved it as a child because it's great cinema for children. I love it as a film student because it's a well-crafted, timeless fairytale. And I love it as an adult because it full of suggestive double meanings, much like the Warner Bros cartoons of the 1940s - the type of things that shoot straight over kids' heads and make adults snicker knowingly. With a screenplay penned by Ian Fleming, this should come as no surprise.

Dick Van Dyke is Caractacus Potts, a wacky inventor who inexplicably lives in England with his two inexplicably English children. Caractacus Potts...wacky inventor,,,get it? Hoo hah! Potts and his two children (whose pictures may be seen in the dictionary next to the word "moppet") live with the senior Mr. Potts in a windmill/labratory. Caractacus rescues a junked motorcar from rusting in a field and restores it to new - meet Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, named for the sounds the car makes. Soon thereafter in one of those Pipi Longstocking-esque child-arranged dates, Potts and his two children go on a picnic with local richgirl Truly Scrumptious - possibly the best Bond Girl name since Pussy Galore. As the day winds down, Potts tells the children a story, in which the foursome embark on a great adventure in the resplendent Chitty Chitty Bang Bang which Potts as rigged to fly, float, drive itself, and perform other turn-of-the-century Batmobile-like functions.

Our heroes end up in a far away kingdom ruled over by the Baron and Baroness Bomburst (Gert Frobe and Anna Quayle), a terribly sad place where children have been outlawed, rounded up, and kept in a dungeon. The gang and Chitty invade the kingdom to rescue Potts' father, who has mistakenly been identified as the inventor of the flying car and kidnapped. There, they befriend a toymaker (played by Benny Hill in one of his stock characters from his TV show) who hides the children while they attempt to spring grandpa Potts. Enter the Child Catcher, who lures the children with free lollipops and takes them away to the dungeon. Potts and the toymaker (who now only makes toys for the child-like king) hatch a plan to infiltrate the castle, rescue the elder Potts and the twin moppets, and free all the other children as well.

I have two favorite scenes in this film. One is the musical number in the castle, where Truly and Potts are disguised as huge toys for the Baron's birthday. Truly is a wind-up doll on a music box, and Potts is a marionette who does a dance number that not only convinces you that he really is on strings, but that Dick Van Dyke is one of the most talented performers ever to be caught on film. My other favorite scene, I admit with guilt, is the one where the Baron and Baroness are readying themselves for bedtime, and prancing around the room in nightclothes calling each other by ultra-gooey-cute pet names. However, whenever the Baroness isn't looking, Baron Goldfinger takes a swing at her with an axe. It's the most entertainingly erotic scene in a kiddie flick since Natalie Wood was covered in cream pies while wearing only frilly turn-of-the-century underwear in "The Great Race".

This film is a rare treat. It's a film that appeals to kids and keeps adults interested at the same time. Let your kids watch it, watch it with them, or just watch it yourself when you're in the mood for some pure, escapist fun.

And try not to think about the Child Catcher when you go to bed afterward.

1941 (1979)

This film was made for 1% of the population. Happily, I'm in that 1%.

[23 April 2001]

Steven Speilberg once asked a friend of mine, "Why didn't anyone like this movie?" Well, I think that I can answer that - "1941" is a gigantic in-joke. The people who are in on the joke are people who, like myself, have an oversized love and knowledge of the city of Los Angeles and it's history. I think that in the vast, world-wide movie-going public, this group probably comprises 1%. For that group, "1941" has a wonderful nostalgia value. And for the people in that 1% that have a twisted sense of humor and enjoy seeing nostalgic L.A. blown to bits, this movie really delivers. By the way, the folks with that twisted sense of humor probably account for about 1% of the original 1%.

I don't know why, but having grown up in L.A. and being an aficionado of it's history, I find it funny to see planes in a dogfight over Hollywood Blvd, the ferris wheel rolling off the end of Santa Monica Pier, and aircraft crashing into the La Brea Tarpits. But for non-locals and people unfamiliar with the paranoia that gripped Southern California in the wake of Pearl Harbor, this movie will likely seem confusing and silly. To the history buff with a twisted sense of humor (like me, proud member of the 1% of the 1%), the movie is not only amusing, but sometimes surprisingly accurate, historically. Robert Stack plays General Joseph Stillwell - a very real historical figure in L.A. history. Stack even bears a striking resemblance to the real General Stillwell. The whole movie is based upon a few real-life incidents of panicky anti-aircraft fire that occurred over L.A. in 1941/1942, as well as a Japanese sub that actually shelled an oil refinery near Santa Barbara. Like "Chinatown" (a film mistakenly thought to be an accurate account of L.A. water politics in the 1930s), "1941" borrows from real-life history and distorts it into pure fabrication. The difference is that while "Chinatown" is a noir drama, "1941" is an over-the-top comedy. Both films appeal to the historian, but as it is often said, comedy is much harder to pull off than drama. You either love "1941", or sit though it, saying, "huh?".