patbuddha Reviews

The Proposal (2001)

Better than your typical direct-to-video cop thriller

[26 May 2003]

All of the warning signs are there from frame one: an opening sequence that intercuts between shots of the movie and the credits on a black screen, mobsters fresh out of movie mobster school, and unnecessary cross dissolves from one scene to the next. And then of course there are the fellow police officers who yell at one another most of the time, whether it be the captain admonishing the hero for taking too much time on the case or the hero and his new partner who don't see eye to eye.

I figured at the very least if I stuck around, I would be treated to some gratuitous nudity courtesy of the beautiful Jennifer Esposito. Unfortunately that didn't happen, yet I found myself being absorbed by the developing relationship between her character and the undercover cop played by Nick Moran.

There are some nice moments that elevate the film above its direct-to-video trappings. A scene where Esposito places a banana to her ear as if it were a phone has such a genuineness and spontaneity that it doesn't come off as a cheap attempt at humor but as an actual moment involving real people.

The two leads deserve a lot of credit for making this movie what it is. Nick Moran has a certain star quality, a charisma that holds the viewer with him. He gives everything he has in this performance, particularly midway through the film when his psyche is tortured after having been forced to assassinate an enemy of the mobster he's trying to bring down. It's almost as if he didn't get the memo letting him know that this was direct-to-video garbage and that he really need not try so hard. Fortunately for the film and the viewer he does.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

I think I'm starting to come around on this series

[25 May 2003]

It took me six months before finally seeing the second installment of Peter Jackson's adaptation of Lord of the Rings. I saw the first right around the time of its release. I was one of the few who just didn't get it. Coupled with how bored I was with the first Harry Potter movie, I came to the conclusion that I was never meant to be into straight fantasy. I'm about the only one of my friends who does not get excited about Dungeons & Dragons or Magic: The Gathering. Nor have I ever read Tolkien's books.

So Two Towers finally showed up at the dollar cinema (actually a buck fifty). With all of the hooha surrounding these films I figured at some point I would have to see it anyway. It's cheaper than renting it from Blockbuster AND I'm seeing it on the big screen.

I actually enjoyed this one for the most part. It occurred to me that the problem I had with Fellowship of the Ring is probably the same problem that most people had with The Phantom Menace: it holds itself back a bit. It saves all its good ideas for later and lets itself simply be an introduction to a larger whole.

This middle part of the trilogy finally is swept up with all of the imaginative stuff that you expect to see in this type of movie. Gollum and the big walking tree guys really sold the whole thing for me. As impressive as the Battle of Helms Deep was, I liked watching the big tree guys putting the smackdown even more.

However, an observation. While most of geekdom has proclaimed the Lord of the Rings movies to be the hands-down winner as between it and the Star Wars prequels, I still stand firm on my belief that both these series are qualitatively even. The dialogue in Two Towers bears little resemblance to how real people speak or interact with one another. Most everyone speaks in succint proclamations with very little nuance. But that's okay. It's not dialogue or subtle character development that brings us to these movies. It's all about the imagination and epic scope.

Quest for Fire (1981)

A great example of pure cinema

[17 January 2003]

I hadn't seen this movie in almost 15 years when I caught it one night on the Fox Movie Channel. I simply could not take my eyes off of it. This is the essence of pure cinema where the visuals are what moves the story forward rather than an over-reliance on dialogue. It reminded me why I was so disappointed in two recent animated movies dealing with material that's in the same ballpark, "Dinosaur" and "The Ice Age". In those two films there is this fear to simply let the characters stand mute even if it means making them speak dialogue that isn't necessarily very interesting and often anachronistic.

I found it interesting how "Quest for Fire" compelled me to fill in the blanks on what was going on in the characters' minds. In some strange way I could almost identify with how fire would seem like some divine creation.

It's amazing when a filmmaker can take something so simple and so mundane and yet make it so profound. "Quest for Fire" doesn't get too bogged down in compicated intrigue or forced character arcs. Its MacGuffin is one of the few in my cinematic memory that I could fully get behind and believe in.

Annaud ignores a rule adhered to by many filmmakers: Don't work with children. Don't work with animals. I was impressed by what he was able to get out of his animal stars, going so far as having two very large cats fitted with prosthetic saber teeth. The appearance of the wooly mammoths about blew me away. It was fairly obvious that a large portion of those shots were animatronic or puppets with maybe a couple of shots using real elephants in costume, but I was thrilled nonetheless.

Suddenly Susan (1996–2000)

Why, NBC? Why?

[7 May 2002]

This is one the examples I use whenever I rant about the fact that NBC cancelled Freaks and Geeks after only 14 episodes, but yet gave this show three seasons. I saw only bits and pieces of the show during it's original network run. Tonight I caught the first ten minutes of an episode in syndication. I wondered if maybe there might have been something I had missed. Maybe the show had a charm that I had overlooked. I saw nothing that changed my opinion.

When it comes to sitcoms I'm pretty easy to please. I don't necessarily have to find something funny every episode. Sometimes the characters and the chemistry of the cast is enough. Suddenly Susan has none of that. Even the absense of that might not be enough to make me change channels. What I cannot forgive is whenever a sitcom lays in an uproarious laugh track almost literally every 5 seconds for lines and facial expressions that don't even seem intentionally funny. If a show truly has the goods I'll figure it out for myself. I don't need the help of a sound editor.

Sweet November (2001)

Not for the estrogen impaired

[12 February 2002]

I have to say up front I missed maybe the first fifteen minutes of the movie so take my opinion for what it's worth. I mention this because my wife assured me that knowing what happened in that time colors what follows. Somehow I still doubt it.

The problem with the movie as I saw it was not so much the characters and their respective journies but the actors inhabiting the characters. Keanu Reeves gets a lot of flack for his thespian skills. I don't think that he's as incompetent as most people like to believe. His problem is that he only excels in movies where it is not a requirement for him to be interesting. Unfortunately the blandness of the this movie doesn't help him very much.

Sweet November follows chick flick rule#1: Someone has to die. Women say that men only like movies that have a body count. What they fail to realize is that they do too. In guy movies, a whole lot of nameless people fall down dead as a result of the hero's actions and are quickly forgotten. In chick flicks we're supposed to cry as result of someone's death, most often someone close to the main character or one of the main characters themselves. I guess Sweet November has to be praised for giving us a terminal illness without showing us its ultimate conclusion. Nevertheless the sentiment is there. The movie's lovebirds are still separated as a result of said illness.

The lesson I learned after seeing the much superior Bridget Jones' Diary is that genre cliches are less obvious in those movies that are more interested in being as smart and genuinely funny as it can without worrying about reaching the broadest possible audience. Any edges and tatters that might have made this film more interesting and identifiable have been neatly smoothed over, so much so that almost no scene is completely credible. Nowhere was this more apparent to me than the final scene where Charlize Theron, who although being in love with Keanu Reeves, wants to part ways with him so he won't be subjected to her deteriorating condition. What happens onscreen is not the interaction of two people, but actors spewing a lot of overwritten dialogue about preserving the memory of what they had and a lot of other nonsense that no two real life people would ever say to each other, not with the same level of eloquence.

Chopper (2000)

One of the better movies I've seen in a while

[22 January 2002]

A friend of mine had picked up this DVD based on the fact that Eric Bana was going to play the lead in the big screen adaptation of one my favorite comic book characters, The Incredible Hulk. Roger Ebert presciently noted that Bana would probably show up in a special effects picture.

The movie is so brutal. It doesn't pull any punches or artfully suggest anything. It is literally balls out (i.e. the scene where Chopper has his junk hanging out while talking to the cops at the public bar.)

I really enjoyed Andrew Dominick's take on being high on cocaine, everything slightly sped up but the sound normal and in synch. I had never seen anything quite like it. Most filmmakers have taken to copping Scorsese's licks when it comes to this, cameras whizzing, pushing in and out incredibly quickly.

I liked how the main character makes no apologies for himself and doesn't ask for our pity.(Compare to Blow)He makes for an interesting persona. I don't know that I'd ever want to meet the guy personally. To tell you the truth, he kind of scares me. But if I ever find this DVD or any of his books I'll be sure to pick them up.

The Mind of the Married Man (2001–2002)

It takes a little while to realize it but this is one of the best shows on television.

[26 November 2001]

With this show I've learned a valuable lesson: Trust any program HBO sees fit to put on. I quickly dismissed Larry Sanders, Sex and the City, and Mr Show. I was not interested in Mind of the Married Man for it's first couple of episodes believing it to be nothing more than the male Sex and the City. A negative review in People didn't help its case either.

Because it was sandwiched in between Band of Brothers and Curb Your Enthusiasm for its first few weeks I was forced to catch little bits and pieces here and there. Eventually it started to catch my attention and before I knew it I eagerly awaited each episode.

Like all HBO shows it earns points for doing things that broadcast programming can't get away. Subjects, namely sex, are dealt with bluntly and openly without trying to delicately skirt the issue. How many shows can you name where you'd see a woman bobbing her head up and down in her husband's lap while he snickers at the Three Stooges on TV? I don't think you'll see a subplot about a guy contemplating whether or not to get a "happy ending", a euphemism for a handjob, from a masseuse on Must See TV either.

The continuing story across the entire season is very well executed. The developing sexual tension between Mickey and Missy his assistant and how it affects his relationship with his wife kept me hooked. The final episode of the season had what I considered to be one of the best comic payoffs in which it is revealed that Mickey's Japanese masseuse isn't as she appears to be. I suspect that the framework for the entire season of episodes was worked out far in advance. It's not as though week to week an effort is made to fudge the storyline together.

The comedy, like other elements in the show, is played subtly at least as compared to that of most sit-coms where you can almost hear the actors and writers cry out, "Laugh! Laugh! Damn you!" Married Man doesn't really care whether you get everything and if you do it's not going to wait until you finish laughing before moving on to the next thing.

The characters like people in real life don't always have the right thing to say at the right time. You can almost see, in Mike Binder's portrayal, Mickey searching for his words when placed in tense situations.

Ivana Milicevic, who plays Missy, came as a complete surprise. Because she looks as though she must have had a career as a runway model I assumed that she was a.)not intelligent b.)not a good actress. As conventionally beautiful as she is the show doesn't merely see fit to use her as set dressing. Missy is afforded a fair amount of depth. Of course there is hardly an ugly woman in the cast and yet the aim of the show is not to merely parade an attractive cast for a drooling audience.

If there is a criticism I could level at the show it is in regards to the show's setting and occupation of the characters. Almost all romantic comedies take place in some large metropolitan area usually New York, Chicago, or San Francisco. Married Man is set in Chicago. These urban environments aren't presented as most of us would see them as fairly dirty, crowded, and stress filled places. Confrontational strangers are only there to provide some comedy. Main characters never have jobs most middle Americans would have, instead plying their trade in some form of the media/publishing business. Mickey works for a newspaper. However given the quality of the show this is relatively easy to overlook.