Change Your Image
setanta-
Reviews
The Conjuring (2013)
A solid, professional effort but not quite there.
It feels bad in a way to criticise this film because it is trying so hard to be good. However the fact is that it just doesn't come together in a way which genuinely taps into our fears and releases them. Yes, there are crashes and jumps that startle, but one is never drawn in deeper.
It's a pity because there are a couple of good performances (Lili Taylor stands out) and it's certainly photographed well. I think it is the direction that is a bit off. It feels more like a paint-by-numbers approach to the genre than someone who is genuinely conveying what makes him personally afraid. (I don't think I've ever seen a film with more people walking backwards into the open frame behind them.)
So does it work for a Saturday night popcorn-jumper with the right audience? Sure. It will put the receptive viewer through the standard paces, and he or she will likely leave satisfied. But it's nothing that will have you starting at shadows when you go to bed that night.
Quantum of Solace (2008)
A straight-ahead sequel that neither disappoints nor surprises
It plays like a paired down version of Casino Royale, which at 106 minutes just might have been the producer's intention. This is not a handicap for the most part as this is essentially a sequel to the prior film and carries over some of the plot and most of the motivation. Although there were a couple of moments when I wondered for an instant if we had skipped a reel. To call the editing "tight" would be an understatement.
The performances are skilled, the stunts are exciting (thought some of the CGI could have used fine-tuning- particularly a fall through a glass ceiling), and Craig is starting to warm up a bit more to the suave side of Bond. I think the only thing noticeably lacking is a bit of fun. With this film we get back into the familiar Bond realm of preposterous schemes and omnipotent criminal organisations. It makes for great spectacle but the gravitas with which it is dealt could become a bit self-indulgent if left unchecked.
Of course I understand the need to close the loop on this little character development cycle, but I think it would be best to move away from the perpetual scowl as the franchise moves forward. James Bond is not Jason Bourne; I realise that is the box-office that the studio is trying to cash in on these days but you can only push it so far. You need that wink and a nod to the audience that we're all in on the game. Otherwise you start to drift towards the overly-serious, self-caricature land of Steven Segal.
All things considered "Quantum of Solace" is a good investment for your entertainment dollar. Yes, you've been on the ride before but there are still thrills to go around for all.
Beowulf (2007)
Amateurish, rotoscoping fiasco . . . A missed opportunity
"Beowulf" is a mildly interesting retelling of the classic story that is rendered virtually unwatchable by the CGI motion capture technique used to "film" the actors. The result looks like second-rate animation or third-rate photography. It's actually quite shocking to me that the movie was released in the state that it was. I don't know how any artist with even a semester of an art-school drawing class under his or her belt would be satisfied with that work. It looks like a second draft pre-visualisation for what the film might look like when completed. Whatever their budget and time-line was they obviously needed to double it.
I suppose what it most resembles is a poorly drawn version of "Shrek". But quite frankly that is insulting to "Shrek", because the makers of that film would never put their stamp on characters with such vacant expressions, lack of detail, childish shading, and wooden movement. However there is still a visual similarity between the human "extras" in Shrek that are painted with less precision and the characters in Beowulf. This makes for a creepy experience when you see them in sexually suggestive scenes or using coarse language. It's like a pervert's transformation of a child's film.
Two questions popped into my head when watching the movie. The first question which occurred about five minutes in was, "Can I actually sit through two hours of this crap?" Well, I was able to answer that question with a begrudging, "Yes". The second question was, "Why on Earth did they choose this technique?" That I cannot answer.
The fact is that if they had chosen either pure animation or live action filming, the result would have been incalculably better. John Malkovich is a great actor, but I found myself staring at the face of his character at one point trying to get some clue about his motives, but it was a completely blank slate. It was like watching a mannequin. What a waste of a fine cast. Watching the DVDs extras you get to see Anthony Hopkins in costume or the beautiful Robin Wright Penn on the set and it hammers home the point, "Why?" Why, did they throw away those potentially magical performances for this dreck?
I could go on for pages but due to the space constraints I suppose I need to capture the essence of my objections and it is this: I felt absolutely no emotional connection to any character or event in this film. This is quite rare for me, as I'm an easy sell. So as a piece of art it was a complete failure. It is a quirky oddity that may one day be remembered as the most ambitious example of an abandoned technique. Let us hope so.
Snakes on a Plane (2006)
Serpentacular!
What a fun movie! I haven't had this much guilty pleasure in the theatre in years. "Snakes on a Plane" is just what you would expect from its title, but much better too. You get all the clichés right up front. The flight attendant who's going on her last flight. The one who's going to retire soon. The martial arts expert, (who actually says "Hai-yah" at one point- I kid you not). The "crazy" bad guy. The reluctant hero. The salty cop. The old partner. Then later on you get all the horror movie clichés which they did not skimp on in the least.
The thing that makes the film work though is that it has a sense of humour about itself that treads the thin line between self-parody and melodrama. You feel that the film is absurd and you're laughing a lot of the time, but you're not laughing "at" the film- you feel like you're in on a fabulous joyride into the dream-world of the director's excitement.
If you're looking for a straight horror movie then you should probably shop elsewhere. If you're looking for drama then you definitely came to the wrong store. However if you have an appreciation for the absurd, enjoy action excitement, and know how to have a good time then you're in for a treat.
The Night Listener (2006)
Not bad, just not a lot there.
"The Night Listener" tells the story of Gabriel No one a radio storyteller who finds himself living his most interesting yarn yet. He is given a book to review by his publisher and strikes up a telephone friendship with the troubled young author, Pete Logand. When questions come up about the sordid events of Pete's autobiographical work Gabriel sets out to discover the truth.
The film takes a steady, sober look at its characters which avoids the pitfalls of typical "suspense" films. The characters are believable and interesting, with Toni Collette delivering a particularly fine performance. For some reason though, the story simply didn't have much of an impact on me. If I had to hazard a guess why I would say that the relationship between Gabriel and Pete wasn't given enough time to breathe in this short 82 minute film. The early repartee between Robin Williams and Rory Culkin was some of the best material in the film. I think we needed a bit more of that to feel the sense of connection that Gabriel did and to understand the need that this relationship answered in his life. At one point he asks himself, "Why am I here?" Unfortunately, we cannot convincingly answer.
Lady in the Water (2006)
Show us, don't tell us.
I think there was a pretty good film hidden away in "Lady in the Water". Unfortunately that film was obscured in this one by the verbal lava that incessantly poured out of the characters' mouths, like some slowly erupting Hawaiian volcano covering the countryside around it. Starting with the uncomfortable, long prologue, the film is dead in the water and moribundly treads that water in an awkward fashion practically until its climax.
I have been a fan of Shyamalan's work for the most part and his ability to marry the roles of writer and director. Here though he lets the writer run roughshod over the director like a stampeding bull at Pamplona. There is enough story here to fill a novel, which is perhaps what he really had in him waiting to get out.
There are some good moments of truth towards the end of the film, and Paul Giamatti rewards our effort to endure healthy heaps of nonsense. However, it is definitely the weakest of all Shyamalan's films from a storytelling perspective. It seems like an early draft that was never edited down or sanded smooth. In fact, I couldn't get over the feeling that I was being pitched an idea for a film, instead of actually watching a story unfold.
Poseidon (2006)
An early rehearsal for a film that never was
"Poseidon" to me seems like a proposition for a film rather than a finished product. It's not that scenery and special effects are missing- they are there and suffice adequately. It's the performances and more importantly the direction that seems, well a bit direction-less.
It's not that the plot isn't emotionally deep, we know that it will be a rather broad piece going into the theatre. However, you never get the sense of building emotion that should pay off in a final cathartic release. I think in a film like this you need to build characters towards which the audience is quickly, and powerfully sympathetic or antithetic. That is what makes the disaster-movie formula work, you trade reason for sentimentality.
It seems to me that the cast and crew were still negotiating this compromise when the cameraman checked the gates.
United 93 (2006)
Reflections
"United 93" is not so much a film as it is a mirror. It reflects back to the viewer the feelings and emotions of September 11, 2001 without any attempt at amplification or modulation. In that respect it is perhaps the most unemotional film I have ever seen. There are no dramatic effects used to create the artistic bridge to empathy. That bridge is already present in those who experienced the events.
The experience of the film is powerful because it taps into our own powerful real-life memories. However I wonder how it will play to children born today when they are old enough to see it. Will their reaction be as detached as the film, or will the film still draw in emotion that it does not exhale? Obviously I am unable to make a useful conclusion about that, but my guess is that it will still remain a powerful experience.
Friends with Money (2006)
Friends with screenplays
The problem with this film is that it doesn't know what it wants to be, or perhaps it intentionally doesn't want to be any one thing- so it ends up being, well- nothing. I don't mean that the film is not redeeming. There is some humour, there are some fine performances, and there are some clever scenes. However these elements really never combine to form anything greater than their individual parts. The scene in which the two screenwriters bounce material off each other that doesn't quite work is an uncomfortably self-conscious moment for the viewer.
I think the problem is that the film tries to mix the slice-of-life observation viewpoint of an indie-drama, with the suspended realism of a mainstream romantic-comedy. For example certain elements, such as the question of one character's sexual orientation, or another's financial status, are built up to pay off as either as a comic release or a dramatic release. But instead we get a result that is not realistic, but not very funny either. I might be inclined to call it farce, but there is a good deal too much crying to really call it that either.
My overall impression is that it is the work of a clever screenwriter, just not one who understands the characters or really knows what she/he wants to say. Again, eerily similar to the scene in the film itself.
Blade: Trinity (2004)
Serviceable, but a step down from the previous effort in storytelling
The problem with flouting logic in a movie isn't so much that the film becomes unrealistic (after all we're talking about a vampire movie here) but rather you break the tension line and then essentially you just have a bunch of pretty scenes that scatter about. The problem with "Blade Trinity" is that very early in the film we see how the conflict could be resolved, but we are given absolutely no reason why it isn't. And so the next hour and a half go by as an indulgence on our intelligence, rather than as a flight of fantasy.
That said, there is still a lot of great stuff to look at and enjoy- much of what you would expect after seeing the first two films. The only other real problem is that there are periodic dead spots in the film. These usually occur during exposition scenes where characters will look at each other meaningfully but unfortunately without soundtrack cues. Or a character will say something funny and hesitate a few seconds for the audience laugh. It becomes a bit distracting at some points, and you wonder if a closer edit would not have been more effective to presentation and pace.
The standouts of this film are the new cast members Jessica Biel and Ryan Reynolds, who offer a nice complement to Wesley Snipe's stoic invincibility.
Reynold's humour in particular is a nice counterpoint to the otherwise oppressive tone, yet it never crosses the line into farce.
Parker Posey is of course excellent, but really did anyone expect less of he? She's a great actress without the aid of elaborate makeup and appliances- with them it's just far too easy.
All and all I would say that if you liked the first 'Blade' film (or vampire/monster films in general) then this is probably right up your alley.
However, if you were looking for a continuation of 'Blade II' then you will be disappointed. In fact, the films are even contradictory at some levels.
Saw (2004)
Laughably bad
This movie seems more like a first year film school project with a big budget, than like a professional film. The acting is corny and false, the edits jump so quickly and contextually that it almost seems like a parody. However, the worst offender is the script. There are moments so preposterous in this film that not only does it break the tension, but it made me laugh out loud. At another point I actually thought, 'I hope this character does die, he deserves to for being so stupid.' Not exactly the right mindset to create in the viewer for a horror film.
The direction and the camera work are all right, and could have made for a better film. But the collapse of everything else doomed the project. Most disappointing was Cary Elwes, his performance was as floundering and weak as he has allowed his physique to become. Where is the actor from 'Kiss the Girls', 'Glory', or even 'The Princess Bride'? Danny Glover was equally bad, but he wasn't the lead so he gets a slight pass. Leigh Whannell's acting was of course the worst of all, but since I had no expectations for him it couldn't be a disappointment.
However, it turns out that Leigh actually wrote the screenplay as well. And since the screenplay is the real problem with the film we'll have to lay the blame at his feet. I liked 'Se7en' too, but perhaps he just should have watched it again and moved onto another idea.
The Village (2004)
A `Twilight Zone' Episode Stretched Thin to Two Hours
In his latest offering M. Night Shyamalan continues his ambition to become the modern-day Rod Serling. Unfortunately, this time out he tries to stretch an hour's material twice as long as it has the elasticity to bear. It is unfortunate because when we strip away M. Night Shyamalan the writer and his eccentricities of plot, then we are left with M. Night Shyamalan the director who is revealed to be average or less in some cases.
In particular, in heavy dialogue scenes he leaves his actors a bit stranded. Poor William Hurt bears the brunt of the expository burden and he seems to shift rudderless through those scenes, trying to make his body do the work of the camera. In a scene where Judy Greer talks to her father about a love interest (and the subsequent scene) the camera never gets closer than a medium-shot of her, making the emotional material difficult for her to communicate.
I also question the structure of the film at some points. The use of flashbacks seems forced and unnecessary at parts. It feels a bit like a bad gear shift through an acceleration. I think different choices with the editing might have made the film stronger.
However the film is not without value and the standout has to be Bryce Dallas Howard. Her performance is talented and moving. She is not quite perfect but perhaps some of the stilted dialogue would not sound true from anyone. She makes the film meaningful.
The photography is also wonderful, that is one of the things that attracted me to the film from the preview, and I was not disappointed. Roger Deakins uses the muted palette to glorious results, creating crisp, autumnal paintings on screen.
***SPOILERISH***
If I had one major complaint about the film it would be that I wish M. Night Shyamalan would play it straight for once. I think he had the cast, crew, and fragments of story to make a very good film. Sometimes irony isn't clever, it's just a crutch for people with out the bravery to be honest. Perhaps his `twist' worked in `The Sixth Sense' (though I would debate that) but here it hurts the picture. The true meaning of the film lay in a unique love story- not some amateurish social criticism.
Van Helsing (2004)
The Monster Mash
*** out of *****
Van Helsing is a fun film whose quality see-saws along the way. It has its share of cheesy dialogue, bad acting, historical anachronisms, and phoney-looking CGI. But it also has a batch of good cinematography, humour, charisma, fine music, and a joie de vivre. The trailer is a pretty accurate barometer for the film (which isn't always the case). If you liked the trailer I would say there is an 80% chance you will like the film. If you didn't like the trailer, then the film will not change your opinion.
For those who haven't seen the trailer think `The Mummy' (1999) meets `Young Frankenstein' with an order of `Raiders of the Lost Ark' on the side, and lightly flavoured with some 007.
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Not as good as Episode One, which was not good to begin with
I think `Star Wars Episode Two Attack of the Clones' is a curious movie. The majority of the film is quite awful, but there are scenes (or perhaps more accurately, moments in scenes) that make your heart leap. That is what makes this movie and its predecessor (The Phantom Menace) so sad. We are obviously looking at the work of a master craftsman. The problem is he's a terrible artist.
I think the blame for the failure of `Attack of the Clones' lies clearly on the shoulders of George Lucas. The acting is quite bad in this movie, but I have seen many of these actors in other films and they performed splendidly. Rather than believe that all of them just had a `bad day', I think we have to look at the screenplay and the direction- both of which are the responsibility of Mr. Lucas.
The screenplay. Let's start with the positive- the plot of the screenplay is sound. There may be holes in it, but this is a fantasy and I can excuse jumps of reason. What I cannot excuse is the jaw-dropping-ly incompetent dialogue. I can say without a trace of bravado that I was writing better dialogue in the fifth grade. (I'll have Mom pull the papers from the attic if you want evidence.) It seems completely incongruous that this is the same person who wrote the original `Star Wars' screenplay. If this were a project for a college class Lucas's teacher would be searching the internet to see at which cheat-site he bought the original screenplay.
It seems that the screenplay for `Attack of the Clones' is a direct response to criticism of the last film. `I'll cut down Jar-jar's screen-time and have the Jedi's use some modern slang. Oh yeah, and I'll throw in a few zingers for 3PO. That oughta lighten up the mood.' It is nice to see that Lucas is trying to accommodate his fans, it is just sad that he can not pull it off. There are countless examples but one will suffice. `You're not all-powerful Anny.' `Well I should be.' Waah! Instead of whining why couldn't he have said something more ominous like `Not yet' or `That time has not yet come' or even better- a penetrating glance as he considers the words, then a dark `No, of course not'. It does not take a genius to fix this screenplay, Lucas didn't need to call in Quentin Tarantino (not that he couldn't use the work). I think it's a fair guess to say that 50% of Star Wars fans that went to see the movie could have improved upon that script with a minimum of effort.
The direction. Again let's start with the positive. Star Wars has always excelled at battle and chase scenes. This picture is no different. The bar has been raised again on the fast-paced action scene- no one can touch Lucas there. And as for saber dueling, it is only surpassed by `The Phantom Menace'. Lucas uses CGI to good effect where it is best used- either in fast-paced scenes where details are obscured, or in dark scenes (night, rain, star-fields) where detail is unimportant.
The problem is that Lucas refuses to use CGI as a tool, but instead uses it as his medium. What looks real in space or on a rainy planet is clearly fake in the warm light of day. I can be fooled into believing how a spaceship orbits a planet, but I know damn well how light reflects off water or how a pig casts a shadow, or how clouds move in a desert. Perhaps someday CGI will be able to imitate life exactly, and we will never need to film a location. Perhaps if Mr. Lucas is lucky he will someday be able to replace even the human actors with digital creations spouting his wooden lines. However, that day has not yet come. If the director had taken some of his enormous CGI budget and used it to build a few more sets, and shoot a few REAL locations it would have helped both the actors and the audience to suspend disbelief. Again one example will suffice. In one of the romantic scenes the leads are in a field on a bright summer-like day. However, they are surrounded by these quite obviously fake pig-creatures. The pigs serve no real purpose in the scene (the interaction seen could easily have been written a different way) except to reinforce for the n-th time that this is a `foreign', `weird' place, not like Earth. (Really George? I think we've got that in the first four movies. Perhaps we do not need to be slapped in the face with this fact in EVERY scene.) The effect of forcing the pigs into the scene means that the whole thing has to be `CG'ed, and it looks completely fake. I was having a tough enough time believing the romance with the terrible dialogue. Do I really need to be further distracted for no reason? This is just a poor decision by a director more concerned with showcasing his animation staff then making a good film
This is why I am quite tired of hearing people gushing about the special effects in this and the last movie. Yes, some of the effects are unparalleled but some of them are really quite bad. And if people were honest they would admit that there are times when `muppets' look more real than computer-generated illusions. There is something to be said for the filming of actors interacting with real objects. I'll take Yoda in the swamp any day. At least there I can tell that the light falling on him is the light that exists and not the best guess of an illustrator.
All in all, I would say this movie is un-rateable. There are scenes that should not be missed by fans of cinema, and then there is the majority of the film- which had me literally gagging at points. My best advice would be to wait for the DVD release and rent it on the two-for-one night at your local video store. That way you're not losing any money and you can fast-forward through the drek. Never thought I'd say this but that's my plan for Episode Three when it comes out, because unless George Lucas signs on a new director (Spielberg anyone?) and a new dialogue writer it's not going to get any better.
One final point for all you folks spouting off about `target audiences'. I realize I was in the target for the first movies and now I am out of the target by 20 years for these movies. However, I can go back and watch the first three movies and honestly say that they still hold up after all these years. That is not true for many movies I liked when I was that same age. Episode One and Two will not stand the test of time. In 20 years when Mr. Lucas has departed these will scream out for a remake, something that will not be true of the older films. It's just a shame that such an excellent cast, and such an excellent vision was wasted because of the arrogance of one man. I guess it was his creation to destroy, too bad so may of us fell in love with it long ago, in a place that now seems far, far away.
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
The greatest cinematic disappointment of my life
"Star Wars" (1977) represents the birth of my love for cinema. As a child I had seen movies before it but nothing before had gripped me with the wonder and excitement of this film.
Like everyone else I had given up any hope that there would be a Star Wars film after "Return of the Jedi". The whole idea of a prequel seemed like an urban myth. It is thus difficult to explain my excitement when the project began to materialize. In fact, I count the experience of watching the trailer for "The Phantom Menace" in the theater as an event almost comparable to viewing the original films- such was my keen desire.
I went opening night and saw the film. I can never be as disappointed again with a film as I was with the failure of "The Phantom Menace".
Now you could say that no film could have met the astronomical expectations that I set forth. Perhaps that is correct, I will never know. What I can tell you though is that this film is not in the same league as the others in this series and I will tell you why.
It is not because of Jar Jar Binks (though every negative thing said about him is correct), it is because the film has no heart. What is the center of the first Star Wars trilogy? It is the relationship between Han and Luke and Leia. In particular, it is Han Solo who is the spark of life. Han Solo has personality, he has character, and he has humanity. Luke, Ben, Vader- they are more or less sterile and that describes the entire cast of "The Phantom Menace".
The reason the film doesn't work is that we don't care what happens to these people. The portrayal of Anakin is particularly bad. Does anyone buy for a second that this child is a slave, or that he is saddened to leave his mother? I see a child actor smiling and trying to be cute. Period.
The jedi characters may suppress their emotions intentionally but it doesn't make for interesting screen time. As a counter-example, in the "Star Trek" television series the logical character of Spock only really works because he can play off the cantankerous country doctor role of Dr. McCoy and to a lesser extent Captain Kirk. Without a foil to play against cold logic is just that- cold.
This is another reason that the Jar Jar Binks character was such a poor choice. His place in the cast could have been filled by a more substantial role that played off against the jedi and offered Anakin a different choice of paths. Instead we get a slapstick routine that is geared towards infants. And I do mean infants not children. I remember seeing the original movie as a child and I would have considered Jar Jar "babyish" even then. R2D2 and C3P0 work well to provide humor; there was no need to double up.
I think it is obvious that George Lucas has become blinded by special effects, and marketing reports. He has forgotten that the magic of Star Wars had nothing to do with CGI. The line "Don't get cocky kid" is worth more to me than a hundred digitally created creatures or trips under water.
As a movie in its own right the film is unremarkable. Some of the special effects are a tour-de-force of digital magic. However, some of the effects fall quite flat. There is a battle on a field at one point in the film and it is painfully apparent that we are looking at a video game and not reality. I have never in my life seen a field that is a uniform glaring green. Perhaps if the scope of the digital effects had been scaled back a bit what was left would show to better result. (After all, is this a film or the resume for Industrial Light and Magic?) But all things considered the film in its own right can stand on even footing with other space opera offerings. It is when it is compared to its predecessors that it collapses.
I guess you can never go back and relive the excitement of childhood. I just didn't need the door slammed so violently in my face.
2 Days in the Valley (1996)
Not as terrible as I originally thought
I rented this film shortly after its release and had a very negative reaction. It seemed to me to be a BLATANT rip-off of "Pulp Fiction", only much more poorly executed. I remember that there was a particularly painful dialogue scene given to Paul Mazursky. It was of the style of Quentin Tarantino's observational dialogue that is so captivating when done well. Here it was quite embarrassing to watch, I actually hid my face behind a pillow.
[By the way, this is no slight against Mr. Mazursky who is fabulous in `Miami Rhapsody', you can do only so much with what you are given.]
I savaged the film in reviews at that time, but in retrospect I think that it may have been a protective reaction for "Pulp Fiction" which I felt was being maligned by comparison. Since then of course "Pulp Fiction" has become an established icon whereas this film has faded into obscurity.
I caught a piece of the film on cable a few weeks ago and I believe I may have been too harsh in my initial judgment. No, it is not a good film, and yes some of the dialogue is painful (the whole one-minute thing is torturous), but there are some cute moments in the film.
The film's major failing is the unnecessarily violence. This film is really a light comedy at its heart, not a black comedy, and certainly not in the unique category of "Pulp Fiction". It would have been better to keep the tone lighter. The most successful scenes are Danny Aiello's performances in the house. I think in this respect the creative staff of "Two Days In the Valley" missed the point when trying to emulate "Pulp Fiction". It was not the violence that made that film great- it was witty dialogue, meaty characters, and great ensemble chemistry.
I probably wouldn't watch it from beginning to end again but it's amusing to sample. Watch it if you want a laugh, though some of the humor is quite unintentional. (Gee, now that would have been a good movie- if they intentionally lampooned the `Pulp Fiction' style)
The Godfather (1972)
Completely un-redeeming in any way. Garbage.
I remember distinctly the first time I saw "The Godfather". I was a child and it was being shown on broadcast television. Granted, neither of theses are optimal conditions for rendering an informed opinion but I remember being struck with how unremarkable- in fact how boring I found the film. I was particularly surprised by this, as there had been a great fanfare over the broadcast. I chalked this up to my own immaturity and thought no more of it.
The second time I saw the film was in college. My friend had a brother who was quite a film enthusiast and he, like many others, counted "The Godfather" as the finest film. One evening my friend and I watched the film. The viewing once again left me unimpressed. I feigned an enthusiasm for the film that I did not feel, as it seemed the popular, and even the intellectual expectation. Once again I associated my dislike for the movie with a failing in myself. I apparently did not appreciate a "good movie" when I saw one.
Since that time I have seen many films, from many directors, from many countries, in many languages, and with varying budgets from independent offerings to mainstream Hollywood fare. I certainly do not consider myself to be an expert but feel myself to be an informed member of an audience. Armed with my experience I recently viewed "The Godfather" again to expunge my previous failures and to gleefully join the ranks of Godfather sycophants. Well, I think you know the outcome. As they say in baseball, three strikes and you're out.
I find the film to be completely un-redeeming in every way. I do not have space to address the film systematically or technically so I will speak to my central grievance- the story is hollow. There is no moral center.
I do not demand that a movie have morality. I do not demand that a film even have a point. I can take a film at its face value for what it is. A slapstick comedy is foolish and an action flick is mindless, I do not ask that they be a different movie- only that they meet the narrow definition to which they aspire. The problem is that "The Godfather" aspires to be a great drama and that aspiration comes with high expectations.
Gratuitous violence is expected in big-budget action flicks, amorality can be understood in the quiet desperation of an independent film's philosophy, and self-indulgence is to be expected in the over-the-top musical extravaganza. However, violence, amorality, and self-indulgence in a film that portrays itself as mainstream drama or even tragedy are reprehensible. This is not art- it is base voyeurism at its worst. We are standing in the bailey at New Castle or at the Coliseum watching with leering stares at the baseness and depravity of man. This film is not a criticism of man's foul nature, as in the above referenced independent film; it is a celebration of it. Anyone who claims otherwise deludes himself.
Thus conceived I can appreciate `The Godfather' as a film oddity, a curious victory of the popularity of evil men. But to say that it is a great film is scandalous, and to say that it is the greatest film is blasphemous. To say that the highest achievement of man in film is a celebration of cruelty, deception, and greed is a statement that many should reconsider.
I find it interesting that many of those who claim "The Godfather" as their favorite film, or the best film of all time can count their viewings of the film on one hand. In fact, I myself (who thinks unfavorably of the film) have given the film more attention then many of the "fans" I know. A friend of mine who professes to like the film recently returned the box-set DVD "Godfather" collection that he received for Christmas. As he put it, he loved the film but when was he ever going to watch it? That is faint praise indeed for the "greatest film of all time".
I am sure there are those who genuinely enjoy the film, but you could say that about any movie. I would advise those who fawn over this film so to ask themselves if their enthusiasm comes from within or from a modern mythology. "The Godfather" is a paper tiger.
Enterprise (2001)
Absolute, indisputable, perfection. Hand over the Emmy today.
My enthusiasm for the new addition to the Star Trek milieu has been growing since its incipience, now it has burst forth into pure adoration. The show is absolutely perfect. Every problem I have ever identified with the abysmal DS9 and Voyager has been corrected. I will summarize years of complaint into two points.
One, the adventure is back. We have a starship exploring strange new worlds. In TNG the universe was well established, in DS9 they didn't GO anywhere (that was a doomed concept from the get-go), in Voyager they had the opportunity for greatness but they completely blew it (the Borg, Romulans, Q!!, give me a break. I guess a million light years isn't far enough away from the DS9 costume department.)
Two, they are facing well-scaled obstacles. The thing that ruined DS9, Voyager, and even a little bit of TNG was the invincible opponent. Romulans and Klingons worked fine for the first Star Trek and they worked well dramatically. If you have an enemy of equal strength there is dramatic tension. When you have a ridiculously superior enemy, it turns into a farce. In TNG they created the Borg, that in itself might have been fine. However, I know I was not alone in feeling the solution to their impossible situation was more than a little weak. (It was more Scooby-Doo than Spartacus.) Even so, if they had stopped there it would have been fine. But no, we then have to find enemies that can conquer the Borg , then ones stronger than those, and so on, and so on. At some point strength of enemies replaced strength of writing in the ST play-book.
How triumphant then is the entrance of Enterprise. We can truly feel like explorers stepping out into the universe for our first peek at its mysteries. I thought `Breaking the Ice' was a great episode not for what happened but for the restraint used. Drilling the comet was the exciting event, as well it should be. But how easy would it have been to have made the comet `alive', or protected by some alien race- any excuse to fire some weapons. It is this restraint that creates realistic tension, and it is this restraint that will make the future, more `exciting' challenges seem all the more important.
You can see that the producers are carefully growing the story line. I think their commitment to telling the tale right is beautiful. It would be so easy to whip up some new super-enemy to throw at them that had no purpose other than to titillate a bunch of so-called Star Trek fans. Any true fan of Science Fiction is drawn in more by the Science than the Fiction. Keeping the initial experiences of the first starship as realistic as possible creates more excitement than any super- villain ever could.
In my mind this series is working on a higher level than any of the previous Star Trek incarnations. If it continues on course it will surpass them all. Bravo! A job well done.
I hated it at first, but the song has really grown on me. In fact, I find the whole opening sequence now to be inspirational. Much better than some re-treading of the original them for the Nth time. Again- perfection.
American Pie 2 (2001)
Too many apples in the orchard
A complaint often heard about movie sequels is the abandonment of certain characters from the original picture. Often times in the interest of plot, certain characters are not deemed necessary, or certain actors are not with the financial constraints to recast in minor roles. "American Pie 2" suffers from the exact opposite of this phenomenon. Unfortunately they kept everybody.
There is only so much characterization that can possibly be handled in two hours of screen time. If you focus on one or two characters you can exquisitely probe their personalities for comedy or drama. When you try to give equal screen time to a cast of eight or ten there are certain compromises that are made. What invariably happen is that some of the characters actually become the setting, they are not moving within the tableau, they are the tableau.
This becomes a problem when you try to create a new plot and include all these characters. Because what you are effectively doing is recreating the same basic picture. The cheap trick to avoid this is to radically alter certain characters for no apparent reason other than to create new plot vehicles. To its credit "American Pie 2" does not do this. What this means however, is that we are necessarily going to be treading across a lot of the same ground.
The character Jim is the center of this story as he was the last. His development is strong in this picture as are the characters he is directly involved with. However much of the rest of the cast are simply holding space. Some of them provide bright moments of humor and are gladly welcome. Stifler is a perfect example of this. He does not develop in the slightest but he is the fulcrum for much of the humor in the film. He is more a plot device than a character but he truly makes the film work. Without him or with a toned down version we would have large gaps of nothing.
However some performances are completely superfluous. I challenge anyone to tell me how the movie would have been changed in the least if Kevin or Vicky had been removed. Kevin's key action was to come up with the idea of the beach house; this could easily have been given to any other character. Vicky on the other hand did essentially nothing at all. I guess she could be insulted for not being allowed to act, but hey, it not too bad to get paid for playing pool.
In and of itself it is not a problem to assemble a large cast, the problem is the script tries to divide it's time equally between them- but all the subplots are not of equal interest. There are stretches in the movie where the comedic cadence is definitely broken in order to develop a minor character to no real effect. The scene between Jessica and Sherman at the party stands out in my mind. It is not funny or interesting and really should have been left on the editing room floor. This moment seems included purely for the purpose of giving Natasha Lyonne more screen time. This is a shame because the scene is not good but the actress is. Her performance in the first movie was delightful yet here she is wasted.
The picture is solid in it's own right as a comedy but one wonders what great craftsmanship could have been engendered if some of the fat had been cut away. If you have ever tried to organize one of these get-togethers with all your old buddies from high school or college, you know that it never all works out. For some reason or another you're never going to get everyone back together again in one place at one time. Perhaps the experience is better for it, to miss someone and hope to get it all together next time. Well, the "American Pie" folks can at least hope for the second part...
The Abyss (1989)
Special Edition demonstrates wise choices in initial edit
This is a comparison more than a review. As such there are significant SPOILERS ahead. You have been warned.
I originally saw "The Abyss" in the theater some 12 years ago. I truly enjoyed the movie, not only the special effects but the characters as well. After watching the DVD special edition I must say that in my experience, there has never been a greater justification for judicious editing.
This is not to say that I did not get a sort of voyeuristic thrill from seeing the cut scenes. In particular, as a fan of the film I enjoyed the extended scenes of crew interaction. They did not really provide any new insights, as these are thinly drawn characters, but it was enjoyable. In an action movie one must be very cognizant of pacing and though I enjoyed these scenes they brought to a moribund pace what was already a slow film.
What I could have done without was the additional background on Bud and Lindsey's marital problems. This film was not realism and knowing that Lindsey has been cheating on her husband, or that she considers him too poor, or too uneducated may explain the divorce, but it detracts from their relationship. Particularly as these issues are not addressed or resolved. You really need to make a choice between drama and melodrama, both work in cinema but a mix rarely does.
As for the "flood" scenes, they are terrible. Not from a special effects standpoint (though the effects are not exceptional) but from the standpoint of plot. The theatrical release presented us with what seemed to be a truly alien presence that did not understand humankind. It seemed that the first hesitant step at investigation was a water tentacle that probed blindly into the rig, and mimicked a human face- as if seeing it for the first time. When the moon bay door is slammed shut it rears back like an innocent creature struck.
In the theatrical version, when Bud is saved and brought into their ship, the communication consisted of replaying his typed message- as if this was their first contact with human communication. It seemed as if they were attempting to communicate verbally after exploring physically with the water tentacle. It is then plausible to assume that they were truly ignorant of the danger posed by the warhead, and that they were responding to Bud's love for his wife, that between two species alien to each other-love was the thing they could build an understanding on. This is a beautiful sentiment and a great resolution to the movie.
Then there is a sort of symmetry in the rise to the surface. Bud has saved the aliens by descending, now they save him and his wife by ascending. Their rescue is not technologically impressive, they don't whisk everyone to the top with alien beams, they simply raise their ship, taking the crew along with them.
Contrast this to the Special Edition version where the aliens have been monitoring mankind forever. It destroys the whole idea of "first contact" between two different life-forms. It also throws a suspicious light on the initial submarine "accident" and all subsequent contacts. It abrogates Bud's self-sacrifice, as the aliens clearly could have taken care of that problem too. It makes the rising of the alien ship a much more menacing affair, as it is right below a Navy battle group. The worst part of the Special Edition however is its message. Basically it is saying that human beings are incapable of governing their own affairs, that they need some alien force to come down (or rise up) and force them to be peaceful. One of the most distressing lines is when the captain on the crane ship turns to the military commander and says "You guys maybe out of business", as if this is a good thing- to be commanded to disarm by alien super-beings. Apparently the idea of free will, which Bud and has so magnificently displayed, is completely superfluous.
The theatrical release left you with a sense of wonder about these strange creatures and the discoveries that lie ahead. The Special Edition gives you none of this, it throws in a glib morality sound-bite against nuclear war. More importantly though, it really deflects the resolution from the transforming power of love, to a vague science-fiction Armageddon. In the theatrical release the aliens responded to Bud and Lindsey's love. In the Special Edition they're Greenpeace on steroids. The film does not have the dramatic weight to carry a "big issue" ending, it is much better as a love story. You can't switch horses at the end and take in "Social Commentary" when you rode the whole way on "Action Flick".
If you loved the original you will enjoy the Special Edition, but here is no question as to which is the real film. Horray for editing.