lochnessmummy Reviews

Finding Neverland (2004)

Now that we're past the hype... don't miss this movie!

[9/10 · 29 December 2004]

Every holiday season Harvey Weinstein and Miramax talk up one of their properties, fully expecting everyone to bow and throw awards at it as soon as it's released. This year it's Finding Neverland, which has produced a lot of buzz in favor of Johnny Depp's sophisticated performance. Although the film deserves all the praise it gets, it is understandable that moviegoers are a little weary with another dramatic period piece, with another "oscar caliber" cast, about yet another take on Peter Pan.

The bottom line is, this movie is phenomenal. Exploring the major theme of Barrie's play (that of a boy who never grows up), Finding Neverland refrains from condemning grown-ups, but exalts the wild magic one can enjoy as a kid. For James, who had to deal with his family's reticence upon the death of his brother, the real tragedy occurs when a child is forced to grow up too fast.

My favorite idea from this film is this: life finds a way to put into our lives the people we're supposed to be living our lives with. James and Sylvia needed each other, and they needed each other at that particular time. Life took care of them.

The film does indeed move at a snail's pace. Consider that part of the set design. Just as the characters go about 1905 London in top hats and buttoned-down gowns, so does the movie develop in a manner which would have been fitting for a time which preceded MTV-generation attention spans by about a hundred years.

As for the acting, it is wonderful. Depp is understated and gallant, Kate Winslet is lovely and tragic, and they're both better than I've ever seen them. Julie Christie is brutally ominous as the matriarch who can gum up everyone's happiness. Dustin Hoffman, although out of place, brings a dry wit as a risk-taking businessman. The boys playing the Davis kids are a lot of fun to watch and play their dramatic parts perfectly.

If you want something where all the pieces of the magic puzzle that is movie-making come together with grace, charm, and humanity, you won't find a more rewarding film than this.

I Heart Huckabees (2004)

Fun with existentialism

[6/10 · 18 November 2004]

An entertaining film that has fun with the deep and perplexing applications of existentialism. It's directed well, with a fast pace and a lean towards dry irony. The acting is terrific all around --even Dustin Hoffman delivers (which hasn't happened in a long time)

Folks who work through Hollywood ought to see this movie a couple of times and get to know and understand the tenets of the philosophy. People in the real world should simply enjoy it as a fun movie --they already understand the philosophy, and what's missing from it.

Here' how the film measures up against others that toy around with existentialism: 1)Huckabees is a better film than Adaptation. 2)What the Bleep Do We Know? is more user-friendly than Huckabees. 3)Being John Malkovich is much more fun than Huckabees. 4)Huckabees is less weighty than Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead.

Like any well-done philosophy movie, this one raises endless compelling questions. This one is my favorite: Where does each of the characters get some (i.e.: sex), and how does that affect his/her outlook?

The Village (2004)

Yet another reason to hate hippies (warning: secrets revealed)

[4/10 · 17 August 2004]

The correct title of this film should be The Commune.

It's telling that two of the main actors in this movie are William Hurt and Sigorney Weaver --two aging hippies performing characters who live out the flower power ideal. The Village isn't centered around a turn-of-the-century village, but a contemporary hippie commune, filled with frustrated whimps who are too afraid of death to deal with life. The main point of the film is that you can't run away from tragedy, yet these spineless folk tune themselves out completely, bringing their clueless children with them. As a result, they end up with kids who live in mortal fear of ketchup, but seem strangely comforted by mustard. --and none of this nonsense is scary. Crosby, Stills, and Nash once sang, "Teach your parents well." These grown-ups should be whacked with a paddle.

One more thing: there are no "monsters" in this movie. It's all a lie (in more ways than one). I thought hollywood had gotten past the stage of resolving the story with, "it was all a dream." Apparently not. The Village teases us with glimpses of something supernatural, before it totally deflates us with something maddeningly mundane. What a cop-out.

Bryce Dallas Howard though, is this film's saving grace. Let none of this rant (or the awful movie it scorns) take away from her sublime, heartbreaking, and inspiring performance. She was wonderful.

Asoka (2001)

Terrific legend; very well made film

[7/10 · 16 August 2004]

It's really hard for me to evaluate Indian films. Although they appeal to me, I live in a world totally alien to theirs. What I see as a film being interrupted by unnecessary music videos, they might see as the marriage of two vibrant, vital aspects of their culture.

That said, Asoka is a film that I enjoyed very much. The story is epic, complex, and deeply layered, and it almost had me crying in the end (VERY few films can do this). The cast is fantastic, and they did an excellent job. The costumes and the sets were equally great. It's runtime is at 2 hours 45 minutes, but I was left hoping it was going to go a little bit longer. I wanted to know what happened to Davi, and I wanted to learn a few things from Asoka's latter days --when he embarked on his journey towards peace.

This film is great, and I'm looking forward to seeing it again.

The Village (2004)

Once again, this is not a horror movie, it's a philosophy movie

[4/10 · 1 August 2004]

M. Night Shyamalan's major films are unique, (perhaps not so unique) in that Hollywood keeps marketing them as horror films when they are not. The Village continues that pattern with a period piece along the lines of Shirley Jackson's The Lottery.

If this film doesn't put you to sleep, it will annoy the heck out of you with it's inane "secrets." It touches on some intriguing ideas but never resolves them, and it threatens to scare you but never does. The only dope in the whole village who does anything is the character of Lucius, and he's a non-participant for the second half of the film. What a waste.

One thing that must be stated: Bryce Dallas Howard's performance was heartbreakingly wonderful. I was almost crying for her character at the end. I would've rated this film with a 1 out of 10, but because of her I put it four points higher.

The Chronicles of Riddick (2004)

Just as good as Pitch Black (wouldn't you know)

[5/10 · 13 June 2004]

The Chronicles of Riddick is the sequel to the earlier Vin Diesel sci-fi flick Pitch Black. Like the first one, this movie is highly flawed but has a lot of cool aspects to it.

Right from the beginning, it's obvious that this film's first priority is special effects, which they did very well. Even better than the effects though, were the costumes and art direction. The Necromongers created a society that idolizes suffering, betrayal, and death, and each of these concepts are thoroughly infused into their amazing --sometimes horrifying-- architecture and armor. Their culture was one that sought to prepare the galaxy and the races of men for the manifestation of the Underverse (which I really wanted to know more about). The fanatical devotion and divine inspiration to do evil was nicely brought out by the filmmakers.

It's too bad that this film was written the way it was. It greatly lacked focus, which resulted in what should have been a compelling subplot where two ambitious courtiers conspire to kill the main bad guy instead becomes a feeble distraction with bad acting. Also, the whole Crematoria sequence fell just short of being nothing but a humongous waste of time. The only part that redeemed it (slightly) was Riddick's exchange with the Purifier. They should have skipped much of that planet.

The bulk of this movie is made up of a lot of predictable, derivative ideas (the prison planet, panicked citizens running for their lives but yet not going anyhwere) mixed in with a lot of really inspired details (the race of elementals, the behavior of space dust with traveling starships).

The Riddick story features a rich and interesting sci-fi setting, and if they paid more attention to that instead of Hollywood poser shots, they'd really have something.

Van Helsing (2004)

A film about cliches (so don't expect much else)

[5/10 · 17 May 2004]

This movie is only slightly better than that unwatchable mess, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. They're both quite comparable with each other.

While Van Helsing is visually impressive, and mostly fun, it's too stupid to recommend to anyone.

--If vampires could have babies like the rest of us, why would they all explode when their father dies? (an obvious plot cop-out)

--Who is Gabriel Van Helsing? What is the history behind him? They tried to tell us but then forgot about it.

--If Frankenstein's monster is such a badass, why is he always getting trapped or running away? I wanted to see him smash Dracula into little bloody meatballs.

The best feature of the film, and there's plenty of it, is Kate Beckinsdale's curves. She makes one of the best entrances I've ever seen, and eventually the pandering, topless-looking blouse she runs around in seems less crude and more like the cherries that top this banquet of fattening dessert.

Directed by Steven Sommers, Van Helsing also recalls his blockbuster Mummy movies (The Mummy, The Mummy Returns). Both of those films were great --and here's the proof. All of these features are about style over substance; about being fun rather than thought-provoking. But where Van Helsing is willing to lessen the depth of its script to the point where its entertainment value is barely skin deep --just so it can accommodate for more villains, The Mummy films were centered around only one villain, forcing them to write a script with deeper characters and better lines.

Secret Window (2004)

Welcome to the woman-haters' club

[6/10 · 23 March 2004]

This film goes right up there with Adaptation as two recent films about bad writing --which in itself is bad writing! 90% of Secret Window is predictable shock shlock. The other 10% is about murderin' your cheatin' wife!

The talent involved obviously made this simply to fulfill contract obligations. Johnny Depp remains a rather overrated actor, but at least he injects some fun into this mess. John Turturro's character was the only believable one in the whole movie, ironically enough.

What makes this movie enjoyable though, is the climatic scene when Mort finds out the truth about all the terror going on. Idle hands are enough of an opening for evil, but throw in cabin fever, writer's block, and the poisonous heartache of love's betrayal? C'mon now, who doesn't go crazy every now and then?

Whale Rider (2002)

Awaken the Giant Within!

[8/10 · 4 March 2004]

The first half of Whale Rider seems like a bad afternoon special. But, with patience, it builds its story and develops into an inspirational triumph. Young Pai leads her village from a community without faith into a dancing, chanting, colorful, and enthusiastic chorus of vibrant tribesmen. Keisha Castle-Hughes is amazing, alternately breaking our hearts with sadness and with joy. The rest of the cast is average, with the exception of Vicky Haughton, whose performance as Pai's mother is stellar.

Don't pay attention to the PG-13 rating. This should be rated G. Keep in mind, though that younger folks might get bored with this after a half hour.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

Some moments of brilliance

[7/10 · 3 March 2004]

This is a very good film, with some moments of true brilliance. I didn't feel it was the bloodiest movie I've ever seen, nor was I spiritually moved by it. The person I saw it with though, said "yes" to both of those things.

Being a film about the death of Jesus, it's only fitting to focus all of the attention on him. However, I wanted to know more about some of the other characters in the film. The most poignant moments occur when Mary, Jesus mother, weeps hopelessly at the brutalization of her son. I wanted to know a little more about her. The apostle Peter is a key part of the first half of the film, but then gets dropped completely. Finally, Satan here is portrayed with more dynamic corruption, more androgynous perversion, and more unspoken power than in any other film I've ever seen. This juxtaposition between righteous divinity and supernatural malignancy is given far too little attention.

The Passion also has a very linear composition to it, which doesn't help it any.

As far as the controversy goes... yes, the Jewish leaders who pushed for Jesus' crucifixion are the clear villains in this film. They're not nearly as evil though, as the sadistic Roman centurions who carry out the sentence. They're also not portrayed half as vile as the depraved, lunatic demons who have inhabited the Catholic priesthood according to Hollywood over the last decade.

Monster (2003)

If you have someone to love, give him or her an extra hug tonight

[8/10 · 28 January 2004]

What would you do if you took an inventory of everything you had in your life, and came up with this?

Home: 0

Transportation: 0

Money: 0

Food: 0

Friends: 1 (another homeless person)

Family: 0

And what if, on top of all that, you've been tragically abused and mistreated your entire life? In the film Monster, the plain looking, twenty-something character of Aileen Wronos survives such savage circumstances by turning cheap tricks on a Florida highway. Lacking decent social skills, or any marketable job skills, Aileen seems dirty and weird even by homeless standards. Then as soon as she concludes that her future must also add up to zero, fate throws something special her way. She finds someone to love.

From the outset, director Patty Jenkins immerses the audience in this filthy, stinking world of base depravity, and human brutality. And through it all, Aileen's love, awakened contrary to her nature, is the one pinpoint of light in all of this darkness. Her love is her single source of hope and salvation. Consequently, we become desperate –to see her get out of there, and start her life over again with someone to help her. But, as the newspapers have reported, it doesn't turn out that way.

International beauty Charlize Theron portrays the subject character. Her physical alteration is legendary in our own time, but her emotional transformation is supernatural. She doesn't as much perform in front of the camera, as she does slam us on the side of the head, throttle us, and force us to become involved. People working on this film have reported experiencing the presence of the real Aileen Wronos as they went about her old haunts (no pun intended). With all due respect to Ms. Theron's acting talents, it seems apparent here, that she got some help from the other side.

This film is powerful. At times, everyone seems overwhelmed by the ferocity going on around them. It made me re-evaluate the blessings I have in my life. I'm fortunate enough to live with someone who loves me. I am going to give that person an extra hug tonight.

The Fog of War (2003)

An ordinary man, with an extraordinary mind, under grimly extraordinary circumstances

[5/10 · 28 January 2004]

The Fog of War (a title almost too perfect) consists of an interview with the US' aged Cold War-era Secretary of Defense, Robert S. McNamara. As he talks, producer/director Errol Morris organizes the piece into 11 lessons on leadership, from as simple as `Understand your data,' to as profound as `In order to do good, one must sometimes perform evil.' Throughout, Morris displays effective visual and audible graphics to convey his inherent judgment against the vast, terrible suffering wrought upon the world in the mid-20th century.

Mr. McNamara comes across as a college boy, a pencil pusher –a man whose devotion to statistics and percentages helped secure an unconditional surrender from the empire of Japan, but also imposed tragic limitations on America's commitment to victory in Vietnam. One of the best sequences is when he relates his insider's knowledge of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Audiences these days may lack a frame of reference as far as understanding the prevalent threat of nuclear war, but here the speaker drives it home. He explains passionately that a nuclear attack upon the US was indeed going to happen, but we simply `lucked out of it.'

Unfortunately, by the end of the film, Mr. McNamara ends up seeming rather indifferent to this whole production. He seems as though he has a lot to get off his chest, and wants to pass on some lessons he has learned, but clams up when the most provocative questions are asked. Morris actually, deserves much of the blame. Not only did he fail to entice Mr. McNamara to answer questions like, `Do you feel any guilt about the Vietnam war,' but he also decided to leave these shortcomings in the film. The resultant effect makes The Fog of War feel like a naive condemnation of Mr. McNamara, his advanced age, and his times, rather than an example of the successes and failures of a man responsible for directing armies.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003)

Rodriguez makes bad movies? No, Rodriguez makes fun movies.

[6/10 · 28 January 2004]

While all of the El Mariachi films stretch the imagination, this third installment also features a rather complicated plot, with some hard-to-believe twists. Throw all of that out the window. Once Upon a Time in Mexico is about enticing legends that get tossed around in dusty old towns, it's about the ridiculous brashness of Johnny Depp's undercover espionage, it's about the melody of bullets around which the characters must frequently dance, and it's about the ultimate coolness of Antonio Banderas' outlaw gunslinger.

This movie is all about style over substance. This is not a mirror held up to reality. Enjoy it for its unreality.

And Your Mother Too (2001)

Vulgar and brilliant

[7/10 · 28 January 2004]

`Y Tu Mama Tambien' translates into english as `And Your Mother, Too.' I don't know what that title could be referencing, but I would imagine in has something to do with f**king. Much of this road movie gets weighed down by useless bathroom scenes (how European!), some gross perversions of two oversexed teenagers, and frequent distracting asides which tell about people and events that have nothing at all to do with the film.

Don't make the mistake however, of turning it off. Watch this through the very end. You will be rewarded.

Lost in Translation (2003)

Sad and uplifting at the same time

[9/10 · 14 January 2004]

I won't get into the details. Just know that this is a terrific little film, highly personal, and yet universally recognizable. It's funny, it's smart, and it's one of the top two or three movies of the year.

Cold Mountain (2003)

A lot of Hollywood sap

[6/10 · 9 January 2004]

This movie was decent, with fantastic performances from the entire cast. Unfortunately, too much of the dialogue is completely unoriginal, and many of the ideas fall flat. It's really a soap opera with a little spice.

Cold Mountain reminds me a lot of The Cider House Rules, in that, it's one of those films that everyone is supposed to bow down and hurl awards at as soon as it is released, and it just doesn't measure up. Like Cider House, I imagine that Cold Mt was a much better book.

Cold Creek Manor (2003)

Bad music, very bad script, other than that, it's okay

[4/10 · 22 September 2003]

Mike Figgis (moreso, cinematographer Declan Quinn) did a great job with the pace of this film, and made it look quite beautiful. The lead actors all performed well, and Stephen Dorff puts in the best performance I've seen from him.

HOWEVER, this film left out a lot, and was not scary. It built tension pretty well, but as a shocker or horror movie, no. It dropped major clues, characters, and incidents, without doing anything with them at all. It also had it's characters make decisions and reactions that made no sense.

Both me and the person I saw it with came away with the feeling that this must have been based on a really good book, but as a movie, it failed.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)

A fantastic idea ruined

[3/10 · 19 July 2003]

You just can't beat the excellent characters, and the wonderful setting of this movie. Even Dorian Gray, a simple but subtly complex character, becomes a compelling and workable superhero. Unfortunately, the writers tried to squeeze three movies into one, in an impossible attempt to blow our minds, resulting in a pile of cliches and hopelessly predictable plot twists. The creators would've been much better served had they just made a movie about the characters themselves, and assembling this extraordinary league.

I can't help but wonder how excellent this story would've been had it been made by the people at Grenada Television, or WGBH Boston, or even National Public Radio.

Hulk (2003)

Know that it is long; understand that it is great.

[7/10 · 19 July 2003]

The best thing that happened before I saw Ang Lee's Hulk, was being warned how long it was. I was prepared for a film that would run slowly in parts, but took its time exploring its characters. As such, this film was one of the best of the year.

Lee created a very moving and emotional telling of the seminal comic book hero, and does so with a wonderfully innovative use of split-screen technology, which is normally a turn-off. It reminded me of what Dennis Hopper was trying to do with his flashing segeways in Easy Rider. But where Hopper failed, Lee perfects. It is not recommended that anyone try split-screen, ever. But if someone does try, they must use this film as a reference.

The cinematography and performances are stellar, especially Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, and Nick Nolte. The film is far from perfect, however. The dependable Sam Shepard is an annoying ham here, and the script does sometimes push our suspension of disbelief too far. Such is the consequense of filming the story of a monster, who only manifests when some convenient character can make him mad.

Anyone who judges this film badly because the computer generated Hulk looks synthetic, ought to stay away from this genre of films altogether.

Donnie Darko (2001)

Suicide candidates beware

[9/10 · 19 July 2003]

Excellent film. Very well made. Very original. However this movie's story illustrates to me that suicide IS the answer.

This only gets a 9 out of 10, because Noah Wylie's character was so inexplicably limited and secretive.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

Another excellent sequel in the series

[8/10 · 2 July 2003]

Whereas Terminator 2 was one of the best cinematic sequels ever made, T3: The Rise Of the Machines might be even better. Jonathan Mostow's approach to the story is compelling and mature, Arnold's reappearance is explained cleverly, and the action scenes live up to the precedent set by the first two films. Once again, The Terminator is state-of-the-art.

Better Luck Tomorrow (2002)

A decent, but ultimately despairing, coming-of-age story

[5/10 · 30 April 2003]

The marketing campaign for this movie led me to believe it fell into the Pulp Fiction camp. It is not a gangster/fun-loving-criminal picture. This is a film about the lessons learned through adolescence, and the challenges of making your life's decisions as a teenager.

The film is well-made, with a definite indie feel to it. The performances are very good all around. Where it excels most however, is in its characterizations. Although these kids get straight A's, do their homework, and volunteer for good causes, they are also acutely aware that they know how to get away with anything they feel like. In this manner, the movie resembles the film "Kids" from a few years back, but instead of a bunch of low-lifes, here we have national quiz champions and ivy-league recruits. The result is an engaging portrait of some pretty twisted people.

Russian Ark (2002)

Annoying tour guide ruins a peek at Russian history.

[3/10 · 13 March 2003]

Russian Ark takes us on a tour of the Hermitage museum in St. Petersburg, while stepping in and out of different epochs in time as we proceed. We see it through the eyes of a disoriented victim of some unexplained accident which had thrown him into this supernatural state, accompanied all the while by another victim, a rather arrogant but art-loving foreign courtier. Walking in and out of the exhibit rooms, the wonderful building is filled with passive onlookers, who are alternately oblivious, intrigued, perturbed, or frightened by our presence.

While the experience of discovering the many treasures housed in the museum (and of witnessing first-hand some of Russia's splendored history) is sublime, the journey is ruined by our annoying fellow misfit, and the dimwitted behavior of the first-person character, who frustratingly never looks in the directions we want to see. In fact, he seems much more interested in the behavior and reactions of that other ghost than in discovering for himself the magnificent artifacts laid before him.

The whole feature is presented in one take, which I haven't seen attempted since Hitchcock's "Rope." Here, the method really drags, and it didn't make it feel like an exercise in discovery, as much as an exercise in monotony.