lee-p-sherman Reviews

Cyber Wars (2004)

Above-Average Tech Noir

[7/10 · 30 June 2010]

I'll try to keep the spoilers minor. "Cyber Wars" a.k.a. "Avatar" a.k.a. "Matrix Hunter" is sort of William Gibson meets Roman Polanski. It's a cyberpunk suspense film that reminded me over and over of "Chinatown." Not that it's derivative, it just has things in common, like atmosphere, a focus on the dark underbelly of a nice beautiful city, and a pessimistic view of human beings.

It's set in a major city of the future, the location of which is never specified (although it's the site of a former rain forest). Everyone there is from somewhere else. This point is driven home by having almost everyone in the cast speak English like it isn't their first language, which can get grating. A future evolution of the Internet is a cornerstone of life, and cybernetics, electronics, holograms, antigravity, biotechnology, and other high technology abound.

Our heroine, Dash MacKenzie, is a bounty hunter who tracks down people who assume new identities using cutting edge technology. Her latest quarry is Edward Chan, who walked away from a seemingly perfect life to become someone else. Who? It's her job to find out. And everybody and their dog is looking for him. That's the setup, and it turns out to be a case of bait-and-switch. The Edward Chan plot is resolved before the halfway mark, and it takes us into a nearly unrelated plot, opening up a web of intrigue that sends our hero to an important convolution of the World Wide Web.

The future depicted here certainly looks futuristic. It's a striking, unique view of the future, and seems disturbingly believable in some ways but over-the-top in other ways. The effects are good, except for the dragonfly robots, which are low-end C.G.I. The virtual reality of the Cyberlink (read: Internet) is probably the part of the movie that will stick with me the most. I don't know if it's all that creative or original, but it's visually striking, and seems almost like a logical extrapolation. But the movie's futurism is a double-edged sword. Much time that could be used for storytelling is instead devoted to showing off every little thing the writer can imagine and the special effects department can show. Also, because future concepts, words, and eye candy were flying at me left, right, and center, it took me a while to get a grasp on what was actually happening. I guess the idea is that, since these people live in this world, nobody's going to take time to explain everything. That works in "THX 1138." Not so much here. There are a few moments that still have me scratching my head. I can't help but feel that, if a better director had handled this, this future world could be more understandable and even more enthralling.

Speaking of which, the direction is only a couple rungs above pedestrian. An unfortunate side effect of the similarities to "Chinatown" is that they make me notice how much better directed that film is. I wish "Cyber Wars" could have been directed by someone like Roman Polanski, or at least Rob Bowman.

But the biggest weakness is the lead actress. Genevieve O'Reilly, best known for her cameo in "Revenge of the Sith," plays Dash, and botches it rather badly. She's wooden, and never seems quite urban enough for someone of her background and profession (part of this isn't the actress' fault: the makeup department makes her look immaculate in every scene). I suspect she was cast solely because she looks good naked (and the viewer is made aware of this to a gratuitous extent). The rest of the cast fares much better, thankfully. Luoyong Wang does a good job of carrying the film (although he's not exactly Laurence Olivier). But the ones who really shine are the tycoons (and some of their cronies), particularly Joan Chen (of "Last Emperor" fame) and David Warner. The other great character is the pathetic washed-up bounty hunter Riley, played by Larry from "Newhart" (I could look up the actor's name, but is that really necessary?). There are a few other neat, colorful characters, who I won't list. Honestly, the main character is very far down the list of interesting people in this movie.

"Cyber Wars" is a cut above your usual post-"Matrix" cyberthriller. It could have been something truly fantastic if there weren't various flaws chipping away at it, but it's still easy to enjoy. And there's just enough left unexplored to justify a sequel. Maybe Dash can change her identity into a better actress.

The Company of Wolves (1984)

Cool Werewolves, Shame about the Rest

[4/10 · 14 June 2010]

I wanted to like this movie. I saw a Halloween mask tie-in for it when I was little, and thought it was cool. A year or two ago I saw that same face (a man with the snout of a wolf coming out of his open mouth) on a reproduced movie poster. I learned the name of the movie, and saw that David Warner was in it. "If any actor would make a good Werewolf, it's him," I thought. I frantically searched for the movie everywhere, but couldn't find it. But now I have Netflix, and it was just a matter of time before I watched "The Company of Wolves." David Warner is just the main character's father, and some no-name actor played the Werewolf. But that's not the only thing that disappointed me.

Basically, this is a liberal adaptation of "Little Red Riding Hood" padded out to 80 minutes. Much of the space is filled by short and inconsequential stories within the story. And the story itself is the dream of a teenage girl living in 1980s England. There are a few minutes in reality at the beginning, where we meet her parents and "much older" sister (they look the same age). Then the rest is her dream. You would think that at the end she would wake up and the P.O.V. would return to reality. But no, the credits just roll and there's a cheesy poem. It raises the question of why there was a frame story in the first place.

The dream is set in a Fairy tale world that is simultaneously the Middle Ages, the Georgian Era, and the Victorian Era. It casts her and her family members in roles, and includes toys from her room as characters (this and other parts may have inspired the makers of "Labyrinth," but don't mistake this for a film of that caliber). So why not just have the Fairy tale as the whole movie? My guess is that the frame story was tacked on at the last minute to keep a surreal film from losing audiences.

Still, it's hard to care too much about what happens in the dream. It's not utterly terrible, but it's overly melodramatic. It's also punctuated by random surreal sequences that don't make sense even in their Fairy tale context. Some are clever in and of themselves, but they hinder the narrative rather than help it. To make things worse, most of the supporting cast really ham it up. For example, the priest is played by Graham Crowden, infamous to "Doctor Who" fans for his abysmal performance as Soldeed in the serial "The Horns of Nimon." On the other hand, the production values are high, and there are some very creative designs and visual effects. Chief among these are the Werewolf transformations. In the one depicted on the poster, the Werewolf in human form licks his lips with a wolf's tongue, then convulses and opens his mouth wide. A wolf's snout protrudes and howls, and his skin splits like an insect pupa to reveal the body of a wolf. The other, better transformation shows the man actually tearing his skin off like a rubber mask, revealing the underlying musculature. The teeth lengthen, then the whole thing twists into the musculature of a wolf. The camera cuts away, and when it's back a new skin with a coat of fur has appeared, and the wolf is complete. The makeup and animatronics are good enough to make these sequences chillingly realistic, and stand out as some of the best Werewolf effects I've ever seen. In fact, I've studied human anatomy, and seen cadavers in photographs and preserved on display, and the skinless face in this movie may be the most realistic portrayal of the subject I've ever seen in film (much better than in "Darkman" or "The Dark Knight").

Sadly, such strokes of genius are not supported by the bulk of the film: a hazy, somewhat nonsensical dream that tries to tell an adult story in the over-the-top language of a children's movie. In my opinion, it averages out to a film that's a little below "passable." I suppose I could recommend this to film students and connoisseurs of practical special effects, but watch at your own risk: the quality of acting and storytelling is sub-par. It's also not for the faint of heart: there's an explicit nude scene with a filthy female Werewolf in human form that could turn someone off women for life.

Ring 0: Birthday (2000)

Am I the only one who's confused?

[7/10 · 2 May 2010]

This review has serious spoilers. I'm unsure exactly how to rate this film, since I'm not sure if the things that confused me when I watched it were due to bad writing or a failure on my part. None of the other reviews seem to mention the things I'm referring to, probably because they're impossible discuss without giving away major plot twists. So I'm going to give away the major plot twists. Don't read the rest of this review if you don't want to know them.

First I'll talk about the stuff I did get. The direction is true to the original (the director is different, but you'd never know without reading the credits). It's also truly amazing. Scenes that on paper would seem old-hat really get the heart pounding, thanks to the excellent way they are portrayed. Lighting, camera angles, music, and other tools are used to terrific effect. Another thing I like is how several shots of the normal human Sadako seem to foreshadow her appearance as a specter with face-obscuring hair in "Ringu." The depiction of the dream of the well is less successful in my opinion. There is some filter added to the footage to make it look washed-out (to look like the killer videotape, I guess), and I find it annoying. It's much more annoying later on when the same filter is used in shots of waking reality for no apparent reason. But for the most part, the visual aspect of the film is fantastic.

The storytelling is also fine. I realized as the film was reaching its one quarter mark that a huge amount has been shown and told to the viewer, yet it seems quite natural, without any problems of pacing or clumsy exposition. The shot of the girl, circa 1998, at the beginning is unnecessary, and caused confusion for me because for a while I thought other things were being shown in a nonlinear fashion. I can see the purpose: This whole tale is based on the sort of supernatural rumors/urban myths that are common in Japan. But I think it would've been better to begin in the '60s. The style of that little prolog is also jarring, with rapid cuts and techno music. But moving on, the pacing is good and there is a lot of tension and creepiness throughout. It transforms into a more immediate sort of horror in the last third.

Some minor continuity issues are created. It seems unlikely that Asakawa Reiko in "Ringu" wouldn't run across any news reports or verbal accounts of tragedy at the play, or the aftermath. I mean, there was a whole audience there when it happened. People were killed. There would be a newspaper report, and probably a police investigation. Also, nobody ever calls the police in the whole movie, although that might be a cultural thing I don't understand. But for the most part, the movie rings true (no pun intended). It's not one of those sequels with massive retcons.

On to the main thing I don't understand. As I understand it, Sadako has an identical twin who her father has been keeping locked up all these years, and has given drugs so she never underwent proper puberty. This twin is a physical person, not a spirit. The stuff with Sadako's mother as the "other person" was apparently a red herring, although her ghost is really there and is playing some nebulous role. But Sadako's twin's astral self has been following Sadako around and causing these problems, and eventually takes partial control of Sadako's mangled body. But at the end it's Sadako who's killed, and her twin is unaccounted for. We don't even see the twin except for in one shot in the forest, and even that could be an astral projection. So what happened to her? And why wasn't she in the room that Miyaji went into? And why doesn't her father make some attempt to save her from the murderous mob that randomly arrives at his door? Also, why does Touyama go along with the mob? And what was that business with Sadako's body distorting itself in the room with Miyaji and Etsuko? A random creepy thing for effect, or something important I'm failing to connect? None of these things make sense to me. I haven't read any of the books, so that might be where the problem lies.

Now a couple miscellaneous observations. There are some sort of secret messages in the film, symbols that appear on the screen for a few frames. I noticed two, but there are probably more. I'm assuming this is a clever little thing done to foreshadow the cryptic videotape in the sequel, and not a mastering error on the D.V.D. I'm rather annoyed that so many reviewers bring up "Carrie." This film owes nothing to "Carrie." They both just happen to be based on the same real-life phenomena.

This is a riveting, truly scary movie that may be better or worse than how I've rated it depending on whether or not the "plot flaws" I see in the final third are actually plot flaws.

Spiral (1998)

It all falls apart in the last half hour

[4/10 · 2 May 2010]

I'll try to handle this with only minor spoilers. "Rasen" is an alternate version of "Ringu 2" in some ways. Both begin shortly after "Ringu" (one day for "Rasen," one week for "Ringu 2"). Both have most of the main cast of "Ringu" and much of the supporting cast, and use or recreate many locations and sets, believably portraying the immediate aftermath of the prior film's conclusion. Lastly, both place a large emphasis on Takano Mai, Takayama Ryuuji's student who is implied to have an intimate relationship with him in "Ringu" (in "Rasen" it's established that they were lovers, in "Ringu 2" she had a crush on him which he didn't reciprocate), who has E.S.P. (which wasn't even hinted at in "Ringu"). But "Rasen" and "Ringu 2" are mutually exclusive. Neither is consistent with the other, nor is "Ringu 2" (made only a year later) a remake of "Rasen"). Basically things diverge into two different fictional universes at the end of "Ringu" (both are consistent with "Ringu 0," or at least the parts of "Ringu 0" that I understood). I haven't read any of the books or short stories, so I don't know which of the sequels, if either, has a is based on one. The Wikipedia is of no help, since one page says "Rasen" is based on the written sequel to "Ringu" and "Ringu 2" has no literary basis, while another page says the opposite.

Our protagonist is Mitsuo Andou, a somewhat unhinged colleague and friend to Takayama Ryuuji. He's not in "Ringu," but his insertion into continuity isn't awkward. The rest of the cast is mostly from "Ringu." Ryuuji has lots of screen time, despite being dead.

In a totally random digression, Takayama Ryuuji's full name is said numerous times in the first three minutes of the movie, and it's unintentionally funny. It reminds me of a similar thing in "The Godfather, Part III" with Joey Zasa.

The first half hour of "Ringu 2" is little more than a recap of "Ringu." Two different people synopsize it, and there are lots of flashbacks. Actually, there are lots of flashbacks in the remaining hour, too. To "Ringu," to other backstory, and to earlier parts of this film. Some are shown twice, one is shown three times. Most are unnecessary, and even the helpful ones are usually worked in awkwardly. But back to what I was saying: Over a third of the movie is over before anything really happens, and much of the next third is superfluous. At about the one hour mark, Mai's E.S.P. is revealed, her and Andou begin having an amorous relationship completely out of the blue, and the real story kicks in. This is also where it all starts to fall apart because, once the movie gets past all the creepy set-pieces and recaps of "Ringu," all that's left is the plot. And the plot is pretty bad.

I won't spoil things by going into too much detail, but it's about what Sadako's ghost does once it's released from the well. Basically getting its revenge on the world in ways that weren't remotely suggested in "Ringu." The videotape ceases to be important. I don't think anything explicitly contradicts anything in "Ringu," but it doesn't feel true to its spirit. And the speed at which this plot unfolds is still remarkably slow, because there are more flashbacks, more unnecessary exposition and restatement, and scenes that play out much longer than necessary. Of course, even if you remove the padding, it's still a silly little runaround with people doing things for the sake of the plot rather than any realistic motivation. By the end, I really didn't care anymore, and was mainly just watching in case I would have to know some of this to understand "Ringu 2" (at that point I didn't realize "Ringu 2" wasn't any kind of sequel to "Rasen").

The high point of this movie, without a doubt, is Andou's vision of the dissected Ryuuji coming to life during his autopsy. It's an incredibly realistic effect, and truly chilling. Not for the faint of heart, yet still the only good reason to watch "Rasen." Watch the other three as a trilogy and forget this one. Four out of ten might be a little generous, but on the other hand it seemed to be a good movie for well over half its length.

Ring 2 (1999)

New wrinkles to the Ringu mythos

[2 May 2010]

I'll try to handle this with only minor spoilers. "Ringu 2" is an alternate version of "Rasen" in some ways. Both begin shortly after "Ringu" (one day for "Rasen," one week for "Ringu 2"). Both have most of the main cast of "Ringu" and much of the supporting cast, and use or recreate many locations and sets, believably portraying the immediate aftermath of the prior film's conclusion (although one character seems to have gained weight and grown her hair out in the intervening week). Lastly, both place a large emphasis on Takano Mai, Takayama Ryuuji's student who is implied to have an intimate relationship with him in "Ringu" (in "Rasen" it's established that they were lovers, in "Ringu 2" she had a crush on him which he didn't reciprocate), who has E.S.P. (which wasn't even hinted at in "Ringu"). But "Ringu 2" makes it clear very early that it isn't meant to be consistent with "Rasen." Basically things diverge into two different fictional universes at the end of "Ringu" (both are consistent with "Ringu 0," or at least the parts of "Ringu 0" that I understood). I haven't read any of the books or short stories, so I don't know which of the sequels, if either, is based on one. The Wikipedia is of no help, since one page says "Rasen" is based on the written sequel to "Ringu" and "Ringu 2" has no literary basis, while another page says the opposite. Incidentally, bits from this movie are grafted into the American remake of "Ringu." While "Rasen" sidelines the videotape and introduces radical new pieces of the "Ringu" mythos, "Ringu 2" deals with the natural aftermath of "Ringu" and basically plays around with what was already established. We learn more about how the videotape is propagated, the ghosts of the people who saw it, and what happens to people who didn't see it but were touched by it in some way. This is done using mainly minor characters from "Ringu" (some extremely minor), although important main cast members come into the story about halfway through, and even Ryuuji shows up (despite being dead). Other elements include some very interesting stuff about the real-life paranormal phenomenon of psychic photography, or "thoughtography." The climax of the movie is a sort of scientific exorcism conducted by a parapsychologist who doesn't believe in ghosts. Naturally, this goes terribly wrong, and the final resolution is more rooted in traditional Japanese mysticism than any kind of science. It includes a Deus ex machina, but it's still rather satisfying. It would be a stretch to call what we get a happy ending, but it's more positive than any of the other three "Ringu" movies. The last major difference from "Rasen" is that there are almost no flashbacks.

I do, of course, have some complaints. We learn that Sadako was alive in the well for years before expiring not long before "Ringu." This is hard to buy, even if you account for black magic. That also has basically nothing to do with the rest of the movie. Also, the death of a major character is handled rather poorly. So much so that I didn't even realize they had died until it was stated in dialog some twenty five minutes later! "Ringu 2" isn't as scary, engaging, or tightly-constructed as "Ringu" (or even "Ringu 0"), but it's still quite good when weighed against your average supernatural horror film. It's also very true to the spirit of "Ringu," and has very much the same visual style and "feel" (it's the only "Ringu" sequel or prequel to have the same director as the original). Less effective is the music. It's by Kenji Kawai, who also scored "Ringu" and countless animé, usually with much better results than here. Half of it is a sort of techno-pop that sounds like it comes from a montages in an '80s film, while the other half is a pastiche of Mark Snow's music for "The X-Files." I noticed three places where it quoted a memorable "X-Files" cue almost note-for-note. Rather annoying. But besides that, and the inevitable comparisons with the far superior "Ringu," this is an entertaining horror film with twists and turns. I honestly didn't know what was going to happen next (and not because the things happening were random and ridiculous, like in "Rasen"). And get this: At one point I had gotten so absorbed in the movie that, when they showed the cursed videotape, I literally looked away from the screen for a moment, so it wouldn't kill me, before I came to my senses. I recommend this movie to anyone who enjoyed "Ringu."

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

Not *That* Bad

[5/10 · 8 April 2010]

I saw this movie when I was about 11 and liked it. Later I learned of all the scorn heaped upon it, and figured it was one of those shabby films that only seems entertaining when you're not old enough to scrutinize it in the least (e.g. the "Ninja Turtles" live-action movies). But I rented it today for curiosity's sake, and I still like it. I honestly don't understand why it's gone down in history as one of the worst films ever made. If any of them deserve scorn, it's "Superman III." But that's a different review for a different day.

I'm not going to claim this is a great film. It does have problems. Except for a few nicely-constructed models (particularly the Russian space station), the special effects are bargain basement. It doesn't have as many nice character moments as the first movies or "Superman Returns." The plot doesn't flow naturally. The green crystal is an unsatisfying Deus ex machina (and really confusing in light of the first movie, although I think we're supposed to believe this is a separate crystal piece of the spaceship that we didn't see before – maybe they should've made it purple to avoid confusion). A number of things come up only to be dropped. And, perhaps most unfortunately, the real issues of the Cold War and nuclear disarmament aren't fully explored. But "Superman IV" is not a bad piece of entertainment, and it's refreshing to see a movie that depicts the world as a place where people can rise above all the hatred and evil and forge a better future.

I could criticize this movie for being scientific nonsense, but the "Superman" movies have always been closer to fantasy than science fiction, and this isn't really any worse than the others. We have Superman talking in the vacuum of space and being heard by astronauts, but that happened in "II" with Ursa. And a lot has been made about how he telekinetically moves things in this movie by looking at them, but Zod did the same thing in "II" and that didn't seem to bother anyone. Him ringing the doorbell from the balcony to appear as Clark Kent once Lois turns her head is stretching credibility, and the part where Lacy is taken into space is stupid, but little things like that aren't what ruin a film in a series where heavy suspension of disbelief is par for the course. Lastly, none of the "plot holes" are that serious, and most of them are just a byproduct of the (admittedly clumsy) editing job done to improve the film's pacing and remove a braindead subplot.

Now I'll focus on the positive things. The part where Clark playfully reveals himself as Superman to Lois, consults her for advice, then reinstates the mental block, is great. It was pretty much the only thing I remembered from watching the movie as a kid, and there's a reason. It's beautiful, funny, and provides insight into the Man of Steel's mind. The subplot with Lacy and her father is good for some laughs. The humor and drama are in a ratio that I consider good, as in "Superman Returns" and the Donner Cut of "Superman II." Probably the biggest highlight is Lex Luthor. He may have natural hair for no apparent reason, but he's the same magnificent bastard he was in the two "Superman" films I love. The lines written for him and Gene Hackman's performance are both top notch. And, while I'm on the subject, Christopher Reeve does a great job too, although there isn't a whole lot to his role in this film (excepting the scene described above). On the minus side, Margot Kidder phones it in, and the rest of the supporting cast is so-so. Jon Cryer is wasted as Lex Luthor's teenage nephew.

There is one thing that really annoys me about "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace," mainly because it baffles the hell out of me. Holograms of Kryptonian elders appear to Kal-El in the Fortress of Solitude, and none of them are the same elders who appeared in the first two movies. Makes sense, couldn't get the actors, y'know. Except John Hollis, who played one of the Kryptonian elders in those movies, is in this movie in a totally different role (Soviet general). I mean, seriously, what's up with that? The bottom line: This isn't a bad movie. I don't know if I'd recommend buying it, but you should rent it if you like "Superman," or if you want to show the kids something fun that isn't violent or obscene. It's a pleasant, optimistic, fairly engaging action-fantasy story, and it has lots to offer those who look to the '80s with nostalgia. And be sure to watch the deleted scenes, because one is better than anything in the feature. It's a clever bit of political commentary that depicts the Cold War arms race as an '80s arcade game, with all the quarters going to Lex Luthor and his fellow war profiteers.

Species: The Awakening (2007 TV Movie)

Not Bad, Not Amazing, but Solid

[6/10 · 28 March 2010]

One nice thing about the "Species" movies is that they all approach the subject from a different angle. "Species III" is terrible, but at least it doesn't recapitulate the plot of either previous film. This installment continues the trend. It's also rather entertaining, although "Species III" set the bar so low that it's easy to praise anything coming afterward.

I enjoy this movie, with reservations, and I'll try to explain why without any major spoilers. Like I said, there's no rehashing...or returning cast members, for that matter. None of the human-alien hybrids in this movie are genetically identical to Sil and Eve, so none look quite the same in human or alien form. This also allows the writer (Ben Ripley, who scripted "Species III" but seems to be trying much harder this time around) to give them different strengths, weaknesses, and behavioral traits than the hybrids we've seen before without causing inconsistencies. That being said, the E.S.P. on display in this film seems like a stretch. But besides some minor issues, this movie adds new wrinkles to the "Species" mythos without contradicting or shifting emphasis from what we already know.

Our main "template" here is played by Helena Mattson. Her roles tend to capitalize on her body more than her acting talents, but here she does a fine job of portraying a very human character, and the camera doesn't linger on her female anatomy *that* much. This character never doubted her humanity before, and her reactions to the revelations in the film are believable and evoke sympathy. She also plays a more hostile and contemptible character later in the sequence of events. The actress fits into the new persona well, and conveys this other set of character traits with subtlety. The other two thirds of the main cast consists of actors who've put on unimpressive performances in recent incarnations of "Star Trek," but both are more than passable here.

Another thing that pleasantly surprised me is the number of truly scary moments. Not on the level of the first movie, and maybe not even on the level of "Alien 3," but definitely not your by-the-numbers aliens-killing-humans scenes. The only times the effects don't seem authentic is in scenes where things are happening so quickly it's hard to say what you're even seeing. One complaint goes to the scene where two of the hybrids (in "alien" form, with the exoskeletons and protuberances) appear together. They look so similar I often couldn't tell which was which. The movie's set mostly in Mexico, and uses the locales to creepy effect. You're likely to be reminded of "The Arrival" more than the previous "Species" installments (and that's not just due to the setting; both were produced by Lorenzo O'Brien). There are a couple times the action/slaying/mayhem verges on silly, but those are thankfully rare, and the movie doesn't really come across as over-the-top. Just don't expect clinical realism.

I was perhaps most surprised by how the very ending was handled. I was expecting much worse. If this proves to be the final chapter in the "Species" series, it will be a worthy end.

The bottom line is this isn't a bad sci-fi/horror/action movie. This isn't even one where you turn your brain off and enjoy yourself. This is a solid piece of cinema, despite going straight to D.V.D. However, there's nothing in the premise or plotting that's really brilliant, the creature designs and effects won't blow your mind, and the script's psychological and sociological insight is limited.

There Will Be Blood (2007)

Two and a Half Hours of Boring Non-Plot

[3/10 · 25 March 2010]

In 2007, everybody was singing the praises of two movies, "Transformers" and "There Will Be Blood." I saw "Transformers" in theaters, and it was awful. I didn't see "There Will Be Blood" until early 2010, and, while it appeals to the human psyche on a much higher level than "Transformers," it's about as bad. In both cases I'm at a loss to understand why so many people fail to recognize poor film-making when they see it.

This is a two and a half hour movie where very little happens, and what does happen scarcely constitutes a plot. Instead of a story, it's a number of disconnected sequences. Any synopsis I write would seem more like a real story than what the movie actually tells, due to the inherent human trait of connecting and making sense of things, even when they're disparate and devoid of meaning.

You would have every reason go into this movie expecting greatness. After all, it's written, directed, and produced by P. T. Anderson, it stars Daniel Day-Lewis, and it won two Oscars. I don't know if I'd even blame you for thinking this review must be nonsense. But the whole is less than the sum of its parts, and the movie is a waste of time. A lot of time. It's the same length as a seven-part "Doctor Who" serial (not counting credits etc.). In fact, I think that's a good way to illustrate how poorly this film uses its time.

The first three and a half minutes of Part 1 are lengthy shots of the film's protagonist, Daniel Painview, digging an oil well, with no dialog, narration, or music. This was my first warning, but hey, not every movie can open with an exploding moon knocking a coffee cup off a table or planes dropping napalm while a Doors song plays. What follows is an illustration of how Daniel became an oil man and how his business operates now (the year 1911). Part 1 closes with a young man named Eli Sunday telling him about land where oil has been discovered.

We're a ways into Part 2 before the first inklings of a dramatic conflict appear. Near the end, Daniel buys up all the land in the area, except for part that's owned by an old man who he can't be bothered to meet with in person. Eli and others continue to have misgivings about him. We also learn that, while Daniel appears to be an honest, friendly family man, this is actually a façade. He's a shrewd businessman, and a skillful liar. Construction of the derrick is finally underway when Part 2 ends.

In Part 3 we learn that Eli is head of a local church. Daniel doesn't let him bless the well before drilling begins, which happens about halfway through Part 3 (notice the rate of progress here). Eli, the most sympathetic character so far, turns out to have all the makings of an "X-Files" guest star. He's insane. He has multiple personality disorder. He is sometimes Eli, and sometimes his twin brother Paul. He believes he's a faith healer and an exorcist. His congregation think he's the real deal. The cliffhanger that ends Part 3 would be an eruption of natural gas at the oil well.

What passes of a plot in this movie gets underway in Part 4. The disaster destroys the derrick and leaves Daniel's son, H. W., permanently deaf. He's also portrayed as mentally ill in Part 4, though this thread is dropped later. We jump forward to where Daniel has three working oil wells and is coming unhinged. He and Eli have the inevitable falling-out. Daniel meets a con man claiming to be his long-lost half-brother.

Daniel ships H. W. off to some kind of care home at the beginning of Part 5. He's very rich now, and continues to act unhinged, though he's mainly portrayed as consciously evil rather than mentally ill. Part 5 concludes with him uncovering and killing the con man.

In Part 6, Daniel gets away with the murder, buys the land of the old man he didn't meet with earlier, and builds an oil pipeline through it. The condition is that he has to become a member of the old man's church, which happens to be the one Crazy Eli leads. They shame Daniel into taking back his son. A brief montage shows H. W. growing up rather normally and getting married.

Part 7 consists of two scenes set in 1927. That's right, two scenes take up more than twenty minutes. In the first one, Daniel disowns his son, who has grown up to believe in the values that Daniel only pretended to believe in. In the other, Eli asks for Daniel to help his church (including paying money he's owed for sixteen years). Daniel humiliates and murders him.

And that's it. These few events, lacking any real rising action, falling action, overarching conflict, or resolution, take up two and a half hours. Contrast that to what happens in a seven-part "Doctor Who" serial, or seven episodes of "Escaflowne," or three and a half episodes of "24," or two and a half hours of any other work of dramatic storytelling that's worth the time it takes to watch it.

Before I finish, I have to say this movie could be worse. It's directed by somebody who really knows how to put a shot together. There's nothing wrong with the cast, and some of them really sell their characters (especially Paul Dano as Eli Sunday). The writing is mostly believable and self-consistent. It's just directionless, pointless, and dramatized at a testudineous pace. I should have spent the time watching a seven-part "Doctor Who" serial, because they're all better than "There Will be Blood." Even the one where mad scientists force Martians in British spacesuits to rob banks.

Transformers (2007)

Less than meets the eye

[2/10 · 25 March 2010]

When I saw this, I thought it was one of awful movies where word soon spreads about how awful it is, like "Catwoman" and "Last Action Hero." But here we are a quarter of a decade later and there are still people singing the praises of this turkey. So I feel an obligation to give fair warning about just how bad it is, in the hopes that I can save some people from learning that the hard way. Simply put, this is a science fiction action comedy where the science doesn't work, the action isn't entertaining, and the comedy isn't funny. It has no value, and should be avoided (except in a "Mystery Science Theater"-type mindset).

I'm someone who can enjoy mindless action films. "Alien vs. Predator." "Batman and Robin." I'll watch that stuff over and over and like it. But this! This is the exception that proves the rule. This is the mindless action film that's so mindless it fails to be a pleasant diversion. This is a movie made by people who think that we, the movie-going public, will watch *anything*.

"Alien vs. Predator" isn't your Hal Clement, Poul Anderson-style hard science fiction. But it doesn't expect you to buy blatantly bogus science. Things like a cellular phone and a laptop computer unfolding into robots that are not only the same volume, but look exactly the same as well. Or that sound waves are something you can represent three-dimensionally, so a computer hacker can rotate the sound wave ninety degrees and read hieroglyphics off it. Or that an alien artifact can restructure machines, even ones with almost no electronic or mechanical parts, into fully functional robots with minds of their own, in the space of one second. All these things happen in "Transformers." These aren't just beyond believability. These are insults to the viewer's intelligence.

"Batman and Robin" isn't Shakespeare. But it is a sequence of scenes that progress logically from one to the other to form a coherent plot, a plot you can think about, at least briefly, without it all collapsing in on itself. It has characters who speak more or less like human beings with brains functioning at an adult level. Their lines form conversations that progress rationally from one point to the next. All this is more than can be said of the plotting and dialog in "Transformers." And the one saving grace of a mindless action film, the action, is also completely botched in "Transformers." The robot fights are by-the-numbers affairs that fail to excite (by the way, one fight destroys half a major city, and we're expected to believe the government covered it all up at the end). The problem isn't that the C.G.I. is unbelievable. That part is actually competent. The scenes are just really lame. It doesn't help that the Transformers are so over-designed and under-characterized that it's hard to keep track of who's who. When one of the Autobots dies, you don't care (and the other characters barely seem to care either). The military vs. Decepticon sequences don't fare much better, and bringing back the soldier characters from the beginning, who were pretty clearly dead, makes the desert ambush scene seem even more limp.

Even when they're not fighting, the Transformers aren't very interesting. The designer and director fail to make giant robots seem cool. I don't really understand how that's even possible. The only points this movie scores in that area are from the scene with Megatron in the ice cave. That was actually pretty cool.

The emphasis on humor succeeds only in making the viewing experience more painful. Never, ever, at any point in this movie, is *anything* funny. Not intentionally, at least. Every joke and sight gag falls flat. In a movie that seems to have hundreds of these, this is truly mind-boggling.

There you have it. The anatomy of a bad film. You can't even use the excuse that it's for kids, because it isn't. The constant references to sex and masturbation make that pretty clear. It was, however, made to sell toys, and that may be why nobody tried too hard to make it enjoyable in its own right. The toys weren't even very good, by the way. I was working in a toy store in 2007 and I know what I'm talking about. Only the largest ones actually transformed, and those were like $30.00. The rest were basically just regular action figures with the usual number of moving parts, or ones that turned from vehicles into grotesque vehicle-robot hybrids with no more in common with the transformed characters than a Centaur has with a human. The toys also didn't sell very well, at least not until the wave of new commercials for the holiday season and the prerelease promotion for "Transformers: Animated." I can't understand why people like this movie. Or why people think Megan Fox is attractive. I may never know the answers to these mysteries.

House II: The Second Story (1987)

Good Parts + Random Junk = Mediocrity

[5/10 · 12 January 2010]

The enjoyable parts prevent this from being a truly bad film, but only just. The original "House" probably never made anyone's list of top horror movies, but it's entertaining in its own, modest way. I can't say the same for "House II." Nor can I honestly say it's a sequel. It doesn't feature any of the characters from the original. It's also a completely different house. The house in "House" was built on a weak spot between our world and the world of the dead, while the house in "House II" was built at the crossroads of time and space. This is, I believe, an important distinction. There doesn't seem to be any reason for calling this "House II," except to justify the clever subtitle.

But that's not the only problem. The filmmakers clearly didn't know what kind of film they wanted to make, and the result is a jumbled mess. It starts off promising, and is shaping up to be a good haunted-house horror film when it suddenly and inexplicably becomes a fantasy-adventure comedy, during which time the ghost that the movie once seemed to be centered around is never seen and hardly mentioned. Then, after the viewer has adjusted to the new premise, the ghost comes back, and none of the threads brought up during the middle part are properly resolved. It's all pushed aside for a dramatic dénouement, followed by a final scene that raises further questions rather than answering any of the many existing ones.

I should also add that this movie contains several insults to the viewer's intelligence, which I wouldn't excuse even if it were an out-and-out comedy. In one scene, our hero falls hundreds of feet, but falls into a portal that lets him out right above the floor in his own house. The problem is that his momentum shouldn't change, so he should still be dead. In another scene, a zombie is strangled until he loses consciousness. Just think about that one for a moment.

So why did I give this an average review? Because there are good points. It's original, for starters. It may be hugely disjointed with little internal logic, but at least it isn't just retreading old clichés. It features characters who you care about, because they're fairly believable and interesting. It boasts special effects that are well above par for 1987, and some visually intriguing scenes and designs. The humor, as misplaced as it may be at times, is often quite funny. And, above all, there is John Ratzenberger as "Bill Towner, electrician and adventurer." The part with him is just great, not just because of his performance, but the way his character is written, and the sequence's juxtaposition of the banal and the otherworldly. Sadly, he's only in that one scene. If the movie had begun and ended with him, it could have been an '80s fantasy comedy classic (but still wouldn't really be a sequel to "House"). Actually, there are at least three different movies in here, all of which could have been good if they hadn't been thrown together to form a single, unfocused movie.

"House II" isn't a winner, nor is it a complete waste of time. Watch it if the things I've described have piqued your curiosity, but don't expect it to be too entertaining overall.