gotham23 Reviews

The Chocolate War (1988)

Another Hollywood whitewash

[30 May 2004]

SPOILER (ending discussed)

It's not unusual for screenwriters to tinker with certain story elements when adapting novels for cinema. But in "The Chocolate War", the ending is completely changed, and Cormier's point is totally lost. Pitiful.

"The Chocolate War" is a story of a young man who dares to stand up against conformity. This is never easy, and with teenagers it can be hell. Jerry Renault is hounded by his classmates (especially "The Vigils", the secret society at school) and pressured by his teachers. But he refuses to back down.

Throughout most of the film, Keith Gordon is true to Cormier's vision. But this changes completely at the end. Gordon gives us your standard "feel good, everything's okay" Hollywood ending. Jerry is vindicated, and Archie (leader of The Vigils) gets exactly what he deserves.

Well guess what people: life doesn't always work out that way. Sometimes, bad things happen to really good people. Sometimes, bad behavior is rewarded and virtue is punished. That's what happened in Cormier's book, and while it wasn't a wonderful happy ending, it MEANT SOMETHING. It's too bad that Gordon - like most Hollywood hacks - doesn't think his audience can handle that.

Hellboy (2004)

This movie is awful

[14 April 2004]

This is one of the worst films I've seen in a long time. Everything about this movie is bad.

The plot - if you can call it that - is poorly conceived and/or poorly conveyed. Even taken in the context of a comic book adaptation which can provide a lot more leeway, whatever story elements the audience can actually understand are more annoying than entertaining. The story is just half-baked.

The script is clearly a draft. This is a film that needed that last round of editing before it should have been shot. That wouldn't have saved the movie, but at least the dialog would have been less irritating. The one-liners lack any originality or wit. This is just bad writing, plain and simple.

The characters are just as bad. I couldn't bring myself to care about Hellboy, Liz, the professor, or the dork from the FBI. The villians? I didn't even understand who they were, so how could I care about them?

"The Hulk" proved that we're no longer impressed by realistic computer-generated characters when they're featured in disappointing movies. It's okay to stress style over substance, but you've got to give us SOMETHING behind the effects. Del Toro doesn't do that at all, and the resulting film is a dismal failure. Avoid this one at all costs.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Being Jim Carrey

[9/10 · 20 March 2004]

Wow. What a film.

(Spoilers herein)

This movie takes a little while to get going, and then there are moments when it lags. The reason for this is clear: with the exception of the ending, all the scenes that aren't inside Carrey's brain are disappointing. Fortunately, the vast majority of the movie is inside his brain, and these scenes really shine. Carrey is an unbelievable actor.

This film is about many things, but it boils down to fate, love, and the pain we're willing to put ourselves through to get love. Carrey and Winslet are total polar opposites, but they belong together. They fall in love, fight, break up, erase their memories, and fall in love again. And then when they discover they've been in love before and ended up breaking each other's hearts, they stay together anyway. Why? Because that's love. You can't predict it. You can't fight it. You can't stop it. And you shouldn't try.

There are only two parts of this movie that I would change. First is the side story of Mary (the receptionist) and the doctor. It really drags down the rest of the film, and it's a totally unnecessary because it's just a plot device to set it up so that Winslet and Carrey find out they've fallen in love before. And that's the other thing I would change. Since the real point is that they fell in love all over again, the film could have ended with that. They didn't have to find out it happened before.

But I'm knitpicking. This is an amazing movie. It's too bad it was released so early in the year, because I think that may hurt Carrey as far as Oscar nominations. I'm not going to say he should win the award here (maybe...but lets see what other films come out this year), but he should definitely be considered for a nomination. We're witnessing an amazing transformation from goofball comedian to bona fide actor, something we saw faint glimpses of in "The Truman Show" and "Man on the Moon"

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)

So good, it killed the genre

[10/10 · 13 March 2004]

(Minor spoiler at the end of this review)

Americans love Westerns.

At least, we used to. The film era began just as the American frontier was closing, and it's only natural that the cinema took its place. Without a frontier to explore, a certain part of the American identity vanished. So we turned to film.

So why is it that until "Unforgiven" won the Oscar in '92, the American Western had all but disappeared from mainstream film? Some might tell you that sci-fi took its place ("Space, the final frontier"). Others might say that we simply lost interest in the subject. The truth is that Leone (not even an American!) created such a masterpiece here that he practically killed the genre. He didn't just raise the bar. He lifted it into the stratosphere. Is it any wonder that other filmmakers were afraid to follow in his footsteps?

What makes this film so good, you ask? What DOESN'T??? The locales and landscapes are amazing. The set design is incredible. The score (like anything from Ennicione) is a work of art. The writing is superb. The directing: masterful. The acting? Out of this world. Wallach, Van Cleef, and Eastwood couldn't have been more perfect for their parts. Eastwood especially. It's ironic that his character ("The man with no name", otherwise known as "Blondie") is referred to as "The Good" considering that all three of them seem to lack any true morals or ethics. But that's part of what makes his performance so impressive. Just like Pacino did in "The Godfather", Eastwood gives us a man that brings out our sympathy and empathy without truly being a "protagonist" in the classic sense of the word. Logically, there's no reason why we should root for him over the other guys, but we can't stop ourselves. Leone knows this, and seems to intentionally drive the point home with the climax when he breaks The Cardinal Rule of Westerns: The "good guy" NEVER shoots first.

Every movie fan needs to see this, ESPECIALLY those that "don't like" westerns.

Comedian (2002)

Stand-up documentary's a let-down

[7 March 2004]

What a disappointment.

The problem here is not that I was expecting something like the show. I understood what this was about going into the theatre. It's not "Seinfeld" the TV show. The whole point of this documentary is that Jerry's hit the club circuit again, and that he's trying out a whole new style of comedy rather than the "Humorous observations about everyday life" that made him famous. The problem is that it's simply not a very good documentary. It's erratic and disjointed. It was marketed as a documentary about Jerry Seinfeld, but instead we're forced to spend half the movie listening to a nobody who fails to capture our attention or sympathy in any way. Towards the end, Jerry drops in on Bill Cosby and we don't really know why. Even worse, the conversation between the two is awkward, rambling, boring, and offers absolutely no new insights into either man.

A documentary should teach you something. When you walk out of the theatre, you should have some new insights into the subject matter. By that standard, this film is a complete failure. In the end, all it really tells us is that being a stand up comedian on the club circuit isn't easy. But is there anybody who didn't already know that?

The Fog of War (2003)

"Lessons" don't really teach much

[7 March 2004]

This film is certainly interesting, but not as successful as it could have been. It works on some levels, but not on others.

This viewer didn't really care for many of the techniques that Morris used. The "Filmmaking 101" techniques are just way too obvious. Every time McNamara starts talking about one of the war hawks, Morris shows us a slow-motion clip of the person in question that makes them look very evil. Once can be interesting, but Morris does it over and over here and it costs him credibility because he's stressing style over substance.

As far the substance goes, "Fog of War" falls a little short. I'm a firm believer that a documentary needs to teach you something and offer new insights into the subject matter. Watching this film, the audience does learn some interesting things about the Cuban Missile Crisis, the opening days of the Vietnam War, and what went on inside Kennedy's and LBJ's cabinet meetings.

But this documentary isn't really about the Cuban Crisis or Vietnam. It's supposed to be about McNamara himself, and that's where the film fails. Aside from a few minor details about his personal life - I had no idea he was the President of Ford Motor Company - we don't walk away with any new knowledge about him. Yes, he's a tortured soul who's spent decades agonizing over the decisions he made as Secretary. But didn't we already know that? McNamara did all the interviews for the news magazines when he was on his book tour back in the mid-90s, and we gained a lot of insight into him then. Does this film offer anything new? Not really, and that's why it's a failure as a documentary.

The Godfather Part III (1990)

Just give it a shot

[6 March 2004]

Yes, yes, yes...we all know that Sophia Coppola is lousy here. But while her part was an important one, the movie doesn't revolve around her. If you allow one of the supporting actors to ruin an entire film for you, I pity you.

There's a complex, captivating story going on here. Of course it doesn't capture the same magic that the first two films did, but that would be impossible. This is a story about a tortured soul, a man desperate to escape his past but who never will. It's fascinating because Michael is overwhelmed by guilt and remorse for the decisions he's made over the decades, but even with the benefit of hindsight he doesn't see how he could have done anything different (and the audience needs to contemplate whether or not this is true). Meanwhile, this character study is all wrapped up in a riveting story of political intrigue, corruption, and deception.

Pacino is his usual brilliant self. Garcia puts in a great performance and really does remind you of Sonny. Talia Shire (nepotism isn't all bad!) does a wonderful job as well, showing us a Connie who's evolved into a frighteningly cold and vicious woman. Probably the most underrated actor here is Eli Wallach as Don Altobello, a worthy foe for a criminal mind like Michael's. Yes, it was a mistake for Coppola to cast his daughter, who was a complete amateur at that time. And in an obvious attempt to replicate the assassinations/baptism scene from the original, Puzo and Coppola tried too hard and the result was an overly complicated and slightly confusing finale. But overall, this is one fantastic movie.

A final thought (MINOR SPOILER HERE): Pacino's performance in the final scene, on the steps of the opera house, is one of the most incredible acting displays I've ever seen. Never in my life have I seen such believable anguish and pain.

Dirty Dancing (I) (1987)

Bad filmmaking 101

[2 March 2004]

No matter how lousy a film is, if you make it sappy enough people will just lick it up.

This is one of the worst films of the 80s, and I can't fathom how so many people rate it so highly. The only good actor is Jerry Orbach, and he's hardly on screen. The film uses every single cliche in the book, from the "good little girl who's so repressed" to the "spontaneous" choreographed finale. This is like a lesson in how to make a bad movie.

I'm not surprised that plenty of people seem to enjoy watching this film. But that doesn't make it "good". If you like the music because it reminds you of your childhood, fine. If you admire baby because you wished you could broken out of your prison when you were a teenager, fine. And if you like seeing Swayze shake his booty around, that's fine, too.

But don't say this is actually a good film. It's awful.

The Curse of the Bambino (2003 TV Movie)

Documentary is nonsense, and so is "The Curse"

[3/10 · 1 March 2004]

There is no curse.

HBO spent an hour documenting something that doesn't exist, and they didn't even do a very good job of it. The Boston Red Sox have a long, colorful history, and it's true that part of the story is their inability to win a championship for nearly 90 years despite getting agonizingly close about once a generation. But that's only part of the story. 86 years since 1918 and the best HBO can come up with is "The Curse"? There's so much more than that to this team. If HBO wanted to make a documentary about the Boston Red Sox, there really was the potential for a meaningful examination of a historic club that has a very special bond with its fans all across New England.

Instead, we get an hour of sob stories set to depressing background music. I'm sure Affleck did this for a laugh, but he sounds like a fool narrating this nonsense. It's not even an accurate representation of the fans. One has to wonder how many hours of interviews they left on the cutting room floor, with most fans probably acknowledging that the team's had some bad breaks but that it just makes one anticipate the following season even more. Few Sox fans would say that Dan Shaughnessy speaks for them.

And even fewer believe in a curse.