oscarhopkins Reviews

The Descent (2005)

Descent Into Poor Cinema

[1/10 · 2 October 2008]

What can I tell you? This is not a scary film. It is not an intelligent film. This is a poorly-shot, MTV-style wanna-be starring a would-be G.I. Jane and her lamebrain pals, Trauma Jane, Dr. Jane, Frenchy Jane and Unnecessary Jane. Did I leave out any janes? I wish they had. Seriously, these characters were too dumb even for this shlockfest. They didn't NEED any monsters to chase them, they endangered themselves unaided. Still, monsters we have, and as usual, no one can go underground without meeting some "like a bat, but not a bat" creatures. ho-hum. I've seen and enjoyed bad movies, but this is beyond the pall. Not specific enough? OK--This is the new Red Zone Cuba. We clear now?

Slipstream (2007)

Road To Nowhere

[3/10 · 2 October 2008]

Look, I'm sorry if half the world takes offense at this, but life is confusing enough. I don't need to watch it that way. I dig Anthony Hopkins, big time. I even watched Fracture, and I knew that would be a steaming pile of Quentin. But this thing is not well shot, and it's not daring--even if it is artsy. Well-produced films have reasons for cuts and fast edits, not this "oh, but it's a realistic interpretation" excuse. This thing'll make your head hurt. It's the fastest moving picture ever to take you nowhere at all. I still love AH, and I'll always give him another chance, but if you aren't made of time to watch bad ideas on screen, skip this.

Persepolis (2007)

Style Without Substance.

[6/10 · 2 October 2008]

Well, here it is: as a cartoonist myself, I was interested chiefly because of style, and Persepolis has tons of style. Unfortunately, it does not have tons of content. In preparation for the film, which shot in and out of theaters too fast for me to catch it, I read the 2-volume graphic novel on which the film is based. What basically happened was, all the great, enthralling, life-altering stuff that happens in volume one fails to make the character grow at all in volume two, when she's "coming of age" (I really hate that phrase). She lives through war and poverty and revolutions gone wrong, and all she learns how to do is date silly men, act inconsistently toward friends, and throw secret parties to thwart the Iranian government. So it's sort of a let-down. Mind you, the film and the book are subtly different, but the book is the better, more complete story, so I refer to it primarily, to give the best face to the story as a whole. The film, however, ends with a bizarre choice of reference to an earlier conversation which has no business being the last lines of the film, and seems to have been tacked on just to place a chord at the end of a song with no ending. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the film seems to quit on itself. The author quits on God, country, and nearly everyone else during her life, so I guess quitting is the theme.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

Simpering Todd, the Limp-Wristed Pansy of Fleet Street

[1/10 · 30 July 2008]

The biggest error, other than horrible casting, is that no one appears to have directed this mess. It's just talking heads for scenes and scenes, and all the songs are either gone or underplayed to the point of boredom--it's like Tim Burton is a pouting child who's sitting in a corner saying, "fine, I'll give you songs for your musical, but I don't have to like it--there, there's your song--you happy now?" He clearly isn't interested in making a musical, and that's part of the problem. I think like most of the stuff he remakes, he just ran into this show, and knew one thing: the sellout goth kids would go see it, making tons of dough for him and his fake-out, "look-at-me, I'm-so-artistically-weird," ilk. I mean, I love Sweeney Todd (the musical), and I was bored in this movie. That really shouldn't happen when people are being slaughtered by a barber. That should be holding your interest if it's done right.

Let's just accept the fact that Burton is going to massacre Alice In Wonderland when he gets his hands on it next year. He needs to give up remakes and adaptations altogether, because his track record with them since 1999 is one good (sleepy hollow) to three bad, and this one is even worse than his abysmal Planet of the Apes. Depp is a good actor, and all due respect to the man who played in Gilbert Grape and other fine roles. But this is completely beyond him. He's about as scary as a paper clip. I wouldn't trust him to have the dexterity to manslaughter a munchkin that needed hip replacement. He's that ineffectual. But the real Turkey Award goes to Helena Bonham Carter, whose Mrs. Lovett is so lifeless, it almost makes you unaware of the other howling error in casting her: she can't sing worth a bird's hat. She's really awful, seriously.

SPOILER ALERT: DO NOT READ ON IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN SWEENEY TODD IN SOME FORM OR OTHER!

I'm sorry, but this must be said, and I don't want to spoil the story (although clearly that wasn't a prerogative of Burton's) for anyone, so only read this part if you're familiar with the whole story already.

The reason this got 1.5 stars (rather than .5 stars) is because of one thing: it's really gratifying to see Helena Bonham Carter burning. Really, really gratifying. She should be burned alive in everything she's in from now on.

The Dark Knight (2008)

A Worthwhile Batflick, At Last!

[9/10 · 30 July 2008]

This film is an unaccounted miracle of the 21st century; namely, it's a franchise film that doesn't want to be a franchise film. Sounds impossible? You bet it does. I would not have believed it had I not seen it myself. The late H. Ledger as Joker: faultless. This is, admittedly, the Frank Miller batman, and so it will not appeal to a certain number of people who desire bubblegum batman, and I admit that my personal favorite Joker is still Mark Hamill's from the animated series. This one's a little gritty for my taste. But that's the idea, and it's achieved brilliantly. Any die-hard Nicholson fans who are crying foul simply because Jack played it 18 years ago are just being foolish. Harvey Dent is equally wonderful and Eckhart is every bit as big as the task. Oldman is masterful, as always, making cinematic mountains out of his molehill role. I will say one thing: though Bale's performance is otherwise fine and dandy, we need to talk him out of this "batman voice" of his. It's just silly, and it took me out of the film more than once. Also, there are scenes in this film which seem a trifle too busy, and it's easy to get lost if you're over 20, and use a slower attention span than a hummingbird has got. But this film deserves praise if only for the fact that it's not just a batman movie, in the same way some batman comics (ex. The Killing Joke) are not just comic book fodder. This is a great, popcorn-munching good time, but it's more than that. It's psychological, its got levels, and it wants to be one great action movie, whether you like batman or not. And it does exactly what it intends. Marvel, look out-- a few more like this and DC will be ruling the theaters soon enough.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

This Summer, the True Battle Lies Within...Hollywood.

[4/10 · 4 May 2007]

I don't want to get into how the ending scenes left me hollow, or how the telegraphing lines foreshadowed way too heavily.

I just want to say, too much, too soon. Spider-Man 3 wants to tie up all the loose ends by the closing credits.

And so it might have done, if it hadn't opened two or three additional cans of worms as well, before stuffing them unceremoniously back in.

I love Raimi's films, and I enjoyed this one. But 2 was so much better than I ever thought a comic book movie could be. This one...well, it's just another comic book movie. And the reason is, it violates too many rules form the school of it's subject. Comics never just end, and tie everything up. There's always a sinister shadow on the wall, ready for next time. This film spends so much time trying to get everything up together that it leaves holes in the quilt.

If I were any more specific, I might give something away, but suffice it to say, 3 was fair, and still better than 1, but I suspect this one was killed by movie execs who said "we gotta have 3 villains in this one!"

Nothing kills good storytelling like money-driven ambition.

Suspiria (1977)

The Art of Carnage

[7/10 · 20 November 2005]

Hitchcockian suspense, brilliant colors, and a killer ending. This one's got it all, folks.

This is a truly great film. I understand some blockhead is remaking it, which is about as foolish as the chowerhead who re-filmed Psycho block for block and added an...unfortunate scene.

There will never be another Suspiria. Never. The colors, texture and nuances are artistic.

Artistic. Does anyone see what an achievement this is? It's a slasher film, and it's actually beautiful. I mean, it is gorgeous. Terrifying and breathtaking at the same time. A utter orgasm of movie magic from an era when artistic vision outweighed the dollar.

This remake, whatever its aim, will flounder and die. Suspiria, the ONLY legitimate Suspiria, will never be forgotten. Directors have no common sense these days, and have no hope of making a film with the depth and precision of Suspiria.

What else shall I say? Shall I describe for you any of the suspenseful unfolding? No, only a monster would deprive an audience of these choice morsels. Should I warn the uninspired among you to avoid this film, since you appreciate nothing unless buildings explode and bimbos in leather shoot automatic rifles? Well, I just did.

This film is grotesquely perfect.

Saw II (2005)

Where Gore Meets Bore

[1/10 · 20 November 2005]

Where does bore meet gore? Well, yes--in the 2000 election, sure. But also in SAW 2, arguably the worst horror movie of all time. Taking a stride from its predecessor, SAW 2 contains similarly enormous plot holes and an uninteresting group of foolish characters whom we care little or nothing about.

But the worst part of both saw 1 and 2 is Jigsaw.

Jigsaw, as a character, is the most self-indulgent movie device since the Cube in "Cube," and not half as clever. He's self-righteous, childish and shallow. It's like being kidnapped by a seven-year-old who's crying because she didn't get a candy bar from you at the cash register.

In short, this film is designed for persons as self-serving and dull as Jigsaw himself.

This might seem a minor point, but it must be remembered that everything that gets put on screen gets glorified in the process. Case study for this is Beavis and Butt-Head, a show making fun of stupid teens that became vastly popular with.....yup, stupid teens. Consider, then, what SAW and SAW 2 glorify: sadism, selfishness and Pharisaic homicide.

'Nuff said, I hope.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Good for Fans Only...and Not Much For Them

[4/10 · 18 November 2005]

This is the film I was worried that "The Two Towers" was going to be. Amazingly long, overdrawn at the drama bank and without a parcel of sense in the pacing department, this film hobbles along on the crutch of great visual effects, and its name brand.

Once again, great actors and actresses trot out to play hackneyed scripting of dull characters. Once again all characters threatening to be worthwhile are completely ignored.

And once again, Harry is dull as a brick.

...A very worn brick shaped like a cricket ball.

...Which has been named Professor of Dullness at Oxford University.

The lack of personal spirit placed into this project by the creators is completely evident. It is a sorry follow up to the promising third installment, and a cheap substitute for lovers of the book.

Harry Potter is, after all, a character who needs much help being interesting on-screen. In the books, we put up with him because his plot-contrived existence does not smart so much. But up on screen, his striving for mediocrity is hard to ignore. My wife put it best when she said that Potter is not a heroic figure, making the best of his opportunities, but a rather motley, self-indulgent bore, whose response to most situations is "oh, crap--I've spilled power all over myself; what should I do with it?" Avoid this film if the nerds in your life will let you.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

Backwash from Burton

[5/10 · 8 November 2005]

If Tim Burton so wanted to play Willy Wonka, he shouldn't have bothered to trot out tired, over-hamming Johnny Depp at all. He might just as well have played the candy mogul of Roald Dahl's classic books himself, if all he expected of Willy Wonka was a self-indulgent man-child with no joy or maturity of heart and soul.

This film does not contain, save in name alone, any semblance of the character Willy Wonka.

Again, Burton takes a brilliant cast, a great story, and amazing characters, and wallows in self-interest. Again we need the flashbacks? Again with a nasty, controlling dad in flashback?? AGAIN with the anti-family, spoiled-bratty attitude towards loved ones and community??? Now I think I've hit on why Tim didn't play Willy. No one could have told him apart from Veruca.

Otherwise, the film is a smash, with a Charlie Bucket to end all Charlie Buckets, Oompa Loompas whose songs are by far the sweetest morsels in this box of goodies. The splashy-number routine does, however, make the words hard to hear. Visually, the film is also well-designed, but sometimes poorly used. The backgrounds and scenery are so delightful, the costumes and lighting so appropriate, that it is surprising when some major-event scenes suffer from a lack of punch.

Here for apparently no reason is Helena Bonham Carter, who does nothing at all interesting as Charlie's mother. Charlie's father is played to better effect by Noah Tyler, a master of brief scenes whose quirky talents shall be vindicated by time.

A very sincere thanks to Deep Roy, who is a man of extreme talents.

A very sincere pooh-pooh to Tim Burton, for showing how stagnant the waters of his well have become.

Robots (2005)

Needed A Few Upgrades

[6/10 · 3 October 2005]

The trend in animation these days, it seems, is to utterly ignore the failures of George Lucas. Character and story flutter helplessly behind the brazen will of visual splendor. That said, visuals in this film are excellent. The inventive scenes involving travel or contraptions are without parallel. The inspiration for individual portions of this film should have carried to whole project, but....well, the frame was too unstable.

Movies are, after all, like skeletons; every piece must fit into the other for the item to move smoothly. this is not so with Robots. the voice acting is excellent, the designs are great, and many of the jokes are very charming (though I could have done without the "fart jokes"). This film has been compared to "Shark Tale," Dreamworks' other recent failure, but Robots comes far, far closer to the prize. Here's where it falls short:

This is an ensemble picture. There are many lovable and unique characters in it for us to meet and identify with. Trouble is, we never meet them. They run past, tap dancing and smiling, but never sit still long enough for us to identify them, let alone identify with them. Near the close of the film, one of the robots makes an uncharacteristic stride into heroism, and only my experience as a film-goer allowed me to see that it was uncharacteristic. I felt as if i'd hardly even known him before, so the change seemed unimpressive. And if I barely caught it, you can be sure it was mostly lost on kids.

Many of the characters we do really meet and get to know a little are snatched from us without explanation. Halle Berry's character, Cappy, shows no individuality at all, save her resistance to Ratchet (black hat) and her attempt to side with Rodney (white hat). I mean, really--are we supposed to like her because she's shiny? I thought this picture was about the beauty of the Rusties; the true nature of oneness is society. Everyone in the film seems to lose perspective without any motivation at all, from Bigweld (on whom the whole plot turns, yet whose actions seem at best vague) to Madame Gasket, whose dastardly scheming seems without cause altogether.

We see here the fumbling that happens when great, talented animators refuse to work their storyboards to perfection and coherency. The heathens in society say that animation is only for kids, and I despise that argument, but even if that were true, one thing is indisputable:

Kids deserve better.

Man of the Century (1999)

Good for You and One-Thirty

[7/10 · 2 October 2005]

Before extolling on the virtues and mixed offerings of Man of the Century, I must make a confession: I will watch ANYTHING to see Susan Egan.

With that much said, I must admit that I was surprised, given the concept, at how entertaining this movie was. The opening of the film is probably its best feature, with a very clever "silent film" feel which I was sad to see not continued at points through the flick. Also, it must be admitted that the "musical numbers" come out of nowhere and are a little embarrassing. I was charmed to the hilt by the acting of Gibson Frazier (and, of course.....Susan), and the twenties-speak is phenomenal. I had to try it on many people before I lost my nerve, with some rather hilarious results.

But the ending does sneak up on one rather fast and the pieces of the puzzle are too simple, but this is a 20's film parody, after all. Also there is a preoccupation in the dialogue with unnecessary cuss words. I'm not one to be offended by language, but this was really a defeating level of linguistic gravity in otherwise fun situations.

In all, Man of the Century was a fun and frank commentary on post-modernity, which needed a little more crafting to appeal to mainstream viewers. But then, this could never have been a popular film. The world is too fragile to take criticism these days.

Hercules (1997)

Clash of the Cartoons

[8/10 · 2 October 2005]

There's very little you can do to influence Disney artists. Or Disney fans. They're always going to harp on horrid failures that they praise as innovations (Hunchback, Pocohontas, Mulan). And they will never admit that the light-hearted, comedic Hercules was the big step in Disney's revolution concerning style and storyboarding in the past twenty years.

Big deal; it's true.

Herc was the first time Disney decided to run on fast, colorful frenzy and coy shots at the material instead of cutesy sidekicks alone for comedy. A direct predecessor to Emporor's New Groove? You better believe it.

With a "grecian" style and a gospel swing, this film comes on strong with guns blazing and hardly stops for air. A little strong is the Oscar-winning song, "Go the Distance," but I guess Micheal Bolton was flavor of the week then. What can't be ignored is how repeatedly watchable this film is, and that's important with kiddie fare, since parents must endure multiple viewings.

This film does butcher its subject matter in a way nothing short of savage, it's true. No myth remains intact as the storyboard scrambles to include every monster ancient Greece had to offer, and it's sad to see Medusa, the minotaur and other greats fly by without so much as a by-line.

Still in all, the mainstay of the film is the wry humor, and some very fun wordplay. If you want the myths straight, never go to Hollywood; even Harryhausen (otherwise known as The Man) cut-and-pasted mythology to suit his films.

If there are spots where Herc lacks polish it's probably because the artists were rushing to finish it and work on Mulan, which is unthinkable when you see the products. Still that's the word I get directly from a former member of Disney. I met him in 2001, when he was working for dreamworks on "Ice Age." He explained that Disney artists were awed by the "deep, original ideas in Mulan," and considered Herc "just another cartoon." Well, what can you say? He was all excited about "Ice Age" too.

Amadeus (1984)

From stage to screen, a gem.

[8/10 · 2 October 2005]

This is a love or hate situation.

I've had friends hate this film, mainly for the historical inaccuracies, and I've had people hate it because Mozart annoyed them. Personally, I am enthralled every time I see it.

The original stage play script offers a few vignettes that are missing in the film, but the heart of why Amedeus was as grand a film as a theatre experience is in the details.

The scenery alone makes this film gorgeous. Ditto the costumes and the interior sets.

Not a few talents were in high form as well; first and foremost F. Murray Abraham. His work here will seal him forever as one of the cinema's finest dramatic actors.

Tom Hulce is also a treat, but perhaps too-often overlooked is Jeffrey Jones as Emperor Joseph II. His simple and charming performance is delicate and intentional.

Much could be said, but perhaps the most important advice for viewers of this film is to take it for what it is: a rare morality play from master film makers. This is a film to think about long after it's over.

Alice in Wonderland (1999 TV Movie)

Pulling In at a Strong Second

[8/10 · 2 October 2005]

This is a truly amazing film version of Alice. It is the single best version for sticking to the text, and it sports the best-looking tea party ever.

The Henson creatures (particularly W. Rabbit) are shaky at times, and this does detract a little, but the amazing talents involved here more than make up for it. Gene Wilder's Mock Turtle was without equal. Unmitigated joy.

Still, at two hours, ten minutes, the film does have some drag and lag. Is this a result of the transition? Perhaps and perhaps not. The inserted plot this time (there's always one in Alice films) is that Alice has trouble being in front of people and speaking/performing in public. Very odd choice, that. But it only interferes at a few points in the film, and mostly the characters and situations go swimmingly.

Pulling up second to Disney why? Two reasons: exposure (the Disney's been around a long, long time) and Whoopi Goldberg. How can anyone be totally dull and get to play both death incarnate (Monkeybone) and the Cheshire Cat? I don't get it.

Alice in Wonderland (1951)

Still The One.

[9/10 · 2 October 2005]

Any number of Wonderland movies, treatments, stage plays and TV series have been filmed and every couple of years, someone tries again. IS Disney's the best? Best is a trifle irrelevant, as it presupposes that one version can poke its head above others in all categories. I tend to think of the Alice films as a series of oral histories; all of them deviate from the book in drastic ways, but each has good and bad points.

For Disney, the plot (of which there is none in the classic masterwork) is Alice learning to pay attention to good advice and be more responsible. A bit heavy handed, perhaps, but it was 1951.

This considerable sub-plot aside, the character treatments and voice actors are dead-on.

There are a few "stananks," however. A few problems never addressed by Disney (corporate) in the fifty-plus years Alice has been out. The most egregious is the final segment of the tea party, which includes a scene animated, but never colored and two sections of animation and dialogue out of sequence. Likely, unfortunately, to remain out of sequence for all time, because Disney artists, being mainly priggish, tend to agree with Walt himself, who felt the film "lacked heart"(read: had no love story)...and "never made sense anyway."

So, what makes Disney's version so worth seeing? He gets the story wrong, he interposes characters i9n random order and leaves out half of them. Why is this the best-known version?

Because it is the most memorable. The colors, the wonder, and the (hate to say this) magic are at a premium. This is the one I remember form my childhood, and it was 75 minutes that changed my life. Imagination lived in that wonderland, in a way rarely seen in today's cinema.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)

Tom Wilkinson , We Thought We Knew Ye

[5/10 · 1 October 2005]

This is a half-movie. Or a half-made movie, it's hard to say.

The first half is unbelievable. It's so well-done, it makes hard-edged, battle-worn horror fans flinch. The set-up is the single grandest set-up in horror genre history, I believe. It makes you crawl inside. You fear, and do not see. That is the height of suspense.

But then the let-down. After initial scares (and worthy ones at that) the film dives into a cornucopia of Catholic stand-bys and toys precociously with its audience. I'm all for the power of the unseen, used so well in the beginning of this film, but sooner or later, I ask myself what I paid to see. "Excorcism" ends by lapsing into a failed finale so adolescent, it appears to have been a rejected script from Lifetime television.

How did a film begin so well and fall so fast? My wife's theory is that perhaps the original ending planned for this film was ditched for testing poorly with audiences. Perhaps. But I think the pre-occupation with The Excorcist may be closer to the heart of the problem. "E of Emily" tries hard, so very hard, not to be The Excorcist that it forgets where its at and wanders around being purposefully vague. It never defines its intentions and does not attempt to retain its credibility when things get sentimental.

E for effort.

Corpse Bride (2005)

Corpse Bride: Beautiful, if faltering

[7/10 · 1 October 2005]

The film is beautiful. Many visuals done to positively stunning effect. The characters and ideas set in perfect motion, both literally and as regards dialogue.... ....and then the worm starts singing.

There are elements here of the grand old Burton, and you can't help enjoying the gallows humor; this is a funny, joyful romp. It's also very predictable, and contains the usual Tim Burton cheap-shots at family and religion (you'd swear he'd been injured rather than pampered as a child).

I will neglect to give away any element of the film (singing worm excluded), but I should say this...once a certain point is reached, some things go awry, and not for our hero, Vincent. The script begins to love itself too much, and a fantastic idea begins to waver. The songs seem to turn a little sappy, and with the exception that the dead are involved, you'd almost think you were watching the Hallmark Channel. One cannot say there is no spark in the production's second half, but it feels a bit forced; almost mechanical. The ending, I shall only say, left me a little flat. I was looking for a bigger "kaboom," as Marvin the Martian might say. For most directors, I would have hardly noticed, but Burton's creative genius is usually matched by a certain level of punch. That panache comes and goes in "Corpse Bride," whispering in and out like a wind.

But let me not denigrate this to an extreme; the film is playful, colorful and all-over an enjoyable second-helping to "Nightmare" fans, even if it falls short of its predecessor.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Character Appropriate

[4/10 · 29 May 2005]

Well, it came. It sold. It conquered. Box-office wise, I mean. But what can truly be said for what will likely be the last Star Wars film released? Well, in many ways, Episode 3 is much like Anakin Skywalker himself. It starts off well, with tons of potential, it looks swift, sports some killer moves and has a lot to offer in the sharp-dressed department. But ultimately, bad acting, awful writing and Natalie Portman lead to the dark side.

I feel bad for poor Natalie. I know I shouldn't (especially after Garden State...yikes) but I do. She's another Dicaprio: a good actor destroyed by a know-nothing director and awfully-written blockbusters. But let's be frank: sometimes even a Hollywood creampuff should be able to tell when something is just bad. No character, in any film, should be forced to say lines that are nothing more or less than character motives and intentions. I mean, its like watching Keanu Reeves at Improv Night: not a subtext to be found anywhere.

Not withstanding the truly wrenchingly bad scenes with Portman (who acts about as pregnant as an olympic westler, by the by...actually, make that less--they've got the walk down), the film does have some truly worthy moments which were, for a brief moment, magical. The saber-fights were breath-taking. Some of the shots were very involving, and the plot was very moving in places.

But missed opportunities stood out like sore thumbs pointed straight down. No connection with and no belief in the two lovers is even possible for anyone over five. Their actions and words simply are untrue, and a discredit to the film. A film which comes very, very close to good. Make that great. If more attention had been paid and better material had stripped the cheese from the romance, this would have been the best since the original (untampered) three. As it was, it was like watching a majestic lion struggling with cancer. There was power there, a grandness and true nature. But it was blindsided by ham-fisted plot point dialogue and stumbling moments of awkward dramatic posing.

To top this off, I received from the theater a small magazine that informed me that I could get a t-shirt saying "thank you" to his infernal majesty, ruinatior of classic scenes and storytelling, George "All For the Greenbacks" Lucas. Yeah. Thanks tons, George. Can ya spot me the ticket price? I mean, c'mon--what's $7.50 between pals, right?

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

George commits carnal sin-ema

[1/10 · 3 May 2005]

Watching episode 2 again after much time of reflection, I still have that nagging feeling. I loved Star Wars as a child, and the original trilogy (not the horrific garbage versions re-released later, I'm talking the real-deal classics selfishly hoarded by Lucasfilms from the video-buying public). Even after six years, I'm still not ready to give up on the new ones....

...until I watch them again.

The questions come falling down like rain; I ask myself about so many things, "why would anyone put this in a film, let alone a Star Wars film?" I mean, let's get serious people: never should any intelligent culture allow a feature film character to say the words "lookee lookee, here'sa comin' Jedi!" The look of the film is crisp, clean, and....utterly lifeless. All I can say for our old pal Yoda (besides "fire your writers," that is) is this: BRING BACK THE PUPPET! The charm of Star Wars is its imagination; its suspension of disbelief. Too many smoke and mirror tricks, and I'm begging for the lights to come back up.

In a mid-eighties interview, Lucas said that without good storytelling, special effects were useless. He was, of course, citing his philosophy in the making of the first trilogy. So....what happened? If ever there was a case of awful writing and misguided effects, this is it.

But to simplify, the real problem lies in this: the new Star Wars simply has no class. None. It's like a two-hour soda commercial. The convenient mid-riff swipe aside (I'm never forgiving you for that, George--you creepy old man, you!) there is awful dialogue, and equally bad delivery. One repeatedly finds oneself thinking, "well, that WOULD have worked, if it had been said/written the right way, not left for 14-year-old nonfiction writers to produce in their basement after a few reruns of Lizzie MacGuire." Or something to that effect. I've heard the excuse that Lucas was writing for a new generation; if he was, he clearly believes them to be a generation of know-nothing idiots. He feeds them scripts with no possible subtext, dialogue as subtle as brick with the word "brick" written on it, and he makes no bones about his monosyllabic intentions.

I could write a short novel about the sins of Natalie Portman alone, but as I have enjoyed her in other films, I assume most of them to be director-inspired ("Hey, could you try to sound like the only member of royalty who feels no need to open her mouth or enunciate? We're going for that 'Godfather' feel.") But I will be satisfied to say, in conclusion, that the new films are perfectly summed up in the C3PO-battle droid mix-up: cheap and confused.

The Avengers (1998)

Uma Goes to Camp

[6/10 · 18 April 2005]

By no means a classic, this film does, nonetheless, find its way into my collection, and refuses to be ignored. I've watched it an amazing seventeen times, and even I cannot fully explain the attraction. I'm not the world's biggest Uma fan (I understand he's into making bad Sonny Chiba knock-offs at present), and while I admit a weakness for Fiennes and Connery, it alone wouldn't save this mess.

And a mess it is, with unexplained ventures into the absurd and a less-than-steady plot pace. But the stars put forth effort and give truly noteworthy attempts with a flagging script. The plot may be wretched, but the dialogue is clever and engaging. If nothing else, perhaps this is what makes watching The Avengers a lot like getting a visit from an witty-if-awkward friend.

If you're into the series, don't expect the polish given to that British classic, but don't be too afraid, either. John Steed still gives evil the fine, English-leather boot.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)

so...yeah.......

[5/10 · 17 April 2005]

OK, without discussing what happens in any way (which is always my hope), I think it sums Sky Captain up nicely to say that this is a film for late 1930s, early 1940s fans. And just about no one else.

It's not awful. And I like the 1930s, so I found it charming. But that's where it ends. Melodramatics aren't a sin, but they do get old and predictable with surprising quickness in 2005. Visuals in this film are truly the star, with a better "aged" film look than any nostalgic piece I've ever encountered. There is that to be said.

But there are no new ideas, no surprising characters, and several points at which things happen sloppily. Actions pivotal to plot occur so haphazardly that they often jolt the viewer out of the very tenuous grip of belief. In short, the script should have been either retooled, or used for radio.

I'm tempted to say that sci-fans might get some use for this film, but I doubt it. Even the odd-numbered Trek films are better organized that the action in Sky Captain. Of course, this film does not pretend to be believable; its got it's tongue firmly planted in-cheek. But who is the joke on? Most likely, the audience. Farce has elements of wit; this appears to be an homage to old-world radio days. And with that, we're back to the 1940s. All in all, you sit back in your chair at the close of the film and say, "so......yeah....ok." I mean, nothing against mediocrity....

.....but I wouldn't call it art.

As Good as It Gets (1997)

As good as some movies get

[6/10 · 8 April 2005]

A stand-out film in many ways, but ultimately unnecessary ; I recommend watching this once, but repeat performances may seem paltry. All elements of film are here in good form; good acting, good structure, good angles, whatnot. But, in the end, a romantic comedy is just that, and there's nothing here you haven't seen, save perhaps a wider age difference between leads, which is by no means that rare in Hollywood these days anyhow. Good performances, especially by minor players like Cuba Gooding, Jr., light up this film. Helen Hunt, however, is a sorry excuse for Oscar winner in her role. Not so much that she made a lot of mistakes, but the role is a simple one that anyone can play. There are no stretches, no real grit, and certainly no punch. She's as interesting as her apron.

All things considered, a good film, but not exceptional. It effects the soul like an after-dinner mint: refreshing, but brief.

Providence (1977)

Providence: high art of Gielgud

[9/10 · 8 April 2005]

Not enough can truly be said for this film. Equally, nothing can change people's reaction to it; it is an art piece which separates people. Early reviews from the period of its release seem unfriendly at least. Many reviewers found the film pretentious and constructionally difficult. Many claimed it attempted more mystery than it had a right to. I feel this was a film ahead of its time, and any pomposity in the film comes not from its center, but from its central character, Clive Langham (John Gielgud). This, more than almost any film of the 20th century, is a film which rewards the viewer for multiple viewings. If you are often accused of being obsessive, overly-analytic or just plain artsy, this film will tickle you in some very personal places. The message I will refuse to comment on, though it is very deeply personal to me, and, I would say, to all writers. But the "crux of the biscuit," if you will, is this: examine the title in relation to the film.