Reviews

10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Tusk (I) (2014)
8/10
Justin Long is the walrus
14 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I just watched this movie for the second time and, despite the shock value of the first viewing being gone, I still thoroughly appreciated it after another look. I would in fact say I like this and director Kevin Smith's previous film, "Red State," more than any of his Jay and Silent Bob flicks or anything else by him. There's a bit more going on here than merely crazy old guy kidnaps crappy young guy and renders him a monstrosity for his own sick and/or odd reasons. Justin Long is perfectly cast as a narcissistic sleaze and Michael Parks--one of the best character actors money could buy, before his death a few years ago--is too as an isolated psychopath who is perhaps not so much out of his gourd as not a fan of the human race and nostalgic for a happier time; a time spent decades earlier, with a walrus friend.

Part of why I'd wanted to take this film in once more is because it's somewhat haunting. It's a unique nightmare, of the sort that could conceivably transpire, that lodges itself in one's mind. A fellow who (some might say accurately) regards human beings as the Earth's only real beasts, a man who was as a kid horribly abused and went through life with no one, without love or support, turns into a serial killer--hunted by a lone Canadian detective. But his aim seems to be less to inflict suffering as to turn man to animal, or rather the animal that man is into something superior to man: a, to his thinking, higher animal. And to do this so that he might relive, again (though fraudulently) experience, the six months during which he (allegedly) enjoyed the companionship of the marine creature that once saved him physically and then emotionally--the only time he knew connection.

The film--or Parks' "Howard Howe"--suggests that the modern person has lost much of his or her humanity (or never had much to begin with). And Long's character particularly has. But by being forcibly transformed into a walrus-person perhaps, it's also suggested, Long's Wallace Bryton ironically regains some measure of the humanity lost in the quest for success, to the distractions of the 21st century world, an amoral society. To a culture as cheap as the plastic convenience store cup that keeps reappearing, even long after he has come to look forward to meals of whole fish eaten off the ground.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
be careful what you wish for
22 July 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Tom Ripley is a young, pasty fellow with a knack for imitation (and accumulating skills) and little to no experience of the world outside his neck of the woods when a well-to-do older fellow approaches him about a son living it up in Italy on daddy's money who he wants to come home. Will Tom go over and persuade him to do so, for pay and expenses?

Such is the setup to one of my favorite films and among Matt Damon's best, and arguably one of the best of the '90s (though it was released in the final week of that decade). Based on Patricia Highsmith's 1955 novel of the same name, the first in a quintet, it is the most faithful adaptation of two - the other being "Purple Noon." In this version Ripley, after falling in love with the young man's life and possibly the young man (Dickie), decides to use his various abilities (one of which is an aptitude for homicide) to dispatch him and appropriate his identity. Regardless of whether he loved or was merely infatuated with Dickie one thing about the apparently scrupleless titular character is clear: Ripley does not love himself; who he is, actually is, will not do. Perhaps 'becoming' someone else allows him some temporary relief. But it also opens the door to all sorts of problems, both legal and social - ultimately necessitating more murders.

Can the creepy chameleon with a preference for the finer things ever be free of the law's long reach, or himself? Is Ripley incapable of love or is he only unable to not kill those he loves? This film is a superb character study, of an atypical, multifaceted sociopath on the loose in Europe (and with the skills to pay the bills - in someone else's handwriting). Featuring a solid supporting cast that includes Philip Seymour Hoffman, James Rebhorn, and Jude Law as a charisma-oozing priveleged type - and helmed by "The English Patient" director Anthony Minghella - "Ripley" is a thriller/drama that is a cut above. A mentally lingering minor masterpiece that revolves around a lonely rootless man who might be an empty husk that fills itself with clever tricks.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lockout (2012)
6/10
entertainment at its least original
30 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Ever seen "Escape From New York"? Then you've seen this movie - in its original, superior, R-rated form. Not only does this movie take its plot from Carpenter's classic (which led to "Lockout"'s makers being successfully sued) but it seems to take pride in its countless clichés and formulaic-ness. It stars Guy Pearce, who is quite a good actor - but in this film it doesn't really matter, because his character is just a facsimile of one anyone who's seen their fair share of action movies has seen many times before. The other main star is Maggie Grace, whose character Pearce's is sent into outer space to rescue. Grace is best known for playing someone who has to get rescued in the movie "Taken," also co-written by Luc Besson. She is a very generic actress. Generic acting, generic looks - just incredibly forgettable. "Lockout" is certainly an entertaining picture, has plenty of good action (though unfortunately plenty of fake-looking CGI too), and is generally what might be termed 'dumb fun.' It is also spectacularly, illegally derivative - and, like its star, absolutely unmemorable. Watch it if you're sufficiently bored or stoned or something.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Amy Poehler and Paul Rudd star in this movie
23 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Boy, what a surprise! I was expecting something lighthearted from the guys behind "Wet Hot American Summer." Something funny and stupid. Heck, even a bunch of the same actors are in this. Instead I found this movie to be very serious, and to quite obviously take itself very seriously. This film even crosses over perhaps into "mega-serious." Sure, it was likely nominated for a couple of big Oscars, but it could really have benefited from a little levity, in this humble reviewer's opinion. I will say this though: the screenplay was very original. If I had to say it bore any similarity to any pieces of cinema I've seen I would call it maybe, in my mind, kind of like a mix of "The English Patient," that one movie where the one guy likes to blow stuff up and the other guy has a job where he stops bombs from blowing up and he tries to stop the one guy from blowing stuff up, and that Richard Gere/Julia Roberts movie where Roberts is a bride who wears tennis shoes or something. And also sort of that Robin Williams movie in which he's a robot who becomes human ("Millennium Man" I wanna say), because - if I remember correctly - Poehler's character dies at the end and is replaced by a six foot-seven titanium robot that the Rudd character falls even more madly in love with (and has a lot of (hot) sex with). In any event, if you are in the mood for a dry downer of a film that kind of drags on, is mainly only worth watching for the person-robot sex scenes in the final act, and stars two probable Canadians (Rudd and Poehler), then I would Highly recommend this title: an oddly super serious film by the makers of and performers in "Wet Hot American Summer" and its sequels/spinoff, "Wetter, Hotter American Summer," "Wet, Lukewarm Russian Summer," and "Wet Hot American Summer: The TV Series."
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
equally good and bleak
8 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
"Johnny Got His Gun" is a fine film; a likely under-seen one. It was written and directed by the once blacklisted famed screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, who also wrote the source material - a novel that predates the film by more than three decades. The film is curiously mistitled as it is not a character named John(ny) who gets a gun but a fellow named Joe. In any event he volunteers to fight in World War I and sooner or later gets real messed up by an artillery shell. Like super messed up, like definitely better off dead messed up. The guy ends up just a slab of meat, as the character himself says - not dead but his life permanently ruined. His nonexistence-like existence a particularly cruel torture. He is unable to commit suicide and a kind nurse's eventual attempt at a mercy killing is thwarted. He spends his days feeling the vibrations around him; remembering the one time he played hide the sausage with his girlfriend; remembering losing the only thing in his dad's life that wasn't mediocre; remembering the cheap whore he picked up overseas; daydreaming about a tall, Canadian Jesus with long blond hair who basically just tells him he's screwed; longing to be part of a freak show, in which his limbless, jawless body would be displayed to people for nickels; and occasionally getting a hand job from the aforementioned nurse. It is a hopeless life, a life Joe comes to only want to escape. The film is an excellent, moving anti-war statement. An extremely depressing picture that makes you grateful to not be stuck in your own body and leaves you feeling full of compassion for people who have doubtless suffered a similar misfortune. It is a film about the very worse stuff of nightmares, the kind of nightmare that could happen in real life.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
he came, he saw, he slept with all the women
2 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
"Down and Out..." is an enjoyable enough, light mid-'80s time capsule directed by Paul Mazursky ("Moscow on the Hudson"). It is a reimagining of the far superior film "Boudu Saved From Drowning"--a movie by Jean Renoir that preceded it by 54 years. In this version, which features a good line- up--Nick Nolte as the central character, a vagrant; Richard Dreyfuss as the man who takes him in; and the always capable Bette Midler as Dreyfuss' laughable wife--Nolte's character, after being permitted to stay in the swanky home of Dreyfuss', who saves him, ends up bedding not just the mistress and the wife, but also the daughter. Unlike the source material he also ends up sticking around it seems. This movie is worth a watch, it's just not particularly memorable, there is nothing special about it--and it seems like Dreyfuss has played the same sort of character many times. In "What About Bob" he also portrays a middleaged family man whose life is turned upside-down by a guest. In this case the guest was first invited, and all the womenfolk want in his pants. And, like "What About Bob," also a far superior flick, the family man's fam/etc. all seem to like the guest more than the ineffectual patriarch. The Dreyfuss character gives the Nolte character a look at the very end like "You totally took over, didn't you? Not sure how I feel about that, even though I basically like you too." But at no point did I feel sorry for the Dreyfuss character, a philandering, quite ordinary and not so likable rich guy. This movie is good enough to spend part of a lazy afternoon on--just expect little other than a competently made, somewhat funny film with a better-than-average cast. If you want to see essentially the same story but a much more worthwhile version of it though see the excellent "Boudu Saved..."
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
not one of Cronenberg's best, but a good film
27 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This is a twisted and quite dark movie and though in one scene I had a visual effects qualm it is well-executed and has a good cast. Julianne Moore in particular stands out, in a less common sort of a role for her: a pathetic, vacuous megabitch. A worst-of-the-worst past her prime movie star, who has sex with her emotionally unstable assistant's new boyfriend to momentarily feel better about herself and because she can. It is great to see her get her just desserts though shortly thereafter when said assistant (Mia Wasikowska) loses it. This film is a worthwhile and unique, no holds barred look at Hollywood scumbags/idiots. Mr. Cronenberg unsurprisingly is relevant and continuing to make solid pictures, in this case another disturbing one--which I was pleased about (my favorite of his movies are either disturbing, violent, or both; this is both, though mainly the former). Julianne Moore's character, the Benjie character, and others are quite hateable/reprehensible. You feel bad for Wasikowska's, in the milieu despite her not being soulless. This is the kind of film that, by the bleak end--which follows upon a not much less bleak beginning and middle--will leave the viewer likely feeling icky and depressed, and a bit worse about human beings, especially L.A.-based actors and other celebrities. It certainly has its place. I didn't feel there was anything gratuitous about the script. Cronenberg fans and cinephiles should give it a watch--maybe just one, ever--(even if only for Moore's performance) if they don't mind a serious downer.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
fine film
4 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I've heard bad things about "Jupiter Ascending" and I never had any interest in "Cloud Atlas," but "V for Vendetta" is a fine film--something I certainly can't say about the final entry in "The Matrix" trilogy. I have no negative criticisms about this film, and it is quite rewatchable. Plus it has an important message. John Hurt as the primary bad guy was a good bit of casting, and it is interesting to note that in this movie he is practically playing Big Brother and in "1984" he played Winston Smith. Hugo Weaving is great of course, despite his having to act behind a mask--a no doubt quite difficult task. Natalie Portman delivers a solid performance. Above par action in this movie, and impressive effects. Its positive reception and legacy are unsurprising. While this movie can't undo the failure of The Wachowskis' famous trilogy it, like the first "Matrix," is a stellar addition to their oeuvre. Perhaps The Wachowskis will someday make a film I am interested in again. "Remember, remember, the 5th of November..."
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
another great Coen brothers movie
4 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Another excellent film in the canon of the brothers Coen. The only film of theirs I wasn't terribly fond of was "Inside Llewyn Davis," though I have not seen all of their work. Good understated performance by Billy Bob Thornton as the central character. Great casting all around (the late James Gandolfini comes to mind). Terrific script with pleasing surprises. This is not, in my opinion, a Coen bros. masterpiece; however, it is clearly the work of masters of movie-making in peak form. Thornton's nonentity character--never without a cigarette--is sad, tragically human, memorable. He is the kind of guy who just lets life happen around him. This movie is basically as good as neo-noir gets. Black and white was a great, an important, choice. Of those I've seen the only Coen brothers films that were made after this I thought were superior are "A Serious Man" and "No Country for Old Men." I expect this film will continue to age well.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
crap with a side of poo
25 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is an utter bucket of dung. I was very disappointed. I liked the first two well enough, though the second movie in the series is quite an unpleasant experience, but this should never have been made. It was deeply unsatisfying. The best thing about it was Bree Olson, who plays the sadistic warden's secretary. Next would be the castration scene. The centipede itself is anticlimactic. The guy who plays the warden (Dieter Laser, also the star of the first entry) sure is good at chewing scenery. Even Eric Roberts kind of sucks in this crap pile. What a pointless steaming pile it is. Steer clear! Do yourself a favor. This movie is the wrong kind of bad. Not the "Leonard Part 6" kind.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed