jpellino Reviews

Justified: Over the Mountain (2014) Season 5, Episode 4

Back on track...

[8/10 · 29 January 2014]

Wondering how things would fare after Dutch passed, they seem to have picked it up. Wordplay is plenty sharp.

Any show willing to make Patton Oswalt the hero for a spell is alright in my book.

Still looking for some interview with James LeGros - has to be quite the hoot for him to be playing opposite his old role.

Natalie Zea needs to hitch her wagon to this and The Following, not Under The Dome.

Filed under "odd": are we supposed to believe Ava would have a Star Wars Ep IV reference at the ready?

The pint sized Crowe is up to something. It'll be fun to find out just what.

Sound City (2013)

What an amazing celebration of making music...

[10/10 · 8 June 2013]

It does not get any better than this. Musicians are not magical creatures, they do not have superpowers, they cannot fly.

But man, can they use their creative brains and considerable chops to do things nobody thought you could do. An improbable bunch of "professionals", semi-pros, amateurs, hangers-on and gut-trusting people made this place and this music.

Dave Grohl will be given rock sainthood for having the brains and guts to tell this story and save that desk.

Bottom line - you trust your instincts, every so often take a winger, and go with what works. I am floored by this and will be watching it again to get the little in-between things that make this work and are often the difference between grinding out formula music and "blowing the roof off the dump" as they say.

Defying Gravity (2009)

Made me want to watch Firefly all over again.

[3/10 · 8 September 2009]

Underwhelming doesn't begin to describe it.

But hey, If I can live through Plan 9 I can live through two free iTunes episodes of this.

The gravity technical explanation is almost literally the joke from Thank You For Smoking between Rob Lowe and Aaron Eckhart - "But wouldn't they blow up in an all oxygen environment? Probably. But it's an easy fix. One line of dialogue. 'Thank God we invented the... you know, whatever device.'"

It seems to want to apply some sort of everyday casualness to being an astronaut. If by this series' time it is everyday to be an astronaut, then there would be little point in making a movie about them. It's all about the interpersonal drama, but in space.

Firefly did it so much better. I do have to hand it to Ron Livingston for putting in a decent performance without cheesing it up. He's right up there with Jason Bateman and Aaron Eckhart and Nathan Fillion: they can actually convince you the character is THINKING.

Scrubs: My Musical (2007) Season 6, Episode 6

Dang!

[10/10 · 30 May 2007]

Every once in a while, something on television reminds you that it's not just the vast wasteland it's been said to be. This was one of them.

Most TV shows who attempt a musical show fail embarrassingly. This was perfect, perfect, perfect. They nailed the writing, composing, singing, dancing, the humor, the characters, the quirks. Oh yeah, and remained medically astute.

After my wife and I picked our jaws up off the floor watching the first 15 minutes, we realized we couldn't record all of it, and after finding out it was a rerun prolly won't see it again for a while. So it's our first TV show purchase on iTunes.

I think we'll see this one again - at the Emmys.

And now I have to see Avenue Q.

Cars (2006)

Amazing.

[10/10 · 19 June 2006]

I know how they do this, and I still can't believe they did it.

Stunning, just stunning. See it on a DLP digital projector if possible.

Great characters, story, visuals, and pacing. One Man Band is interesting, not a great story - but then again Pixar shorts are generally demo reels for new techniques, this one is apparently one for the scenery and character tone they need for Ratatiouille, also previewed at this showing.

They aim for both adults and kids simultaneously, and do a good job of it. I'll definitely see it again, just to see what I must have missed - there's so much going on here, you can't possibly take it all in at once - but you'll get the story and let the scenery and sound just wash over you.

As usual, stay through ALL the credits.

The Aristocrats (2005)

Amazing. Penn's outdone himself. Again.

[9/10 · 22 February 2006]

First of all, watch this one of three ways - (1) in a theater full of people, those who find it funny will stay and you'll all laugh yourselves sick, (2) with others you trust aren't offended by the filthiest of jokes or (3) by yourself, because anyone else there who doesn't fit into (2) will likely seek to have you committed or arrested, assuming they don't call the police DURING the viewing.

Like the recent movie "Comedian", this documentary lets us know what's funny and also what funny people think is funny. The joke itself is like a blank canvas, and you get these hundreds of comedians having at the canvas with their own colors, brush strokes and signatures. Like being backstage at the Newport Jazz Festival, we get to see what these performers think of each others work, and why they're so good on their feet - being able to improvise - even on the the oldest standard joke they can think of. If you can take this joke and crack people up, you can play any audience, handle hecklers, and freshen up even the oldest routines.

Among the funniest things aren't the joke itself - but things like Bob Saget's extended version, and Gilbert Gottfried's use of it as a release valve at a post 9-11 Friar's Roast. Then there are other similar jokes that crack up the audience and crew - like Chuck McCann's vaudeville story with the hammer, or Martin Mull telling one of Tim Conway's jokes, or the same piano bar joke being told simultaneously by Robin Williams and Drew Carey, or Whoopi Goldberg being goaded into telling the joke even though she's convinced that she can't - then doing something with it I'm sure you've never seen any comedian do before (or since). Sarah Silverman's "confidential" bit is so dead on and innocent and nuanced and superbly portrayed with body language and facial expressions it's a wonder she's not doing more serious acting. And as a cherry on the top, Paul Reiser sums up the comedian's chosen lot in life as seen thru the eyes of an elephant.

And it's good to see Pat Cooper, Larry Storch, Jay Marshall and others still have their comedy chops.

Oh, and like a Pixar movie, make sure you watch the ENTIRE credits.

House of D (2004)

A great surprise.

[10/10 · 2 January 2006]

We were stunned by this gem. I rarely find flaws with Roger Ebert, but he just didn't get this movie (he didn't seem to understand Raising Arizona either - my other long standing gripe with him). He saw this movie as sappy and laughable. I saw it as a real memory of what someone can do to deal with a rough past. Yes, Roger, there are smart, intense, sensitive teens who in the midst of a family emergency would know and use the term "persistent vegetative state". And Roger needs to spend time with "mentally challenged" people. He'd understand more about the range of behaviors that does not fit our assumptions about such people. He had a similar problem with Sean Penn in "I Am Sam".

Duchovny deserves praise for creating a new story someone can care about, with little touches everyone can relate to.

Anton Yelchin is a true find in a young actor - and should go far. Those of us who are the character's age can relate to the sights, sounds, and feelings of a parochial school student in the 70s.

Robin Williams deserves a nod for having the wisdom to be part of a "small" movie that was a real acting and directing gem.

One note - if you get the DVD view the deleted scenes - I would have used at least parts of two of them ("Meanwhile" and "Friendly") to explain a few fuzzy points in the plot.

The Civil War (1990)

Broke new ground, still unsurpassed.

[10/10 · 2 January 2005]

Contrary to the only other comment so far, I found this inspiring and elevating. I understood the civil war in a way nothing else in 17 years of formal education did. Burns was trying to tell what is perhaps the most compelling story since this country was founded. He had no footage, and was not interested in dramatizing the battles (which is notoriously difficult to to without boosting one side). Instead, he found a way to take the still images and remnants of the war and the stories of individuals and make them more real than any movie could do. Eleven hours of reenactments would have been interminable - and silly - as vaunted as the reenactors are, they get away with it because they are romanticized - can you imagine reenacting Ardennes or Khe Sanh? In a world where TV viewership is measured in 5-minute chunks if you're lucky, Burns kept viewers' attention for 11+ hours - and with no commercials - quite a feat.

Step Into Liquid (2003)

Wow. Wow, wow, wow. Whoa. Wow!

[11 May 2004]

That was pretty much the conversation in our living room watching this film.

That, plus five minutes into the film, I turned to my wife and said "Our jobs suck."

The Browns have done an incredible job of showing everyone else how leisure can turn into passion, how simple water can inspire people to reach heights they never thought possible, how a boy and his dog can do what they love and achieve like never before, how fun can make the world go round.

As a scientist I am dumbfounded by the grace created by water and muscle, by the foil boards ( I see it and I know why it should work and I still don't believe it) and by how plain old people can do something this beautiful.

See it. Buy it. Play it every so often. Then go to the beach and have fun.

I Am Sam (2001)

Stunning, heartfelt, hard to resist.

[12 February 2002]

OK - Maybe I'm a wuss - I can't get thru Charlotte's Web without tearing up (but neither could the author, Andy White), ditto the Bridge to Terabithia, Breakfast at Tiffany's - and now this film. Truth be told, I could barely get thru the trailer. I have to differ with Roger Ebert on this one (I was truly stumped by only one other review by him - of Raising Arizona). Penn's acting is a breakthru for him. It's not a matter of not taxing his acting skills (Roger,) but in fact of working inside what seems to be a very small box, and portraying an incredible range of emotions within the boundaries. It harkens back to James Stewart's tortured bar-room scene in Wonderful Life. I have had the experience of working with mentally retarded children and adults, and have seen them - in one instance - turn into impressive equestrians - something no one would likely imagine they can accomplish. Unrealistic as some have charged? How can Sam raise a child? With great difficulty, but that's the point. The situation is a matter of degree- we all know kids who have dozens of IQ points on their parents and they do fine. Why would a homeless woman take advantage of Sam? To get a roof over her head. Think it's bizzarre? Watch any daytime talk shows lately? This is tame stuff It wasn't perfect - some things are left hanging - Annie's background for instance is dropped and left to maybe too much speculation, though it does serve as contrast to show that a seemingly together person can have just as many critical flaws as those who seem outwardly flawed. And Sam does seem to come up with a few quantum leaps in dialogue and tone, but it holds togather in the end. As for the grown-ups - the ambiguity of the foster family isn't as set as I thought going in - you realize in one extended sequence, that not only is Lucy smarter than her dad, she can put one over on the 'normal' adults too. To see Sam/Penn's earnestness and corresponding anguish is perhaps the best test of his characterization. Yes people like Sam are embarrasing to the unenlightened, and in an extension of that situation, you get a sense, like in A Beautiful Mind, that we as a species still have a sickening tendency to prey on the weaker among us. I doubt this movie will do for many what could be done by a real- life familiarity with such adults - but it's a great foot in the door. Like Leonardo diCaprio's Arnie in Gilbert Grape, you get to watch the details of interaction between "challenged persons" and us "normal folk" - to find that there's not as much different as there is alike.

Monsters, Inc. (2001)

Stunning, touching, funny.

[10/10 · 4 November 2001]

Pixar have outdone themselves once again. Everyone else is an also-ran. I saw "Shrek" for the first time this afternoon on video. Then I went and bought a ticket to "Monsters Inc.". First, this is the second in a disturbing series of coincidences where Pacific Data Images / Dreamworks SKG is first to market with a similar theme to Whatever-Pixar-Has-Announced. It happened with Antz / Bug's Life and now it seems with Shrek / Monsters. While not plagiarism, it is nonetheless eyebrow-raising that the same theme (hero bugs and misunderstood monsters) ends up in both studios. PDI/SKG's screens are crowded and rich, but can't hold a candle to Pixar animation - and their storytelling falls far short as well. Originality? To take a William Steig book and then completely remove any trace of the author's celebrated illustration style is disturbing. And as for the characters, they all seem, like the ants in Antz, to be made of the same basic animation model, stretched and colored to turn them into the needed creature. It's the cheap way out, and it shows. Pixar's animation techniques are visually stunning - see this in a theatre - don't wait for video/DVD - the fur on Sully alone is worth the price of admission. Shrek had its moments - but that was the point - moments - but not a film that hangs together - gags, funny voices (you listen to "Donkey" it's because it's funny to hear Eddie Murphy in a home-boy dialect as a donkey, not because of the riveting dialogue). The acid test? I'm, far too old to be moved by a kid's movie - and I was, as with even some of Pixar's shorts - near tears near the end. I wouldn't rent Shrek again - there's really nothing to go back to look at - but as usual, I'll likely go pay to see Monsters again... how can a character with one eye emote more than most with two? Bravo Pixar! Memo to PDI/SKG - you don't go down in history for cutting corners & me-too. Try again.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)

Hee heeeeee! What a way to go...

[9/10 · 19 August 2001]

Kevin Smith retires his View Askewniverse characters from Leonardo, New Jersey with a great tribute to all of them. You don't need to have seen the previous films to enjoy the movie, but it will boost the laughs another 33%. It also helps if you've seen Good Will Hunting, watched the Cartoon Network, and have a passing acquaintance with Star Wars, teen tv and movies and most of the box office hits of the past 30 years. I lost count of how many of them Kevin lampoons, sweetly, of course. Despite the obvious front layer of scatological humor, Kevin's films really are pretty sweet deep down. As my significant other said "it's a guy flick" - but she was laughing almost as often and hard as I was, and hasn't yet seen Clerks, Amy or Dogma - I managed to cram in synopses on the drive over. The characters are all then need to be to feed situations and straight lines to Jay and Silent Bob, in that respect it's a sort of Blues Brothers, but substitute a couple of aimless stoners for Jake & Elwood. Like a true comic book maven, Kevin includes an origins piece, and much to his credit - this tells you how much respect he's garnered - some very self-effacing cameos from all corners of media. Don't know what he'll do next, but it's hard to imagine another production without Kevin/Silent Bob mugging it up under his own direction - and realize what a feat that is - to direct a coherent film that you yourself are in 90% of the shots! Thanks, Kevin - for this graduation present!

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

Great potential squandered (mild spoilers).

[4/10 · 6 July 2001]

Where can I start... It was like seventeen directors and screenwriters submitted rough cuts, and Spielberg (typically a great director) took two minutes of a random, slick looking parts in rotation and assembled - well - THIS.

For three minutes at a time - the movie works - then changes tone, back story, mood, internal sense, etc... I was at times wondering if they swapped reels from several different cuts.

The story would have made three great movies. One film about a family coming to grips with the inevitable AI that will seep into our lives in the future. Alas, Bicentennial Man or any of the Star Trek episodes featuring "Data" were more satisfying. One film about David's quest to become a real boy - the strand of which was sloppily interwoven with the rest of this movie - the Pinocchio motif was jammed down our throats at every turn. It could have done with a much lighter hand. The second act was also much too shallow, there must have been hours of potential backstory that were cut here - to its own detriment. A third would be the more epic conclusion to David's quest, elegant use of the Pinocchio imagery and all.

But this? A stilted first act (why can the mecha move smoothly when in a complex scene, but like an addled Furby when fetching his pajamas? For that matter - why do the people go from understandable characters to B-movie victims at the drop of a hat?) - best first-act performance - Martin, another botched opportunity for development. Second act - way underdeveloped. Best character - Joe - but wasted on a skimming treatment of everything else. Third act - the comparisons to 2001's ending are at best rationalizations. (Why do the AI first use subtitles and then speak explicitly? And with Eton accents? For that matter, if they're so advanced, why take the form of dime-novel aliens? Please, if the Roswell incident becomes our Rosetta stone for future intelligences...) Dave Bowman's transformation made sense in the original story.

Jarring problems - There seems to be a trend in quick advances - Castaway's "Four Years Later" becomes "2000 Years Later" - what's next?! Teddy might have provided a great foil - version 1 AI interacting with version X - but he was far too knowing for his meager use, and if he were that advanced... Lots of dropped opportunities - Dr. Hobby, the potential army of Davids, all hinted at and left hanging. Sorry to add these mild spoilers - but the internal consistency was so lacking - it was truly like watching a rough cut. I would have given all of Frances O'Connor's artful mugging for more scenes of honest interaction between her and David - maybe it's her single status - but several people have said that anyone who has been a mother would not have let some of those scenes thru.

In summary, this viewed like a rough cut, and I can't imagine that this was ultimately directed by Spielberg and not some assistants. Tone was all over the place - in contrast to most of his work - from Duel thru ET thru anything else... hardly his best work, but deserving of so much more.

Battlefield Earth (2000)

What Plan 9 would have done if they'd had the money.

[6 February 2001]

I am a stone cold sci-fi freak, and this was excruciating. Internal consistency, folks - look it up. Are they humans or man-animals? Choose a tone and some character studies. "This came for you the other day. I put it in your box." Who wrote this drivel? How many light years away to mine metals and teleport them? Was there any discernable moral to this story? The DVD I rented had some bad skips on it, but honestly, after a while, it made no difference. "We'll let them loose and see what their favorite food is." Um, right. Set me out in the godforsaken wilderness, I'll just scrape up a little filet mignon and death by chocolate. ASK ME, DIMWIT! Memo to all aspiring screenwriters and directors: *never* choose a story written by someone who started a religion on a dare. OK OK - deep cleansing breaths... Where are the Dr. Who tapes?

The Perfect Storm (2000)

Faithful to the true story - more chilling because it was real.

[3 July 2000]

I thought, having read the book, that there would be no reason to film this story. The book is riveting. They certainly did it justice here. The one element I never imagined while reading was the sound. Everything else was what I knew or read. As a New Englander who used to visit Cape Ann to photograph the area, they certainly got the tone and the spirit of Gloucester and the reality of the fishing industry. The effects were dead-on concerning the storm and its effects. Several people were in tears at the end of the screening I was in. I could have done with more background/technical detail so the audience would appreciate the particulars of piloting a ship and managing 40 miles of line, and less speculation on the Andrea Gail's final moments (the book doesn't suppose nearly as much as the film), they could have added a half an hour to this film and it still would have held the audience. Overall a riveting experience that will be lost on the TV screen - see it in a theater.

Airplane! (1980)

Do yourself a favor - get a previously viewed copy and...

[28 December 1999]

... keep it in a little glass box* marked "In Case of Gloom, Break Glass". I have a lot of hifalutin' critical opinions about movies, and am very discriminating about what I'll sit and watch for two hours. But short of being on the way to the hospital, I'll gladly take two hours out of just about anything to watch this. Again. Never before have so many hilarious lines been delivered with so many straight faces. June Cleaver translating jive to white people? Leslie Nielsen alone is worth the price of admission... and then there's Lieutenant Zipp. OK - now look what you've done - I have to go watch it NOW!

*: OK - if it's a big box, add Blazing Saddles, Raising Arizona, and Something About Mary