Change Your Image
bczech
Reviews
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
So what?
With all the lavishing of praise on this film I was expecting something spectacular. The subdued cinematography was excellent and the portrayals were wonderful (even the mushed-mouth lines of Heath Ledger) but the film left me wondering what it was all about.
In a typical love story there is a certain amount of build up, a certain amount of care and planning. Yearning and care. There was non of that. The story went from 2 cowboys herding sheep, to a wham bam sex scene and then a bunch of wandering and muted yearning.
Honestly, I have seen more tenderness in an episode of OZ then in this movie. While I believe there are some redeeming efforts I found that there was so much unspoken (Randy Quaid's 'picking up" on the situation by 2 single and very brief visits to camp -- and the one encounter between the cowboys is supposed to telegraph a great passion) The only true glimpse I saw of Jack's care for Ennis was when Jack was not even on the screen. It was from Jack's mother that I got an inkling of Jack's passion for Ennis.
A movie like this could have been great, a 10, but I find it hard to stick with the 6 I am giving it. The only good thing is that when Hollywood has something that makes money they will remake it and maybe then they can get it right.
The Godfather Part III (1990)
Good but not great....
This is a beautifully filmed motion picture. The settings and the sounds are perfect for sitting the mood, but what makes this film only good and not great (like its 2 predecessors) is the distractions of of 2 actors, 2 roles and a plot that, while logical, is somewhat unbelievable.
The actors, lets get them out of of the way, were Sofia Coppola and George Hamilton. Neither was believable, but I do not blame the actors, that error falls to the director for even allowing such casting. Sofia and George do not fit the mold. Their mannerism, dialects and mannerisms fail to compare to the outstanding acting of the other cast members.
The roles..The first is Vincent (played skillfully by Andy Garcia) For me to believe that Michael is so willing to accept the bastard son of his dead brother is ridiculous. This role should have been handled by Michael's or Connie's son. And the whole incest thing should have been nixed also.
The second role was one where the the scenes would have better fit on the cutting room floor. Grace Hamilton serves no real purpose. Appears out of no where and then is gone in a flash. It only adds to the distraction.
The other role was one that was missing. Tom Hagen was sorely missed, and his absence and lame explanation were horribly gaping holes in the Godfather fabric.
Lastly is the plot, while overall I found it very in intriguing, I still felt that so much was contrived. The idea has always been that Micahel had become what he had not wanted to be. He admired his father but never wanted to do what his father wanted to do. He bowed to the needs and desires of his families. But this chapter does not show that conflict, that coolness or that rage within.
One last note: While I will watch the film again I cannot help but wish that it never existed.
The Apprentice: Martha Stewart (2005)
Not a bad copy....
I have watched the first 2 episodes of The Apprentice:Martha Stewart and have to say that if you are a fan of The Apprentice (Donald Trump) you may like this. The show follows the basic formula created by Trump's show, a number of candidates (if they are truly the best I have to wonder) to compete in business related tasks. 2 teams, various abilities and personalities, working under pressure, in order to get a contract to work for Martha Stewart at a nice salary. The tasks here are more oriented to Martha's core business but they are still neat little tasks.
The best part of this show, like Trump's, are the personality conflicts and the struggle to see what one is made of.
The only parts that I do not like are the lack of input or conversation from Martha's 2 overseers, (but Carolyn and George were not all that vocal in the first season of Trump's Apprentice) and the little letter writing scene at the end, but other than that it's good.
Fantastic Four (2005)
Comic book movies don't get much better
Let's preface this review/comment by saying this "it's a movie based on a comic book". Undaunted by the professional "Critic" reviews I attended this movie and was pleasantly entertained. It was everything I would expect...big special effects, comic book action and a great story line.
As compared to Citizen Kane, the Fantastic 4 is not a good movie but put it on a scale with other comic book movies it ranks just below Spiderman 2 and above Batman begins.
So is it all good? Not really. The casting of Jessica Alba as Susan Storm "Invisible Girl" was a poor decision. While the always attractive Alba does a fine job she seems to constantly be waiting for her cue to be struck. And Ioan Gruffudd seems to have trouble with his character too. While some may say that it is bad acting I felt that the problem was a complete lack of time in the story. Which brings us to the problem with the story. The Fantastic Four (comic book) is more about the interaction of the 4 individuals as one super team and their relationships, the villain/crime is more of a side-story, the producer/director spent a great deal of time building up to the obligatory confrontation. Maybe (hopefully) in a sequel they will spend more time on that relationship.
The biggest saving grace (or graces if that is proper) are the casting/acting of Michael Chiklis as Ben "The Thing" Grimm and Chris Evans as Johnny "The Human Torch" Storm. They have so much competence in the roles that you truly believed they were their characters, which is after all what they are supposed to do.
If what you are after is a fulfilling superhero movie with comic book action and fun go and see "The Fantastic Four", if not...then there are probably a dozen other movies showing...go see one of them.
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
That was cool. Okay lets do this now.
This hodgepodge of special effects makes Twisters plot seem like English literature. The compilation of happenstance, political commentary, lack of scientific fact (especially in meteorology, climatology and geography), and bizarre twists fill this disaster flick with more clichés than the Irwin Allen disaster schlock of the 1970's.
Here we have an intelligent climatologist studying glacial core samples in the arctic. He is dedicated and a genius (but not too much of genius not to be working on a thin shelf of the arctic that happens to break of in the middle of his camp). Flash forward to the same scientist speaking to a meeting of the UN in a snow New Dehli, which just happens to be co-chaired by the evil, greedy, "Dick Cheney" look-a-like of a vice president who becomes a central 'evil-doer'. Flash forward to character development, let's give the scientist an estranged wife and son in the States. I could go on and on.
This movie does its work in a nonsensical manner adding layers of gee whiz special effects, stereo typical characters and comments about the lack of political process and America's greed as means of trying to establish a plot.
And what a plot. The genius scientist has discovered that the earth is facing "abrupt global warming". The polar ice caps are going to melt very fast, disrupt the natural flow of the oceans and then cause an ice-age. How fast? 6 to 8 months.
Whoops. That will take too long in story time. 6 to 8 weeks. That major change in time frame is probably why only New York is besieged with a torrent of water putting most roads 30 feet or more under water but leaves the rest of the coastal US unscathed. That was cool. Okay now lets flash freeze the Northern Hemisphere. **ZAP** Now the majority of the "Western World" is frozen solid. But of course not the oceans.
The best of this movie is in the special effects and the unintended comedy. (A main character places a phone call from a hardwired, submerged pay phone while the power to everything else has been shorted out. A president, too inept that he has to defer to the advice of his vice president. The ability of a person to but their bare hands on metal surfaces in sub-zero temps without ripping the flesh from his bones. The absolutely worst depiction of animals through the use of CGI. Americans crossing the Rio - which should have been 10 times wider than depicted because of the melting ice caps - desperate to sneak into Mexico. -...and I could go on and on)
This idiotic, mindless drivel would have been better had they used a variation of Twister's plot, which was to show some cool effects and admit that there really was no plot.
So how bad was it? "The Day After Tomorrow"'s plot made "The Core"'s seem completely realistic.
Unfaithful (2002)
Unbelievable
With a couple of outstanding performances and stylish filming, Unfaithful is watchable but not re-watchable. The logic of the film falls apart in the story line and through certain implausibe and inexplicable scenes. Dianne Lane is gorgeous, even when Lynne tries to show her as a semi-frumpy house wife.
The chemistry between Lane and Gere is non-existent. And Erik Per Sullivan is totally unbelievable as Gere and Lane's child.(I imagine in one scene that Lynne suggested to Sullivan "Put the collander on your head. Yeah, that'll work.") The dialog at home is cheesy and forced. In no way did I believe that Lane and Gere loved or cared about each other or their child at any point in the film. Throw into the mix the chance encounters Lane has with friends and employees from her husband's business, the way that Gere acts toward his employees and the totally lack of discretion on Lane's part and you get a forced tale of washed up cliches, sterotypes, improper casting and poor scripting.
The only saving grace in the whole movie are the voracious sex scenes and especially Lane's recollection of one in particular.
The ending...well lets just say that if a train would have came crashing through the intersection, I would have been happy.