This film... as I have been told over and over again "has received great reviews and a ton of awards" and "Everyone loved it". Well not me. I do think that the characters and the way each was portrayed by the excellent cast were compelling, although I see Tommy Lee Jones' character as the weak link. The potential greatness of this VERY dark movie was ruined by the unbelievably awful ending. I know life is not always wrapped up neatly, and I know that sometimes there is just no explanation... but I don't pay for real life and I do pay to be entertained. This did not entertain me and I only thought about it the next day in terms of how annoyed I was... not in terms of a good movie.
Reviews
21 Reviews
Sunshine
(2007)
Was that Freddy Kruger??
4 February 2008
This movie had everything that a great movie needs. It had a cast of excellent acting talent, amazing and well done special effects and superbly realistic sets. Visually incredible. Sadly, it lacked a coherent story. This movie could not decide if it wanted to be a realistic space adventure, a spiritual journey, or a horror film. Try to imagine 2001 Space Odyssey meets Solaris, meets Nightmare on Elm Street (right down to the makeup). The editing and directing seem to blame for a frequent sensation that you missed something in the telling. One minute, there characters are in one place talking about one thing, the next is a scene where clearly something important has occurred but the viewer is not given critical information. There area so many tangents in this convoluted and disjointed tale that even I, a major Sci-Fi and end-of-of-the-world genre buff could not get engaged with this shallow movie. The director was so lazy that he simply (and transparently) incorporated familiar scenes from classic movies like Alien, 2001, and others into the mix. Simply bad story telling in what SHOULD have been and COULD have been an awesome movie given the budget and talent they had. In the end they defaulted to a "stooopid" formula horror plot, with a weak attempt at making some garbled and bizarre spiritual message. Bottom line - I would not recommend this unless you have time to kill while waiting in a laundromat.
Heavy Metal 2000
(2000)
Left me cold
2 November 2007
Another review here mentioned the likelihood that this was a Julie Strain Ego stroke. I kind of have to agree. I find her a terrible,not-worth-the celluloid actress, although as a cartoon she is better than in real life. The storyline was really weak. So weak in fact one has to wonder if they wrote the entire script on a paper cocktail napkin while out drinking one night. True, the first Heavy Metal's storyline was a little disjointed, but it had multiple contributors and was the first of it's kind. And as the first it was good... and FUN. This one was not fun. There was no ironic/dark comedy moments. You knew where the story was going from moment one. Total formula I could not get involved with these characters either. The writing just never made me care. Lastly there was no sense of adventure. It was just very, repeat VERY, mediocre. Leave it on the shelf at the video store.
Jesse Stone: Stone Cold
(2005 TV Movie)
OK if nothing else is on
28 October 2007
Tom Selleck does a great job playing an alcoholic former LA Detective who is now the sheriff of a small Massachusetts town. Everything else about the movie was stupid. The portrayal of the serial killers was ludicrous. If you are a fan of cheesy TV murder mysteries like "Murder She Wrote", then you may like this. The over the top characterizations/portrayals of the Rape Victim, the rape victim's mother, the rapists, and the rapists parents, were all so bad it was painful to watch. Mimi Rogers was so voraciously sexual (as are all women in Selleck's adopted town) I felt like a voyeur watching the scene. I never read the book, but I hope the characters were more realistic than the TV movie. Clearly, the teleplay writers (or perhaps the novel's author) simply collected all the small town stereotypes in one place and inserted them - "insert stereotype A into Scene 2".
No matter how good any of the actors are, they can only do so much with such ridiculous dialog.
No matter how good any of the actors are, they can only do so much with such ridiculous dialog.
Pushing Daisies
(2007–2009)
Best Network show in a long time
26 October 2007
I had practically given up on Networks and their ability to air a "good" show. Then came Pushing Daisies. The concept is, of course, a bit over the top, but funny and new. It is funny if you are twisted enough to call Ned's talent for raising the dead for 60 seconds "funny". The darkly funny relationship and reluctant partnership with a PI who uses the 60 seconds to ask the dead who killed them, then collect the reward is brilliant. Add in all the cosmic and perhaps Karmic rules that go along with such an unusual talent - and you have VERY funny. It is over the top in the way that a good play is over the top. As a matter of fact, Pushing Daisies is not as much a TV show as it is story-time for grownups. The narration in somewhat reminiscent of the style in which Dr. Seuss stories were told and add tremendously to the quirky and whimsical nature of the show. The dialog is quippy, quick, and above all delightful. The bold colors used in the sets and the dress styles(Audrey Hepburn-ish)also add to the overall storybook look and feel of the show.
The best part however, is the characters. The casting director is a genius and pegged each one of the characters and cast them perfectly. My favorite is Olive. She is a wonderful funny actress with a Broadway background they put to use when she occasionally belts out a great tune. Again, this is one more aspect that makes this show unique and fun.
Now if the Network Boobs can just keep from canceling it, I will have some of my faith in them to air an original show and my scars from Firefly's cancellation might begin to heal.
The best part however, is the characters. The casting director is a genius and pegged each one of the characters and cast them perfectly. My favorite is Olive. She is a wonderful funny actress with a Broadway background they put to use when she occasionally belts out a great tune. Again, this is one more aspect that makes this show unique and fun.
Now if the Network Boobs can just keep from canceling it, I will have some of my faith in them to air an original show and my scars from Firefly's cancellation might begin to heal.
Magnolia
(1999)
Whatever... it is still bad.
6 September 2007
I know there is a deep message here... or was supposed to be. However, it was simply a painful 3 hours of flashbacks, personal discovery, obvious encounters. Many of the actors, who are otherwise talented, played hollow stereotypical versions of their characters: The motivational speaker, the abused daughter, the blissfully ignorant wife, the alcoholic TV star. The list actually goes on, but I find I am getting bored just writing it down. So I have to assume the flaw is in the direction and writing. It never ceases to amaze me that directors can attract the caliber of actor to this kind of allegedly "artsy" and meaningful film. All the futile attempts to make it "meaningful" only remind one that this is no Citizen Kane - and there is no rosebud.
The Fountain
(2006)
I have no idea
28 August 2007
Ummm... What can I say about a movie that immediately after watching you go to the Special Features Section of the DVD hoping for an explanation. The first hour showed promise. It showed the promise that all of it would come together in some revelation or enlightened concept of the eternal and immortal nature of life. Not to be I am afraid. It just got weirder. Perhaps I am just too dull - or perhaps the writers/directors who are very well educated know something I do not. It kind of felt like that too. An artsy movie that says "If you don't get this you are dull." I can't shake the feeling however, like it was two hours I was better off doing just about anything else.
Please don't bother - or if you must - watch it in fast forward. You will get the same out of it in half the time.
Please don't bother - or if you must - watch it in fast forward. You will get the same out of it in half the time.
The Bourne Ultimatum
(2007)
A little short of expectation
5 August 2007
It was non-stop action - but that is kind of the problem. Overall, I did not feel cheated. It was entertaining and a good way to spend a Sunday afternoon, however, I never got the same "thrill" as I had in the previous films. Perhaps it is just because it is the third one, and there is little new - particularly in the plot, which is rehashed from the last movie. There is lots of chasing. Chasing in cars, on foot, in buildings, across buildings, in train stations... you get the idea.
It starts out in Moscow, where Bourne takes out a bunch of Russian Police (which is never really explained), then as he gets snippets of his memory back, he goes on the same spree as before. He spends the movie tracking down answers to his past and showing off lots of CIA uber-agent skills and survives more death encounters than Friday The 13th Jason Voorhees. There is minimal mind engagement and most of the movie is about Bourne's physical prowess. The end was anti-climatic at best. Lastly, The camera movement was maddening. I saw this movie with 7 other friends, and universally that was the chief complaint. One actually said there should be a warning that watching this could cause epileptic seizures. While I understand the intent is to make one feel as though they are in the middle of the action, it really just made me nauseous. Overall: It's OK.
It starts out in Moscow, where Bourne takes out a bunch of Russian Police (which is never really explained), then as he gets snippets of his memory back, he goes on the same spree as before. He spends the movie tracking down answers to his past and showing off lots of CIA uber-agent skills and survives more death encounters than Friday The 13th Jason Voorhees. There is minimal mind engagement and most of the movie is about Bourne's physical prowess. The end was anti-climatic at best. Lastly, The camera movement was maddening. I saw this movie with 7 other friends, and universally that was the chief complaint. One actually said there should be a warning that watching this could cause epileptic seizures. While I understand the intent is to make one feel as though they are in the middle of the action, it really just made me nauseous. Overall: It's OK.
Star Trek: Enterprise
(2001–2005)
I understand why
10 July 2007
I am watching rebroadcasts on Sci-Fi. I had lost interest during season 3 and quit watching (and I am a fan of all the others), but now I get a second chance to to watch - and with a fairly objective eye. There were so many foul ups on this one, it is no surprise whatsoever it was canceled.
1) Much of the bad acting was from otherwise historically good actors, which could point to bad directing/writing. However, of the regular cast, Anthony Montgomery tops the list of really bad actors. His goofy, "Leave it to Beaver" delivery is corny, and he is just to much of a cardboard personality. Fortunately he was given less and less to do.
2) The characters never developed and were inconsistent. Archer being the standout. In one episode, Archer behaves like a I'm-gonna-Kick-your-ass Cowboy in the true Kirk tradition. Yet in the very next episode, he goes all politically correct, admonishes crew members for meeting violence with violence, and pretty much acts like a poofy French diplomat. Make up our minds! One of the great things about all the Treks is their distinct Captains. One look at Janeway in a given situation, and you knew: "Boy, you are in trouble now." Picard reached a certain limit too. And that was the fun...You knew when the antagonist had crossed the line. Archer? One never knew what his action was going to be.
3) The Xindi Story arc. First, it was a weak story line, and suspension of disbelief was impossible for a real fan. Second - It was more than an arc- it was a flipping serial. Many fans like the stand alone shows. I hated that it turned into a soap opera, where is you missed one episode, you missed vital information. The standard Trek (DS9 being the exception) format was pretty much beginning, middle, end all in an hour. There was the occasional "to be continued" but not every week.
4) Horrible forced dialog, silly 1960's style banter, not one comic and not one beloved character (see #2). There was no Scotty... No Paris, No Neelix. Not one character the audience could count on to provide some fun.
5) Crappy sets. OMG! Whenever they were on a planet, the sets looked like they had been recycled from Xena the princess warrior.
6) Everyone/Everything was too clean. In a show that is supposed to be the "True Frontier" in the early days, I would expect more than a little fake dirt when they are crawling around the bowels of the ship. I suppose the writers have never been on a C-5 Galaxy. They are anything but clean. They could have taken a page out of Battlestar Galactica on this one. BG has the feel of a real flight deck and the maintenance area is just that.
If they wanted to make this Star Trek a stand out from the others, they should have gone little grittier...a little grayer. Not all pink, and fluffy, and soft. Overall: I was saddened by the direction they took this. I am a fan, and should have cared it was canceled. But I didn't.
1) Much of the bad acting was from otherwise historically good actors, which could point to bad directing/writing. However, of the regular cast, Anthony Montgomery tops the list of really bad actors. His goofy, "Leave it to Beaver" delivery is corny, and he is just to much of a cardboard personality. Fortunately he was given less and less to do.
2) The characters never developed and were inconsistent. Archer being the standout. In one episode, Archer behaves like a I'm-gonna-Kick-your-ass Cowboy in the true Kirk tradition. Yet in the very next episode, he goes all politically correct, admonishes crew members for meeting violence with violence, and pretty much acts like a poofy French diplomat. Make up our minds! One of the great things about all the Treks is their distinct Captains. One look at Janeway in a given situation, and you knew: "Boy, you are in trouble now." Picard reached a certain limit too. And that was the fun...You knew when the antagonist had crossed the line. Archer? One never knew what his action was going to be.
3) The Xindi Story arc. First, it was a weak story line, and suspension of disbelief was impossible for a real fan. Second - It was more than an arc- it was a flipping serial. Many fans like the stand alone shows. I hated that it turned into a soap opera, where is you missed one episode, you missed vital information. The standard Trek (DS9 being the exception) format was pretty much beginning, middle, end all in an hour. There was the occasional "to be continued" but not every week.
4) Horrible forced dialog, silly 1960's style banter, not one comic and not one beloved character (see #2). There was no Scotty... No Paris, No Neelix. Not one character the audience could count on to provide some fun.
5) Crappy sets. OMG! Whenever they were on a planet, the sets looked like they had been recycled from Xena the princess warrior.
6) Everyone/Everything was too clean. In a show that is supposed to be the "True Frontier" in the early days, I would expect more than a little fake dirt when they are crawling around the bowels of the ship. I suppose the writers have never been on a C-5 Galaxy. They are anything but clean. They could have taken a page out of Battlestar Galactica on this one. BG has the feel of a real flight deck and the maintenance area is just that.
If they wanted to make this Star Trek a stand out from the others, they should have gone little grittier...a little grayer. Not all pink, and fluffy, and soft. Overall: I was saddened by the direction they took this. I am a fan, and should have cared it was canceled. But I didn't.
Jericho
(2006–2008)
OK - but Where are the shows advisors?
2 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I was initially sucked in... I am also a huge fan of post-apocalyptic movies, shows, and books. That is, until they tried to treat radiation sickness with iodine off the shelf. I suppose the writers never even bothered to check that out on any web page readily available on the subject. Then comes the Rain fallout: once it stops raining, everyone just went back to their fields and harvested the highly contaminated food from the highly contaminated soil. Alrighty then.... They also lack any sort of military adviser given the way they handle every armed encounter. It wouldn't be so awful if the characters didn't consist of an ex-Army Ranger, a mercenary and black ops member, and an FBI "uber" agent. While the acting is acceptable, the characters in general, are cardboard cut-out stereotypes, with little depth or deviation from their assigned roles. The women in the story are simply window dressing for the men and have no real voice or power. The men run the show, make all decisions, while the women in true 1950's fashion, support their men- regardless of how many bad, ignorant decisions they keep making. They simply hold down the fort, cook up food for the menfolk, and nurse the sick, all with perfect hair and makeup. On several occasions, they stupidly squander resources - like when they have a giant town BBQ with the meat so it doesn't spoil instead of smoking or salt-curing it; or like lighting up the street lights with the limited electric power they have. There also does not seem to be one short wave radio operator in town that can get a signal from even the closest town. Lastly, the unrealistic feel of the town is impossible to ignore. No major chain grocery? No real department store? One doctor in a town of 5000 people? It is a ridiculous attempt by the writers to portray a perfect middle America Mayberry RFD town to appeal to the masses -- unfortunately, that kind of town hasn't existed in about 50 years - if it ever did. I would suspect none of the writers have even driven through the Midwest, if this is how they picture it.
Overall - Pass over this one. It stared out with a good premise, and went downhill. How can one explain a show like Firefly getting canceled and this one sticks? The is beyond me who would want to keep this show around enough to send the nuts to CBS.
Overall - Pass over this one. It stared out with a good premise, and went downhill. How can one explain a show like Firefly getting canceled and this one sticks? The is beyond me who would want to keep this show around enough to send the nuts to CBS.
Blood and Concrete
(1991)
Fun!
1 July 2007
Fun enjoyable, offbeat, and quirky. Starts off with Beals attempted, but interrupted suicide. You then follow Joey Turks (Zane), a sleazy, two bit,criminal through the strangest day in his cheesy,life. All this while wearing horrible and tacky clothes. Add to this a,dead body in the pool, a comic-book-style LA noir cop, and Zane's,Forrest Gump approach to crime, and you get an absolute treat. Beals is,great as the odd, wounded bird of a girlfriend. She has kind of a Wednesday Addams meets Cyndi Lauper thing happening.
It doesn't have a lot of CGI, or big bangs, just some fun dialog and good writing. Fun and entertaining.
Overall: Watch this if you get the chance.
It doesn't have a lot of CGI, or big bangs, just some fun dialog and good writing. Fun and entertaining.
Overall: Watch this if you get the chance.
Deadfall
(1993)
You don't have to be good, Just a Coppola
1 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
A film noir of sorts, narrated by the son of a lifelong grifter. One day the con goes bad, and the grifter's son (Michael Biehn) shoots his dad (James Coburn). The dying Coburn, head of the "crew", gives a cryptic message to his son which sets Biehn on an oddessy to find an uncle he never knew he had. In the process, an odd assortment of over the top and incoherent characters, parades through the story. This movie should have been the end of Nicolas Cage's career. A performance like that has been the end of many before, but their names aren't Coppola. The unrealistic story falls short of campy or parody and leads up to a "twist" where James Coburn has set the whole thing up, is not really dead, and the uncle was played by him all along. Biehn leaves the grifter lifestyle disillusioned and alone.
As many before seem to have said, Michael Biehn, James Coburn, Charlie Sheen, Peter Fonda, and the rest of the decent cast, could have been enough to carry even this weak script and have made it watchable. Except the Coppola team of Nicholas Cage and Christopher Coppola seem to have gone the extra mile to sabotage them. Nicholas Cage is an actor who thinks that method acting means talking in weird, unintelligible, accents and dressing like a complete boob. According to the trivia on this movie, he thought that was more "believable". I would ask: On what planet? It was distracting and annoying. I think it was his attempt at scene-stealing. I give it a 2 because as bad as it was - watching Biehn and Coburn wasn't ALL bad. The wardrobe of Sarah Trigger had a very nice 1940's feel without being 1940's at all. VERY risqué sex scene between Trigger and Biehn.
Overall: Change the channel.
As many before seem to have said, Michael Biehn, James Coburn, Charlie Sheen, Peter Fonda, and the rest of the decent cast, could have been enough to carry even this weak script and have made it watchable. Except the Coppola team of Nicholas Cage and Christopher Coppola seem to have gone the extra mile to sabotage them. Nicholas Cage is an actor who thinks that method acting means talking in weird, unintelligible, accents and dressing like a complete boob. According to the trivia on this movie, he thought that was more "believable". I would ask: On what planet? It was distracting and annoying. I think it was his attempt at scene-stealing. I give it a 2 because as bad as it was - watching Biehn and Coburn wasn't ALL bad. The wardrobe of Sarah Trigger had a very nice 1940's feel without being 1940's at all. VERY risqué sex scene between Trigger and Biehn.
Overall: Change the channel.
Stranger Than Fiction
(2006)
Give it a go
29 June 2007
Original and worth the time. The far fetched plot is a joy to watch unfold, so much so, you forget it is such a far fetched plot. As I watched this, I kept thinking, what an incredibly fantastic thing that would be. How would one react to such a phenomenon? Could you get anyone to believe you?
Will Ferrell is actually one of my LEAST favorite actors, but he does a wonderful job here. Emma Thompson, is perfect as always. Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Dustin Hoffman are also excellent in their roles. Queen Latifah plays low key and and balances Thompson's twitchy character with her almost droll one liners. She is the wonderful "something extra" in the cast.
Fun and original. See it if you get the chance.
Will Ferrell is actually one of my LEAST favorite actors, but he does a wonderful job here. Emma Thompson, is perfect as always. Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Dustin Hoffman are also excellent in their roles. Queen Latifah plays low key and and balances Thompson's twitchy character with her almost droll one liners. She is the wonderful "something extra" in the cast.
Fun and original. See it if you get the chance.
Bad Manners
(1997)
How could it be so bad
29 June 2007
Great actors, good filming, a potentially interesting plot, and what should have been good dialog. Nothing else is good about this movie. Perhaps the writer or director thought they could make a thought provoking film out of annoying characters who are as deep as a cup of coffee.
Within 10 minutes I disliked the portrayal of Kim by Caroleen Feeney so much that it became a distraction. While Kim is supposed to be an unsympathetic character, I am not sure I was supposed to want to commit acts of physical violence upon her. The first (of many) bizarre things that happen is that Wes (David Strathairn) goes from "I am missing $50.00" to "She stole 50$" in about 3 seconds. It was quite implausible, since she (Kim) never had access to his wallet nor was she a master pickpocket-- there simply was no rational reason to suspect her. Most people have lost/misplaced money and assume just that... we LOST it. Same goes for Kim later. All very unrealistic behavior in what is supposed to be (I think) a look at real people. The character of Kim was, at minimum, suffering from a BiPolar disorder. Wes had huge inadequacy issues, Nancy was just boring, and Matt was delusional (particularly about music). I actually turned this off about 2/3 of the way through. However, to write a valid comment, I forced myself to turn it back on hoping that something would come together in this movie. No, sorry, it was still bad. Make it a point to miss this one.
Within 10 minutes I disliked the portrayal of Kim by Caroleen Feeney so much that it became a distraction. While Kim is supposed to be an unsympathetic character, I am not sure I was supposed to want to commit acts of physical violence upon her. The first (of many) bizarre things that happen is that Wes (David Strathairn) goes from "I am missing $50.00" to "She stole 50$" in about 3 seconds. It was quite implausible, since she (Kim) never had access to his wallet nor was she a master pickpocket-- there simply was no rational reason to suspect her. Most people have lost/misplaced money and assume just that... we LOST it. Same goes for Kim later. All very unrealistic behavior in what is supposed to be (I think) a look at real people. The character of Kim was, at minimum, suffering from a BiPolar disorder. Wes had huge inadequacy issues, Nancy was just boring, and Matt was delusional (particularly about music). I actually turned this off about 2/3 of the way through. However, to write a valid comment, I forced myself to turn it back on hoping that something would come together in this movie. No, sorry, it was still bad. Make it a point to miss this one.
The Messengers
(2007)
Blah and NOTHING new
23 June 2007
I almost laughed out loud when during the commentary the director said this movie is original with a strong plot line. There is not one... repeat ONE original plot line or special effect in this blah movie.
The Crows.... Hitchcock did it superbly back before CGI and even with CGI this film falls short of a well done attack scene. The creepy crawly boy... The Grudge did it and did it better. The psycho...done in Cold Creek Manor most recently, however it has been done to death. No pun intended. Disconnected/rebellious teen who no one listens to... about a dozen films have used this one right down to Beetlejuice. The oozy stuff from the basement... can you say Amnityville Horror? Doors opening unbidden... What Lies Beneath did it with much more flair. Creepy farmhouse... too numerous to mention.
The backdrop of metaphysics-- which should have been the central focus, gets lost once you figure out what is happening, which by the way is pretty early on.
One thing (of many actually) they never even try to explain in the movie is how they explain to the police that their attacker was sucked down the ooze in the basement, so they really don't have a body.
Overall... DON'T BOTHER
The Crows.... Hitchcock did it superbly back before CGI and even with CGI this film falls short of a well done attack scene. The creepy crawly boy... The Grudge did it and did it better. The psycho...done in Cold Creek Manor most recently, however it has been done to death. No pun intended. Disconnected/rebellious teen who no one listens to... about a dozen films have used this one right down to Beetlejuice. The oozy stuff from the basement... can you say Amnityville Horror? Doors opening unbidden... What Lies Beneath did it with much more flair. Creepy farmhouse... too numerous to mention.
The backdrop of metaphysics-- which should have been the central focus, gets lost once you figure out what is happening, which by the way is pretty early on.
One thing (of many actually) they never even try to explain in the movie is how they explain to the police that their attacker was sucked down the ooze in the basement, so they really don't have a body.
Overall... DON'T BOTHER
Basic
(2003)
Not total junk... but close
17 June 2007
Admittedly, it kept me entertained for most of the movie. A list of issues pops to mind immediately. There was obviously no military adviser - how cheap can you be - course maybe he spent all his money on Travolta's salary. The role of the gruff, tough, military guy paired with an uninitiated, somewhat naive female, whom he leads around by the nose has been done, oh I don't know, maybe 1000 times over. Plot twists are better when you have a good plot. Take Travolta's movie Swordfish...however, Basic was too plot thin for the twists and it made the ending actually laughable. Lastly, (well not really but I don't want to be here all night) Connie Nielsen is Danish. Her supposed "Florida southern accent" was the absolute worst. What were they thinking? Since I only rented it I did not feel too ripped off. Like I said, It was entertaining for most of the couple of hours I spent watching it.
Sleepwalkers
(1992)
Just Plain dumb
27 November 2006
There are no spoilers here... Because there is no plot to spoil. Madchen Amick is living proof a face can make a living acting-- no talent required. The only bright spot are a few really good one-liners delivered very nicely by Alice Krige, but then again, she IS Alice Krige. Her soft dreamy voice gives the only hint at just how seductively dangerous these odd creatures can be. She is believably creepy in this otherwise unbelievable plot. How they got her to agree to this project remains a mystery. The screenplay writers must have been medicated when they submitted this script. It has major continuity problems, superficial stereotypical characters, horror formula writing, and simply falls short of making any sense what-so-ever. The creatures, while they have neat skills like going "dim", the question of where they come from and what they are is never so much explored.
Don't waste any time on this one.
Don't waste any time on this one.
Syriana
(2005)
Good acting - Bad Execution
6 July 2006
This film does a couple of things VERY well... it does not take sides and is honest. After that it goes downhill. The convoluted and sometime ambiguous direction of the plot was maddening.
I could not, for the life of me, get involved with or care about the people in the film. The characters actually felt secondary to the plot. There were moments in which I felt narration would have been more effective than some of the hollow characters paraded in front of me. Matt Damon's relationship with his wife, Clooneys relationship with his son, The prince's relationship with his father... all of them related to oil... and all never fleshed out completely. Not one of them evoked a response from me emotionally. They did, however, make me look at my watch a couple of times, to see how much longer I had to sit there.
So here is the upshot as I see it:
OK - America has a love hate relationship and is addicted to oil - no surprise there. OK- America (and the rest of the developed western world) will take advantage of a foreign resource that they need and want and will take it. Particularly if it is profitable-- Ummm... No kidding.
OK- so big giant businessmen and lawyers are corrupt. Jeez, tell me something new.
Overall, I would not watch it again and I am glad I did not pay much for it.
Even I, a tree hugger, Kyoto accord supporter, biofuel using, ex hippy, who has lived overseas could not remain involved in this film.
I could not, for the life of me, get involved with or care about the people in the film. The characters actually felt secondary to the plot. There were moments in which I felt narration would have been more effective than some of the hollow characters paraded in front of me. Matt Damon's relationship with his wife, Clooneys relationship with his son, The prince's relationship with his father... all of them related to oil... and all never fleshed out completely. Not one of them evoked a response from me emotionally. They did, however, make me look at my watch a couple of times, to see how much longer I had to sit there.
So here is the upshot as I see it:
OK - America has a love hate relationship and is addicted to oil - no surprise there. OK- America (and the rest of the developed western world) will take advantage of a foreign resource that they need and want and will take it. Particularly if it is profitable-- Ummm... No kidding.
OK- so big giant businessmen and lawyers are corrupt. Jeez, tell me something new.
Overall, I would not watch it again and I am glad I did not pay much for it.
Even I, a tree hugger, Kyoto accord supporter, biofuel using, ex hippy, who has lived overseas could not remain involved in this film.
Dead End
(I) (2003)
Found a Fun little Horror
17 June 2006
A campy fun horror movie. On Christmas Eve, a typically dysfunctional middle class family packs into a car to go to grandma's house. Or so they think. A shortcut, a pumpkin pie, a woman in white, and near head on collision later... well let's just say being locked in the car with this family could be horrifying enough... There are few real surprises in the telling of the story, as in the characters are typically horror Movie IQ impaired. But the dialogue in spots is genuinely funny and some moments are even a bit scary. When I say "dumb" I don't mean badly acted... I mean, that after two grisly murders, one of the characters decides it is a good time to go into the woods alone.. or they take separate routes to the lonely cabin in the woods. This "formula behavior" actually enhances the fun feel of the movie.
Lin Shaye steals the show as a a June Cleaver-type mom... She has the absolute best lines and her delivery is great. Ray Wise on the other hand, was not the best choice. He played the role like a mean Archie Bunker...a little too "mean" if you ask me. I would have liked a little more of a dark/dysfunctional comedic touch. The brother played by Mick Cain was simply a simp. Annoying, repugnant, and unrealistic. The only bad act in the bunch. Alexandra Holden was much too young to be playing a Psychiatrist, but she was fun in parts too.
While I did figure it out... the ending is still fun and had a little twist. But nothing that you will work too hard at figuring out.
All in all - worth the watch if you aren't busy.
Lin Shaye steals the show as a a June Cleaver-type mom... She has the absolute best lines and her delivery is great. Ray Wise on the other hand, was not the best choice. He played the role like a mean Archie Bunker...a little too "mean" if you ask me. I would have liked a little more of a dark/dysfunctional comedic touch. The brother played by Mick Cain was simply a simp. Annoying, repugnant, and unrealistic. The only bad act in the bunch. Alexandra Holden was much too young to be playing a Psychiatrist, but she was fun in parts too.
While I did figure it out... the ending is still fun and had a little twist. But nothing that you will work too hard at figuring out.
All in all - worth the watch if you aren't busy.
Half Light
(2006)
Had me until the 1940 formula
11 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Initially this had some very good potential. Rachel Carlson, a best selling author at the top of her game, loses her son in a tragedy that all mothers fear. Fast Forward and the viewer becomes aware that she is now separated from her less than successful husband (also a writer) and she decides to hermit herself away to finish her next book. Her dearest friend finds the perfect charming cottage for her across the bay from a lighthouse.
She begins to see/hear/feel creepy and downright scary things like toys turning on, horrible nightmares, visions and the like. Then... a wonderful, handsome man comes into her life - Angus, the lighthouse keeper. He lifts her spirits, making her think maybe life is all good again. He wines, dines and romances her, until she finds out he is a ghost (well, not really). Supposedly he died some years ago in a local scandal - which the local psychic had foretold. Rachel's mental state degrades and the locals think she is a loon. Then in true 1940's fashion, it becomes clear that all the whole thing was some plot by her soon-to-be ex and the friend that rented her the cottage, who is the ex's mistress now. They plotted - using a felon actor to play Angus, to make her death look like a suicide and thereby get all her money. Things really start to unravel here. The conspirators are picked off one by one... ostensibly by the "real" ghost of the lighthouse keeper... and the odd "messages" from her son are never fully explained.
Overall - great start out of the gate and plot thread. I was quite taken with the spooky feel of it until the odd turn to an old 1940's favorite theme noir - with the modern blood-lust at the end. Excellent locations, with beautiful scenery. Demi Moore kind of floats through the whole movie, and the only actor that really stood out was Hans Matheson- who played the dashing, sensitive, yet very dangerous Angus.
She begins to see/hear/feel creepy and downright scary things like toys turning on, horrible nightmares, visions and the like. Then... a wonderful, handsome man comes into her life - Angus, the lighthouse keeper. He lifts her spirits, making her think maybe life is all good again. He wines, dines and romances her, until she finds out he is a ghost (well, not really). Supposedly he died some years ago in a local scandal - which the local psychic had foretold. Rachel's mental state degrades and the locals think she is a loon. Then in true 1940's fashion, it becomes clear that all the whole thing was some plot by her soon-to-be ex and the friend that rented her the cottage, who is the ex's mistress now. They plotted - using a felon actor to play Angus, to make her death look like a suicide and thereby get all her money. Things really start to unravel here. The conspirators are picked off one by one... ostensibly by the "real" ghost of the lighthouse keeper... and the odd "messages" from her son are never fully explained.
Overall - great start out of the gate and plot thread. I was quite taken with the spooky feel of it until the odd turn to an old 1940's favorite theme noir - with the modern blood-lust at the end. Excellent locations, with beautiful scenery. Demi Moore kind of floats through the whole movie, and the only actor that really stood out was Hans Matheson- who played the dashing, sensitive, yet very dangerous Angus.
The River King
(2005)
A thought provoking film
11 June 2006
Nicely done, with a superb soundtrack, this film surprised me, although I don't know why, since I have yet to see Ed Burns fail in a performance.
I am saddened to see a movie of this caliber not released in theaters, but grateful that I have on Demand, so I was able to catch this touching movie.
One of the things that was excellent about this film was how the landscape was used. A cold, wintery, and sometimes eerie setting provides the backdrop for this suicide (or was it murder)at a boarding school for the well-to-do students. A lot of elements are well done in this movie: Teen Angst, Police cover-ups, relationships, romance, and flashbacks to the lead character's own painful memories.
Overall, a nice movie to curl up on the couch with, and a movie that will keep you thinking about it the next day.
I am saddened to see a movie of this caliber not released in theaters, but grateful that I have on Demand, so I was able to catch this touching movie.
One of the things that was excellent about this film was how the landscape was used. A cold, wintery, and sometimes eerie setting provides the backdrop for this suicide (or was it murder)at a boarding school for the well-to-do students. A lot of elements are well done in this movie: Teen Angst, Police cover-ups, relationships, romance, and flashbacks to the lead character's own painful memories.
Overall, a nice movie to curl up on the couch with, and a movie that will keep you thinking about it the next day.
Tell Your Friends