Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
moviebug06
Reviews
The Grand (2007)
Flat, no not good actors
On the way home after seeing this, I figured out why it wasn't so funny: It had too many regular actors doing semi-improvisational roles.
Christopher Guest's movies work--when they do--because he uses comic actors & writers. Particularly skit comic actors (SNL, Second City) like Guest, Harry Shearer, Eugene Levi, Michael McKean, Fred Willard, and Catherine O'Hara. They're used to performing semi-improv and as writers of sketch comedy. They're at home with the style. Regular actors in this movie don't far as well. Even stand-up comedians don't seem to do as well with this stuff, though somewhat better.
Dennis Farina was bad, Richard Kind wasn't (esp. bad), etc. Ray Romano was decent, but not quite good. Chris Parnell was really good, but his character was too limited, too one-dimensional. What would have been better was to have a regular actor play the role, and just do what Parnell came up with. Let Parnell do it, write it, and then hand it over to someone to do the part. Then Parnell could've been used for a better part where more improv was possible. A waste of his talent.
Michael McKean is a highlight--a Guest regular, but his role wasn't given much screen time. Ditto for Hank Azaria--very good, but very, very limited time on screen.
Gabe Kaplan was the worst. He wasn't funny at all, and he just sort of stood there with little to say. You could tell in one looong scene in particular where he was with the bald(er) guy with a beard--a highlight he was--where he was given set-up after set-up but came up blank. Painful. His scenes ran way too long for them joke-to-time ratio.
Woody was good.
The concept of having some good, lively characters played by good comic actors a la Guest, sitting around a poker table could be a great set-up for improv. No go here.
Prescription: Sketch comics who write--maybe for some semi-improv stuff--or others who are very glib and verbally gifted, like Azaria.
Will never watch again.
21 (2008)
pedantic trivia
Decent movie; entertaining enough and attention--getting and keeping.
To someone here: MIT is not an Ivy League school, but it is more elite than most. The Ivies: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Brown and Univ. of Pennsylvania.
To someone else: The movie doesn't say or imply that there is only 1 scholarship to Harvard Med a year, only that there is 1 of that kind. For whatever reason it is something he desperately wants--and maybe is the only one from the med school itself that offers a full, free ride--the reason given for why he wants it. Even if--as there are--other scholarships are available from Harvard Med, maybe it's the most prestigious. But there are certainly plenty of other scholarships from other source available for Harvard or med schools in general.
Blow Out (1981)
decent enough suspense, many holes/missing elements
It works well enough at a superficial level to watch as a thriller/suspense Travolta is really good. It was o.k. to watch as a mindless use of time, but to think about? Don't
Problems
"Politicalconspiracy" "Political" No political context is put forward in the least, in general or in particular to this candidate, or politics and candidates generally. A Gov. and likely Prez candidate--it isn't campaign season yet, ends up dead in a river in a car crash. The only other "political" aspect is that some handlers want to suppress info and Travolta and Allen's stories. Supposedly for "protecting his family." Handlers are nothing neither new nor necessarily conspiratorial, nor are "family" considerations always false. Obviously more is supposedly driving the suppression, but what? No antagonist, no agenda, no alternate candidate to benefit. Nothing. Political? No.
"Conspiracy" What conspiracy? There's no conspiracy present but the hint that a conspiracy exists. Aside from an aide and one interaction with a detective who "loses"/ "denies" that any evidence exists from what Travolta provides, nothing. Why not try another cop? Esp. given that the one is hostile to him. What conspiracy is there of other people? All we get is Lithgow talking to the phone, once, to some generic old-white-male politico type.
Car crash as assassination attempt? If so, it's only known via call from the above conversation that Lithgow went off the reservation beyond what his "bosses" wanted. But all he does is shoot out a tire. Is that an attempted murder? How likely is it to cause a crash into the water below in the given span of bridge? As a mode of trying to kill someone, firing one shot into the tire of a car driving by in the hope that it will: 1. Hit the tire, 2. Cause the car to swerve so uncontrollably, 3. So uncontrollably in the given span of bridge to cause the car to crash into the river, 4. That the candidate won't be able to survive the crash or be able to escape the sinking car and swim to shore.
The real crux of the plot rests on this: When Travolta helps Allen get ready to go meetsupposedly-- the reporter: Why didn't he call the reporter to verify the meeting? Or go himself given that: 1. All were under threat (then why stay at own home throughout?) 2. The reporter wanted to meet with Travolta anyway. Point: Travolta tells Allen he doesn't have a copy of the "original film" (he does have a copy of his audio recording). Question: Is he lying to her or telling the truth? If he's telling the truth it's insanely stupid to send her off with the only copy. His excuse for his stupidity? He wires her because, in case the reporter takes the film but later says he never did, Travolta can prove he did take it. But if he does take it and destroys it or denies it exists, having him on tape saying "I'll take it" doesn't prove the film exists. It could be a blank film, so says the reporter. So the filmwith no existing copyproving conclusively that the tire was shot out, doesn't exist for Travolta to give to prove his position. Dumb. The wire does nothing to help if the reporter wants to get rid of it, i.e., is in on the conspiracy.
On the other hand, if Travolta is lying to Allen and really has a copy of the film, why does he lie to her? The only explanation would be so that she can honestly tell the reporter it's the only copy that exists. That way, the reporter might be willing to believe her because, in case he's in on the conspiracy, he'll "know" he can destroy the evidence/film and stop Travolta. But: What reasonable person in on a conspiracyone that he knows Travolta believes exists, wouldn't doubt that a copy existed just because a simpleton tells him it's the only one? She could easily be duped by JT or be lying, and if Travolta is a serious person as a he very much is, who would believe that he hadn't made a copy if the issue of a political assassination is at hand? If Travolta gave Allen the original, he's stupid. If he gave Allen a copy, but lied to her so that the reporter-if-conspirator would believe Allen that there is no copy, that's almost as stupid.
People rave about the ending, but it's what's not there that's the real issue, as interesting as the ending is.
What happened to the film? If the only copy was destroyed by being tossed in the river, what is Travolta going to say to the real reporter when he asks to see/get the film that Travolta said he'd give him? 4 options: 1. Tell reporter he lied; never had the film. 2. Say he had it, but between yesterday and today it was (including by he himself) destroyed/stolen/etc. 3. That he still has it, but won't show/give it to him. 4. Tells him what happened with Allen/Lithgow.
In any case, the reporter is going to run a story about it, tell the cops/some officials. In which case Travolta will be investigated heavilypossibly Travolta was involved in the crash/killing? De Palma doesn't offer any indication in the end about the film issue. If he wrote it under the Travolta is "stupid" scenario, that's a horrible, i.e. dense, plot fulcrum point. If he wrote under the Travolta is "almost as stupid" scenario, that's also dense conception. By making no reference about the film at the end, it suggests to me that Allen had the only copy and it's in the river. If so
If Travolta does have a copy, I think the movie would make some reference to him still having it
.I think De Palma blew this important point.