Change Your Image
quark18
Reviews
Death on the Nile (2022)
"Love" is dangerous
"Love is dangerous" is actually a running theme through Agatha Christie novels, based on her life experience with her first husband. That is undoubtedly the theme established by the overly long exposition at the beginning of this movie, including the ridiculously made-up scenes of Poirot's youth that never appeared in any Christie novel.
Get to the murders already! Christie was an expert at plotting and timing, and knew how to throw in another murder just when we were getting bored.
I see what the other reviewers mean by the obvious green screens. Half the fun of the 1978 version was the on-location scenery of a country that I'll probably never visit, and the green screens here fail to take us to a different place and time.
The other half of the fun in the 1978 version was the all-star cast. No one can play Jackie better than Mia Farrow. And the banter between Bette Davis and Maggie Smith was the best!! That is also absent in this 2022 version.
This version does a good job of dealing with racism and even an LGBTQ partnership, in showing the attitudes of the time but not reproducing them. It misses wide on class issues, however-in spite of including a character who is an aristocrat and a socialist. The boat servants have a neat way of simply disappearing, so as not to become part of the suspects. Until the servants are needed at the end, to lock down the rich folks for the grand reveal.
Poirot's mustache is slightly less ridiculous here than it was in "Murder on the Orient Express"-Branagh must have heard our complaints about it. Branagh's Poirot is a welcome change from Peter Ustinov, but the definitive Poirot is David Suchet. Unfortunately, the productions starring Suchet did not have the budgets to film Christie properly.
Branagh's twist on the "one shot to end a broken heart" at the end is brilliant-going through Simon's back and into Jackie's heart. That's better than how Christie wrote it or how any previous film version showed it. Branagh has a good feel for moral justice.
The "Karnak" boat is beautiful! Don't know if 1930s boats used that much glass, but I'd love a trip on that boat today.
Changing Salome Otterbourne from a novelist into a singer was a nice touch. But that overtly sexualized dancing at the beginning of the film simply was not done in the public in the 1930s.
The biggest miss, however, was not having Rosalie Otterbourne happily married off at the end. Because Agatha Christie DID believe in love-not the overtly sexualized obsession displayed by Jackie, Simon, and Linnet, but a partnership based on affection, respect, companionship, and a desire to make one's partner happy over a lifetime. In the novel, which I've read many times, Christie achieves this by pairing off Cornelia Robson with Dr. Bessner, and Rosalie with Tim Allerton-as healthy examples of true, lasting love. Like Christie's second marriage.
From Branagh's monologue on vegetable marrows, I'm guessing that he wants his next project to be "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd", which is considered Christie's best novel. The brilliance of that novel seems impossible to translate into a film version, but I'd like to see Branagh attempt it. Alas, the mediocre reception to this film will likely leave a "Roger Ackroyd" film on the shelf.
Brewster's Millions (1985)
Vote for None of the Above!
Yes, this is a cornball comedy but it still resonates with me in 2022, after first seeing it as a kid in the 80s.
It is hard for Brewster to spend $30 million with nothing to show for it after 30 days. It is even harder to spend it under the disapproving eyes of a smart, good-hearted paralegal woman he admires, and who keeps track of all his receipts. Brewster manages it in the end, however, with her help.
Most of this movie is a lesson on the value of money. Sadly, in 2022, that lesson seems to be lost on most people. It also serves as a lesson in the mixed motives and conflicts of interest of the legal trustees who will do anything to trip up Brewster from reaching his goal, including buying out the paralegal's fiancé.
What I remember most, however, is the call to vote for None of the Above! I always remembered that and often wish I had that option.
Robin Hood (2018)
Modern-ish take on Robin Hood
I've read all the bad reviews of this film but I like it. Just watched it five times on a dvd I bought.
Let's start with the bad: The design is very confusing. The set design and costumes are neither medieval nor modern. I see what the filmmakers were trying to do-a modern take with nods to the classic Robin Hood world-but it doesn't work. It's a mishmash of styles that distracts from the main story because it interferes with the suspension of disbelief. Why put the characters in modern-style clothing and have them use bows and arrows and travel by horse-drawn carts? It just comes across as fake and artificial.
Also, why put Robin of Loxley in a manor house and then forget to fill it with servants? Do you think that lords of the manor washed their own clothes, baked their own bread, and cleaned their own chamber pots? The social conventions are also a confused mishmash of modern and medieval.
Okay, here is the good: The story is realistic from a psychological perspective. Yes, it makes sense that Robin Hood did not become the legend he is today merely because he stole a few coins from the rich and gave them to the poor; he probably threatened the power structures of his world in a serious way-and this is still relevant in 2022.
It also makes sense that Robin had powerful personal motivations to choose the life he did. Yes, Robin Hood would have to be a man who understood both the rich and the poor.
The cast is terrific. You can see that Taron and Jaime liked each other. John has some of the best lines in the film: "You are powerless only if you believe you are powerless."-I say this often in my work as an activist.
This line is from Robin, naturally: "If the rich steal from us first, who really are the thieves?"
That prompts the question, What would a fully modern Robin Hood look like? I'd like to see that film. Or better yet, in real life.
There are other interesting themes: The first time we see Robin and John, they are trying to kill each other. Consider what they might accomplish if they stopped fighting each other and worked together instead.
They are manipulated into fighting each other, however-a Cardinal of the Church and the Sheriff of Nottingham have been secretly paying Arabic generals to manufacture wars, and stealing money from the poor in order to make sure that poor people keep fighting each other in these wars.
And at the end, John may have killed the Sheriff of Nottingham, but the office persists. Hence the need for systemic change instead of just killing the evil individual currently holding the office.
Also a point that many people don't understand: In order to get a seat at the big table, Robin of Loxley needs to lie to and flatter the people in power. Only in this way can he gain the information that helps his true cause.
Other pieces of dialogue are hokey and cringeworthy, a lot of which comes out of Marian's mouth.
Friar Tuck is hilarious and F. Murray Abraham is great as the corrupt Cardinal.
The action sequences are fine, although sometimes derivative from other films.
And finally, for the love of heaven, please have Robin Hood wear Lincoln green!
Just My Luck (2006)
Fun, sweet, screwball comedy about luck
I'm watching this movie in 2019 as a fan of Chris Pine, not Lindsay Lohan. I've never seen Lohan in anything before and I can't understand the bad reviews. Her performance here is fine, with the exception of the bacon scene where she doesn't look hungry, but doing multiple takes of eating scenes is hard on actors. Her bad reviews seem to coincide with her name appearing in the tabloids around that time. Considering recent news coming out about widespread abuse of children in Hollywood, I have a lot of empathy for child actors and would cut her a break.
Ashley (Lohan) is a very lucky young lady who does not think she is lucky. She just feels entitled to have everything go her way, from getting cabs to finding money. Until she loses her luck. There is a lesson here for those who wish to see it, but it's totally possible to watch this slapstick comedy without any serious reflection at all.
In contrast, Jake (Pine) is a very UNlucky young man for whom everything goes wrong and he cannot even cross the street from home to work without getting bird crap on him and nearly run over by a car. (The way that driver cursed at him is very New York.) Jake is almost too good to be true, maintaining a positive attitude and amazing persistence in the face of constant disaster. He is perfectly sweet to his young cousin Katie, who also has lousy luck. His constant bad fortune makes him empathize with others who are down on their luck. There is a lesson here, too, for those who wish to see it.
Ashley and Jake exchange luck with a kiss at a masquerade ball and there is another lesson here, in how much difference a little luck can make in a person's life. Luck can be the difference between a janitor job cleaning backed-up toilets and a wealthy life as the manager of a rock group (Jake). Luck can be the difference between that same disgusting janitor job and Vice President of a PR firm (Ashley) where throwing A-list parties is "work." Same person, same skills, same personality. Just different luck.
To Jake's credit, he remains sweet after his sudden good fortune. To Ashley's credit, she realizes that living a charmed life isn't much fun if the people she cares about do not share in it. And it is to both their credit that they voluntarily give the luck to someone who needs it even more than they do, the little Katie.
Okay, I understand that the filmmakers wanted to produce screwball physical comedy, but it was sometimes too contrived. That scene of Ashley dancing with the floor-polishing machine was funny but after losing all her shoes in her flooded apt, there's no way she'd have worn those ridiculous slippery heels to that job. Also, dropping her last contact lens into the litter pan might be bad luck, but picking it up and putting it back in her eye without rinsing it in disinfectant is plain stupid.
Not everything is based on luck. Jake's knowledge of music and his persistence are independent of luck. Ashley got her big break due to luck, but she was prepared enough to improvise a PR plan to a major client, given the unexpected opportunity.
Both Jake and Ashley learn to be better prepared about things in general, to leave less to luck.
That studio shared by Ashley's friends Maggie and Dana is much more realistic about housing in NYC than "Sex and the City," which is particularly referenced here.
It is interesting to see the contexts in which people say things like, "When one door closes, two others open" and "the wheel always spins back." They are said by people who have suffered misfortunes and are desperately hoping that things will improve.
I am in that situation right now. That must be why I keep watching this dvd, hoping that my luck will change. It is a fun, light comedy that can be watched and enjoyed many times.
It is fascinating that the careers of Mr Pine and Ms Lohan went in opposite directions after 2006, exactly as depicted in this movie. Eerie.
Chris Pine seems to really enjoy doing physical comedy. I did not know how good an acting job he did in this one until I tracked down a copy of "Confession," where he plays a very dark character, also convincingly. I think he would like to do more of those, too, instead of being cast mainly for his beautiful face.
The character Damon is really funny. I have no idea if bigshot music producers actually act like that, but I hope they do.
Finally, this film also works as an introduction to the real-life band McFly. What a fun idea, to make a film about a band where the musicians play key roles but do not have the burden of carrying the film. We can enjoy their music while spending most of the film watching the professional actors. The band's performance was fine. I picked up their album after watching this movie.
Ice Princess (2005)
Smart girls can study AND skate
It's refreshing to see a skating film that covers the nasty, competitive side of figure skating. It is a sport where one slip of the blade for one split-second can destroy years of training and its competitors do play mind games on each other to try to make that happen. Looking pretty on the ice does not necessarily mean that these skaters behave well off the ice.
I laughed at the way skaters hiss menacingly off-camera but present the standard frozen smile and simper to the camera. I always thought those smiles and those "I just wanted to skate my best" lines sounded fake and canned.
This film also looks at the stereotype of "dumb jock" and only partially succeeds at breaking it. It's been criticized for elevating sports above studying, so I'd like to address that.
It is completely possible to go to Harvard AND skate at the highest levels. Examples abound. Debi Thomas won Olympic bronze in 1988 while studying engineering at Stanford. Paul Wylie won silver in 92 and went to Harvard undergrad and law school. Sarah Hughes won gold in 2002 and went to Yale. And today, 2018 World Champ Nathan Chen is going to Yale.
So there was no real reason to make Casey turn down a physics scholarship to Harvard in order to skate. One can pursue both.
(Anyway, Harvard guarantees full financial aid to any student accepted there. There is no need to apply for special scholarships. You can tell that no one involved in making this film knew that or bothered to research it. Besides, girls who are good at physics would be courted by nearby MIT.)
I'm a girl who is very good at math and went to an elite college, so I'm going to throw out some numbers:
Every year, 1600 new students enroll at Harvard.
This year, 18 young ladies competed at the US national figure skating championships, senior level, and 12 at the junior level.
So it is actually easier to get into Harvard than it is to even compete as a skater at the national level, much less win. And that doesn't even include the thousands of students who go to Yale, Stanford, and other elite schools like Harvard.
Conclusion: If you have skating talent and ambition, go for it. It is a much more rare quality than merely going to Harvard.
But it is also a much more risky path. What if your blade slips for that one split-second and you wind up in the dreaded 4th or 5th place, just off the podium? What are you going to do with the rest of your life? I've always wondered what happens to the 2nd tier of skaters, who work just as hard as 1-3 but don't quite make it there.
So, it would be smart to have a backup plan. This is what Casey decides to do at the end, take a few college courses per term while prioritizing her skating. Michelle Kwan seemed to do this, postpone college until after her competitive skating years were over.
This film shows that physics can be integrated into skating, but this is hardly a new idea. Any good coach should know this. It is a nice way of showing that studying can complement and even enhance sports, however, as opposed to competing against it.
Yes, the physics shown are faulty, but that's been well covered elsewhere. Confirms that the filmmakers weren't very smart. Casey never said that physics was her passion, anyway; her teacher said it. Casey was good at physics but that doesn't mean she was especially dedicated to it. I was good at math-calculus in 11th grade and part of my school's championship math team-but my passion was literature, so that's what I majored in. One more note: that physics book Casey carries everywhere is a simple "conceptual physics" book. Casey would be carrying a much thicker and heavier "physics for scientists" textbook that uses calculus or trig, at the very least.
Gen's story shows the flip side of Casey's. Gen chooses school over sports. Not necessarily because she is particularly good at either, but because she wants what Casey has, a "normal" teen life of going to school, hanging out with friends, watching tv, and eating what she wants. And maybe if she has the time to learn and pass math, she can go to college.
Oh yes, let's see a figure skating film that covers eating disorders. A recent US champion stepped away from skating to deal with her eating disorders-good for her for placing her long-term health as a higher priority than skating. I wish someone had done the same for a particular Russian champion who looked anorexic. Every time I saw her on the ice, including in person at the 2016 World Championships in Boston, I wanted to pull her off the ice and feed her a hearty meal. She's been looking better this last year, however, since moving to a new country.
Maps to the Stars (2014)
Yes, these stars are disgusting and that is the point
Americans do not understand satire. I enjoy satires, including black comedies like "American Psycho," but did not see a lot of the humor in this one until my second viewing.
The comment about "stretch limo" was an in-joke referring to Pattinson in "Cosmopolis," I suppose. I didn't see that one.
Casting John Cusack in this one is also an in-joke, since he comes from a showbiz family and has appeared in many films with his sister Joan. I also think I know which incestuous self-help guru Stafford Weiss is supposed to be.
Took me a while to recall that Olivia Williams appeared in "The Sixth Sense," where she was surrounded by ghosts but did not see them.
We start by seeing Hollywood as an outsider, as most of us are. The girl getting off a bus, the driver who wants to be an actor-writer, and the girl dying of non-Hodgson's lymphoma who wants a visit from her favorite celebrity. These people look up to Hollywood stars.
Then we start getting peeks behind the curtain. The kid star Benjie is a foul-mouthed a**hole who's already gone through drug rehab at age 13. Shallow, vulgar teens at parties. Insecure, aging star Havanna Segrand who's fueled by countless drugs and sees the ghost of the mother who molested her.
Benjie also sees ghosts, of dead kids, and kills the kid he's jealous of while seeing one. His parents are more concerned about Benjie getting pulled from the film and what the press will say than they are about Benjie's mental health or the kid he killed.
Havanna starts dancing, happy that she got a role after a kid died. The polished tv interview given by the movie star is immediately followed by a scene of her sitting on the toilet, making her personal assistant Agatha witness her smelly, farting constipation. She is so jealous of the younger, deformed Agatha's love interest, Jerome, that she has to f**k him herself.
Yes, these people are disgusting. I didn't notice until the second viewing, which object Agatha used to kill Havanna; it looked like her mother's Golden Globe statue. Before the end of the movie, I'm rooting for Agatha to kill them all off. Better that way.
And that's before factoring in the incest-brother-sister incest and mother-daughter incest. Sick on top of disgusting. Hollywood is a shallow, sick, disgusting, and incestuous world.
And yet, so many people are eager to peek behind the curtain, to get a 'map to the stars.' Lots of tabloids and magazines exist to do this. Because these people are beautiful, famous, and rich, their lives must be better than ours? I didn't even care how gorgeous their houses are-straight out of Architectural Digest-because the people who live in them are so twisted. And yet, it's probably better to be twisted in a nice house than twisted and in danger of becoming homeless because landlords keep jacking up the rent.
Oh right, we put these stars up on a pedestal because they give us an entertaining distraction from our own small, dull lives. And who doesn't worship beauty. But we'd be much better off admiring beautiful actions rather than beautiful faces, which are maintained at the expense of everything in life that matters.
Look at all the dead children. There are so many dead children. I come from publishing, which is also an incestuous insider's world and we have a saying, "Publishing eats its young." Hollywood also eats its young. It would be nice to see an updated version of "Maps" that incorporates the recent revelations of child sexual abuse and the #MeToo stories in Hollywood.
This film came out in 2014, the same year as that other film of Hollywood looking at itself, "Birdman." But "Birdman" was too incestuous in that it made sense only to insiders and not to us, the audience. "Maps" is much better. At least some of the disgusting characters died at the end.
Even the people who did not grasp the satire of "Maps" did get its main point loud and clear: we should NOT admire these sick and disgusting people. Let us admire their work and then leave them alone to live their own lives. And live our own lives.
2012 (2009)
Spectacular shot of collapsing glass towers
Love that shot of the small plane flying between the two glass towers falling into each other, then past a crashing US Bank building. This may be because I work in the area and pass those buildings in downtown LA's financial district every day. I watch that sequence over and over again on dvd, after initially seeing this movie in a theater in 2009.
This is my favorite disaster flick, with terrific destruction on a massive scale. We see LA get destroyed, then Vegas and DC. That is, cities that lots of folks would love to see destroyed. We already saw New York get destroyed in The Day After Tomorrow. The computer graphics in this one are better.
And that's how I watch disaster flicks. The star of the show is the disaster. Enjoy that. Everything else is contrived to give us the best views of the destruction and to make us care about what happens.
Of course the plot is silly, with too many daring, improbable, just-in-the-nick-of-time escapes. It's merely a vehicle to show us the unfolding disaster.
Of course the characters and dialogue are flat and undeveloped. They just need to be likable enough to make us cheer them on. At least some of them. I, for one, am delighted that at least one billionaire jerk dies near the end. And yes, it is totally credible that "our" government and rich jerks would find a way to save themselves and not even let the rest of us know what's coming. They're doing it already, building expensive underground bunkers for the end of the world-for themselves. Complete with guns to protect them against the likes of us.
I liked the idealistic writer Jackson Curtis and Dr. Adrian Helmsley, and definitely cheered them on.
This is a fun, entertaining, fast-paced, and adventurous visual spectacle. Enjoy it for what it is.
Red Sparrow (2018)
3.5-inch diskettes-really??!
Seriously, was this manuscript sitting in Jason Matthews's desk drawer at the CIA for 20 years before it got published? Or did the CIA finally give him the nod to give away Cold War secrets from the 80s and 90s? This movie is badly dated. There's something called the inter-webs in 2018 and computers aren't even made with disk drives of any kind.
I had this movie running on cable, kind of half following it while doing chores, as I often do. At first it struck me as a lousy excuse to show naked bodies and sex scenes. Then it struck me as a poor "La Femme Nikita"-wannabe. But the double-twist ending intrigued me and I watched it again.
The ending was worth sitting through the cheesy, outdated mess again. If you are like me and come to these reviews with spoilers specifically to see if a film is worth sitting through, here is a recap: Dancer with sick mother gets her leg broken and gets sent to 'state' school by her Russian spymaster uncle. Then dancer is sent to Budapest to discover name of mole working with the American, Nate. Nate tries to turn dancer into a double-agent. After a mess in London involving a US Senator's chief of staff, the mole reveals himself to dancer. Dancer gives up her asinine uncle as the mole instead of the high-ranking Jeremy Irons, so she can keep working with the Americans.
There. Hope I saved you 2 hours of your life.
Jeremy Irons is always worth seeing. That line from him, "At least (our clumsy American friends) aspire to individual liberty"-is also dated. I dunno if the average American still believes that in 2019, with wages stagnant and rents escalating for the last 20 years. We are prisoners of large corporations, and the corporation is not a democratically run entity. The only free people are the super-rich. Even the millionaires are servants of the billionaires.
That is, Mr Matthews's understanding of the socioeconomic landscape also needs to be updated.
I have no opinion of Jennifer Lawrence's performance, since I've never seen any of her other movies. She doesn't ruin this one, however-that was already done by the writers.
The X Files: Je Souhaite (2000)
Careful what you wish for :-)
I grew up reading the 1001 Nights and often thought about what kind of wishes I would make, if I found a jinni. This episode delightfully brings that wish to life.
Scully finds it fascinating that Jenn is a living witness to 500 years of human history. This is probably Jenn's greatest asset, not her power to grant wishes-her long observation of human greed, stupidity, and propensity for self-destruction. "Granted, people smell better now . . ."-I remembered that line since I originally saw this episode 18 years ago. Have people changed at all in the last 500 years, other than that we now bathe more frequently?
Perhaps, and perhaps not, but it's fascinating to ponder.
The funny thing is that Jenn doesn't exempt herself from wishing for stupid things-a stout-heated mule, a magic sack of turnips, and great power and long life.
The key to escaping from stupid unintended consequences of our wishes seems to be to make them small and specific. But if they are so small and specific, can't we do that on our own? As Scully notes, perhaps it's the process that matters.
It's still fun to think about what we would wish for, from time to time. It helps to refocus our priorities. I sure hope that people who enter law enforcement wish for peace on earth, for example, like Mulder.
The X Files: Fight Club (2000)
The stupidest X-Files episode ever
The comedic X-Files episodes are usually big hits with fans but this one crosses the line to plain stupid and irritating. Written and directed by Chris Carter, really? Did Chris run out of ideas? He already did a doppelgänger comedy episode so he thought adding a double set of doubles would make it better?
And Mulder and Scully shouldn't be explaining all this at the end to a crook who should be arrested for stealing money.
The X Files: X-Cops (2000)
Funny but headache-inducing
I watched enough of "Cops" back in the day to know why I didn't watch more of it-because the shaking cameras gave me a headache. I did see enough of it to understand the premise of doing an X-Files take on the show. Neat idea, but I'll pass. It's not worth the dizzying camera-work. It also did not age well.
There is a lot of funny dialogue between Mulder and Scully. And Scully dodges the camera and views it with suspicion, just as you'd expect Scully to do. But does it work as an X-Files episode? Not really. What was the point, that the only thing to fear is fear itself?
The X Files: The Unnatural (1999)
Hilarious!
This episode is hilarious, not just the dialogue but the entire premise. Beginning with Arthur Dales's brother also being named Arthur.
If this is an example of David Duchovny's writing, I need to start reading the books he published recently.
Every time I saw Jesse Martin on "Law and Order" in later years, I forever remembered him as the alien baseball player I first saw on "The X-Files."
"Useless but perfect"-that could describe tv shows as well as the game of baseball. We seem to spend a lot of time on both.
The Mulder-Scully scenes at the beginning and end of the episode are both funny and endearing. Looked like the actors were having fun.
The X Files: Milagro (1999)
Annoying
Okay, I'm a writer and I find this episode annoying. And vain. What is this supposed to be, a meditation on the power of the imagination? Also, unless he's writing an autobiography or memoir (or a first novel), a writer should avoid injecting himself into the story, because that defeats the purpose of writing fiction. It's dull and self-centered. We write fiction precisely because our imaginations are much more lively than our lives.
That said, there are some nice Mulder-Scully moments in this episode.
The X Files: Monday (1999)
Character and fate
My favorite X-Files episode, often watched on repeat.
"Monday" engages us by following a SF convention-the time loop-and by breaking a big tv show convention, by killing off our two main characters, our heroes Mulder and Scully. Not just once, but repeatedly.
Mulder's leaking water bed provides a nice touch of comedy that sets off a chain of bad-luck events. We've all had days like this, as has Scully, and can sympathize. We hear some fun dialogue between Mulder and Scully-M: "I've been having the weirdest sense of deja vu all morning. I woke up soaking wet . . ."/. S: "Did you do a lot of drinking in college?"-and a discussion on character and destiny-S: "I think we're free to be who we are-good, bad, or indifferent."
Pam seems to fall into the "indifferent" category. She says that she tried everything to stop her boyfriend Bernard from bombing the bank-drugging his coffee, hiding his car keys, even calling the police on him herself. But it did not occur to her to do the one thing that both Mulder and Scully never hesitate to do, and that is to confront Bernard directly, in the bank.
And that is finally what works, when Mulder and Scully bring Pam into the bank to confront Bernard. Then Pam does take bold, decisive action to save Mulder's life. It makes sense that Pam is the one who needed to die for the time loop to end, because she's the only one who remembered each day and was living in hell.
This episode rewards repeat viewings because of these reflections on character and fate.
It is in Mulder's character to run toward trouble and it is Scully's instinct to try to save people's lives. But aren't the mass of us more like Pam, trying a lot of different small, indirect, passive gestures while hoping we can stay away from trouble?
Mulder telling Bernard that "You can change your fate" doesn't stop Bernard from trying to rob the bank because that is precisely what he is trying to do-escape from a life of hopeless drudgery with no future. He is trying to change his fate. And he does, but in the wrong way, by killing the one person he cares about. Maybe that's why we are so timid, for fear of making things worse.
And this is why we admire heroes like Mulder and Scully, who run toward trouble instead of away from it, and risk their own lives to save others. The best SF encourages us to reflect on our human behavior.
One small critique: It's hard to believe that, in 1999, Mulder still needed to deposit paper paychecks at a bank in person, instead of having them direct-deposited electronically.
The X Files: Folie a Deux (1998)
Corporate zombies
This is far from my favorite X-Files episode and I find bug episodes in general to be revolting. This one is a lot funnier, however, watching as an adult after working in corporate America for 20 years.
The opening character's job is just about the most mind-numbing kind of corporate job around, reading the same sales script hundreds of times a day while being ordered to smile. Nowadays, even those kinds of jobs have been outsourced to other countries where labor is cheaper (for the time being).
Fittingly, he sees his boss as a giant bug who is gradually infecting his coworkers. They are walking zombies who actually died as human beings and still look human on the outside, to most other people. The people who can see them for the zombie-bugs they actually are, are the ones thought to be crazy.
Of course, our heroes Mulder and Scully save the day and the zombie-bugs flee that particular location, but they live on to infect others.
That's corporate life in a nutshell. Except that it's gotten worse in the last 20 years. The best science fiction always provides commentary on the human condition.
Poirot: Cards on the Table (2006)
Absolutely awful ending
Cards on the Table is one of my favorite Agatha Christie novels and I reread it every so often. But this film adaptation is absolutely awful, for reasons described by the other reviewers. I thought these versions were supposed to be faithful to the novels, not destroy them.
This novel is all about character and psychology so it perverts the entire story when the screenwriters completely rewrite the nature of the main characters. Not just Anne Meredith, Rhoda Dawes, Shaitana (he was too stupid and vain to think he'd get killed), and Mrs Lorrimer, but also Superintendent "Wheeler"-not the good Battle in the novel.
Suchet was his usual marvelous self as Poirot and Mrs Oliver was also well played, so this version retains three stars.
Please, someone make a better version of this story so I can get the bad flavor of this one out of my memory.
Mr. Right (2015)
stupid
This movie doesn't really deserve more than a one-word review, but here goes. Action-romance-comedy do not go together. The last attempt I saw, "This Means War," didn't work, either. Rom-com works, action-romance works, and action-comedy works, but stuffing all three into a single film is too ambitious.
Anna Kendrick is fine but I cringed at the lines she had to deliver. Flat and dull.
Some people noted that this type of comedy is off-beat and not for everyone. Well, I've been called "weird" my entire life and I like different and unusual stuff. This one is just unfunny. Bad dialogue, bad script, bad idea.
The Outsiders (1983)
Written by a teen and beloved by teens
I love this movie and the book and have read and watched it at least 100 times since I was a kid in the 80s. It never occurred to me to notice what adults thought of "The Outsiders" so I was surprised to see the negative critical reviews on IMDb. The novel was written by a 16-year-old for other teens and it sings to its target audience. Those outside the target audience, like professional adult critics, will probably never "get it" but that's okay. Watching it again as an adult, I become a kid again instead of evaluating the film with my well-developed adult critical thinking skills. Above all, the film captures the essence of "Nothing gold can stay."
Yes, some of the lines are wooden, some of the acting is wooden, and Dally's death scene is particularly cringe-worthy. Some scenes would have benefited from longer dramatic pauses. The film has rough edges, just as kids do. But on the whole, it understands and respects the emotional, social, and economic struggles of kids who are working their way through to adulthood, from their perspective. I'm particularly impressed that it deals with class issues in a way that few movies today do. There is very little difference between Darry and his old high school buddy Paul, for example, in terms of character and abilities, but there will be a huge difference in their economic lives as adults because of who their parents were. We can have sympathy for both Johnny, who has abusive parents, and for Bob, who also suffered from parental neglect in a different way. Ponyboy and Cherry both love sunsets, though one is a poor 14-year-old boy and the other is a rich 16-year-old girl who lives on the other side of town.
It is remarkable that nearly all the young men cast in this movie went on to become big stars. This film launched their careers.
Z for Zachariah (2015)
Terrible ending
I won't say,"the book is better than the movie," because I read the book only after watching this movie. I will say that the movie tells a completely different story than the book, borrowing Robert C. O'Brien's characters and setting.
The ending as given in the movie suggests that John Loomis killed Caleb, by pushing him down into the radioactive water and sacrificing the safe suit. Otherwise, why would Caleb leave without saying goodbye to Ann and without taking his things and supplies? I like the suggestion from a fellow reviewer that the scene at 1:26 showing Ann rolling a glass off the table and leaning on a book suggests that she imagined the whole thing because she's bored. Lack of dialogue in the final scenes supports this suggestion.
The John Loomis character in the book is a control freak and a killer who tries to rape Ann and Ann hates him. At the end, she outsmarts him and steals his safe suit to leave the valley. This is the act of a smart and strong girl who decides to explore the unknown, leaving behind her possibly the only other human living on earth. But just because he's the only other man around doesn't mean that she has to live with him or mate with him. This is the diametric opposite of the Ann character shown in the movie, who is a wishy-washy girl caught between two men. Please. The men who made this movie should remember that the Ann character was created by a male writer, Robert C. O'Brien. They should also consider what kind of message they're sending to women by distorting her character in this way.
Good things about this movie: the beauty of New Zealand and Chris Pine's eyes. But I can watch the beauty of New Zealand in "The Lord of the Rings" and Chris Pine in other films.
The movie also serves as PR for Robert C. O'Brien's book, which is a good thing. I also read his "Mrs Frisby and the Rats of NIMH" as a child after watching the animated film version and picked it up again after reading this one. Reading it as an adult, I wonder where O'Brien's preoccupation with disaster came from.
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)
An Insider's Movie
Tedious. That was my one-word review with about 20 minutes left to go in "Birdman" (while watching it on free HBO), when I was just waiting for it to end.
Then I checked reviews online to see what others thought of the ending and was surprised to find that this movie won the Best Picture Oscar this year. Oh, right. This movie is about Hollywood and Hollywood loves to celebrate itself. Critics are part of that insider's world, as shown in the movie, so they loved it, too.
The first shot of Riggan Thompson levitating in the air makes it clear that he blurs the line between fantasy and reality, and is continued through the film. The scene of a celebrity trashing his dressing room is given a refreshing take when we see Riggan using his "Birdman" powers to destroy stuff, with his "Birdman" inner voice accompanying him. The first jumping scene works, when Riggan imagines himself flying over the city above all us humble folk. But the ending is just mildly puzzling.
However, I don't care enough about the characters or the story to watch the movie again for clues I might have missed. Riggan is shown to be a jerk from the beginning, when he arranges for an accident to knock out a fellow actor from his play. If the play is his production, why can't Riggan just fire the actor openly, like a grown-up and a professional? Why should we care about Riggan? I hope he did succeed in offing himself, at the end; that would be one less self-absorbed jerk in the world.
Maybe that's the point. When we look behind the curtain at the world of actors and acting, we find the same tedious screw-ups we see everywhere else in life. We, the audience, should stop celebrating actors and elevating them above us. Birdman takes a dump on the toilet, too. We should also stop glamorizing them for temporarily taking us out of our own tedious lives, as they point out.
The ending of "Inception" worked because it followed a cracking good story that drew in the audience, with characters we cared about. The director respected his audience, as shown in the way he challenged us. The ambiguous ending of "Birdman" does not work because we just don't care enough.
Dazzling technique only works when it enhances the story. "The Lord of the Rings" managed perspective and the relative sizes of the characters in a seamless way that allowed the viewer to focus on the story. The technique in "Birdman" is self-congratulatory and distracts from the story, so it does not work. It screams at us, "look how brilliant I am!" It's the kind of film that self-important and pretentious people think they're supposed to find smart and important, because it reflects themselves.
There's a huge irony here. In "Birdman", social media could well make Riggan's play succeed with the public, even if the official, professional critics deliberately try to kill it. In real life, however, the critics loved this movie while the general public ignored it.
As some other audience reviewers pointed out, "Birdman" won a lot of Oscars this year, but will be forgotten over time. Anyone remember "Shakespeare in Love" or "American Beauty"? No one talks about those films anymore, though they won a boatload of Oscars in their day. Okay, now back to my tedious life.