waltcosmos Reviews

Fear and Trembling (2003)

it reminds me of something

[8/10 · 9 October 2008]

I enjoyed some of the movies moments, particularly the scenes related to the calendars. But on the whole, the mid-level managers reminded me of a Japanese supervisor I once had in a company I worked in, in Silicon Valley. I was once staying late, doing bench work when a white mid-level manager was showing the building and workspace to a visitor. At some point, the mid-level manager asked if anyone had a thermometer. This was a singularly odd request, but I just so happened to have one so I offered it to him. Instead of being grateful, or even giving me a polite "thank you", he icily told me it wasn't calibrated.

??? The next day, my jap supervisor called me into his office and erupted in rage over my "transgression" the day before with Don, the obnoxious impolite imbecile who was angry because I didn't give him a thermometer that came out of Apollo's as s. Perhaps I should have shoved it up his own. In any event, I came within an inch of being fired, but it was only my absolute self-control that defused the situation with these two losers, Vic and Don. Vic finally resigned, hopefully he reviewed his life and realizing it was meaningless, he opted for early suicide. Don still works for the company.

As someone else has commented, it's a mindset such as the one revealed in this film that explains why the economy of that country is essentially in the toilet. Because it belongs there. Perhaps also, it is time for those wonderful figures from Japanese mythology, the fat man and the little boy, to visit them again.

Separate Lies (2005)

a decent enough film for all that

[7/10 · 25 September 2008]

I gave it a seven only because the acting is good. And of course by that I mean Wilkinson. The other two principals were "decent". But the characters themselves...what on earth was so bad about the character Wilkinson played (James Manning)? I didn't see him behaving like the martinet Emily Watson accused him of being. Bill Bule, on the other hand, was an insufferable jerk who I was praying would meet an extremely brutal and prolonged demise. Who was I kidding? Tom Wilkinson isn't Paul Bettany after all. So what on EARTH did Emily Watson's (Anne) character SEE in him???? She herself admitted he was pretty much a piece of offal in his treatment of her. Why would she even want to be in the same TOWN as him, to say nothing of the same "room".

I noticed some other reviews, one person said she "cried" at the end, to witness James' tragedy. ??? WHAT tragedy? What, you mean losing an imbecile who finds someone like Bill Bule AMUSING???!!! Give us a break.

Dreams (1990)

a match made in hebben

[5/10 · 19 September 2008]

This haunting spectacle, this bizarre, saturnalian plunge in the everlasting MUST be seen back-to-back with HERBIE:FULLY LOADED, starring Lindsay Lohan. Allow me to explain. In the first dream, a little boy goes into the forest and witnesses a miracle of nature, coming across a group of sentient foxes (people displayed in fox costumes, anticipating Andrew Lloyd Webbers CATS-even though technically, CATS came first). Flash cut to Herbie. A fox, Lindsay Lohan, who has without a doubt the most gorgeous legs in America, comes across a sentient car. Back to Kirosawa. A family pointlessly destroys a peach orchard, leaving nothing in it's place. The dolls are angry and assume the little boy is to blame. Wham Bang. Back to the penultimate BABE! Lindsay plays a girl just graduated with a bachelors degree in something or other. That would PROBABLY make her at LEAST 22 YEARS OLD!!! A GROWN WOMAN!!! Yet she is asking her dad for permission to do things, like drive her OWN CAR in a race that has NOTHING to do with him!!! O, THE ANGST!!! Both films leave you breathless. But for different reasons.

The Accidental Tourist (1988)

the original movie was better

[6/10 · 16 July 2008]

There were several odd mistakes in the movie, I'm surprised no one else picked up on them. There was a scene in which William Hurt was in a grocery store and on the back wall is a large sign indicating it's the bakery. But if you look, you can see produce (kale, spinach, celery) and off to the side, flats of eggs. Another error was when Muriel first began training the dog, her stockings have seams in them yet seconds later, they are seamless.

The original movie, starring Rowan Atkinson as the Macon Leary character had much more charm. This was especially evident during his family scenes, where his siblings were played by Walton Goggins (as Proctor) Ben Kingsley (as Charles) and Stockard Channing as Rose. The original movie also had the better title, that is, The Redundant Traveler, and with the Muriel Pritchett character played by Glenn Close, it was much more believable. The fact that the dog in the second movie was a Vietnamese Pot Belly Pig in the original also just made better sense.

Twelfth Night (1986)

I yield my title

[1/10 · 1 June 2007]

The pretentiousness of the lead actor was suffocating. It sounded like he memorized all the words and recited them correctly. The movie was absolutely UNWATCHABLE!!! Some of the characters, notably the Falstaffian type, were trying too hard to be "cute". Edward de Vere would be rolling over in his grave. I have seen my share of movies adapted from the plays of Shakespeare and this one stunk up the whole room. The production design, additionally, seemed to have the action take place in the 17th or even 18th century, even though Edward de Vere was in Rugasa (read:Dubrovnik, aka the unnamed city in the play) around 1575. All in all, a thorough disappointment.

Capote (2005)

oh just shut up, truman! Just shut up.

[2/10 · 28 January 2007]

who cares about this pathetic little man? I noticed in the Hated it section, one person found the first 30 minutes interesting and then everything after that boring. Strangely, my take was exactly the opposite. I was about to write it off but then Chris Cooper's part happened and the movie had a sudden infusion of energy. I like Hoffman as an actor but I like him when his own persona comes through, like it did in Scent of a Woman, Twister, Talented Mr. Ripley, etc. Obviously, making movies is ALL about the benjamins...let's face it. Playing somebody who actually lived is 10 times better than playing a fictional character. Cate Blanchett and Judi Dench played Queen Elizabeth and were nominated for best actress, Jim Carrey was nominated for playing Andy Kaufman, Robert Downey got his shot and blew it with Chaplin...the point is, those actors KNEW they were being given their dream shot. A license to print money. Once they get an Oscar, it's hello twenty million per picture while the rest of us slog along in our dreary lives sucking up to them, as if those people have any value. Their entire LIVES are based on non-real things. The smart ones become drug addicts and suicides. At least it shows they have some understanding of how pathetic they are. Capote did too, so he killed himself REAL SLOWLY by drinking himself to death. In fact, when they scanned his brain while he was still alive - if you can call those type of people alive - they found that it had LOST MASS! And there are still people EVERYWHERE who say that his lifestyle...nudge nudge, wink, wink...is perfectly acceptable. You know, whatever dude. Have fun encased in ice.

Alice in Wonderland (1999 TV Movie)

extremely well cast

[8/10 · 24 January 2007]

When I was 17, even though I was already reading Harrold Robbins, William Burroughs, Iceberg Slim, I also had developed a fascination for the Alice books. Couldn't quite put my finger on it. Course, when I turned 24, I discovered a take on Lewis Carroll that I would have never guessed in a million years, something that justified my re-reading the books with this new knowledge. It was mostly the revelations of his metaphores. The garden Alice was trying to get into, the unexplained growing up and growing down, the idea of the oppressors being "nothing but a pack of cards"...I won't mention what they represent as I am under a restrictive mandate to maintain the secret but it definitely changes the whole picture.

This movie followed the book to a certain extent...I'm not crazy about the blending of both stories into one, to tell you the truth. It loses it's thematic thread. That is, one story is essentially about a card game, the other is about a chess game. Who plays chess and poker at the same time? Many of the scenes were surprisingly hilarious. Robbie Coltrane and George Wendt's part as Tweedledee and Tweedledum was a standout. Martin Short literally SHONE in his big courtroom scene. And the scene where Alice comes across the Duchess and her cook for the first time was excellent.

However, what was particularly odd was that on the DVD, there were short bios for the main actors...and they said NOTHING about Tina being in Napolean Dynamite, they didn't breathe a WORD about Robbie Coltrane's recurring role in the Harry Potter movies...was this some kind of weird English idiosyncrasy? Then I noticed that this movie was made in 1999, way before those movies I mentioned were ever done. Still, the DVD was made AFTER them, right? You'd think they'd give a backstory.

Ali (2001)

thank god for free libraries

[3/10 · 31 December 2006]

Otherwise I would have PAID to rent this. This fell into the category of "an important" film. So I felt somehow OBLIGATED to watch it. You know? Cause I'm some white boy liberal (true) who wants to show my solidarity or whatever. But then, after an hour plus into it, I was thinking, man, I am NOT enjoying this crap. WHY am I watching it? I read a lot of the reviews in RottenTomatoes and many of them centered on the role of Jon Voight playing Howard Cosell. They all had nothing but praise to heap upon Jon Voight. So I started watching it for that reason but it was too little and too late. I ejected and watched my second choice movie. (HP and the SS) So sue me.

Holes (2003)

worth seeing a couple of times

[8/10 · 28 December 2006]

Once again, I immediately went to the 9 users in the "Hated It" category, just to read their fascinating insights as to why this great movie actually sucked and why the other 6 million of us are just too stupid to attain their august heights. I noticed that one loser, jpd 9 admits that he had a premature ejaculation at 20 minutes into the movie (of the cassette, that is) but that's okay, because he magically surmised the entirety of the film in those first 20 minutes. LONG before the warden made her appearance, LONG before Jon Voights absolutely hilarious almost over-the-top performance and especially his great "story" that he tells the boys about the magical kingdom where it never rained. He goes on to say that he can't tell us much about the movie cause he didn't watch it. Well. Thanks for the heads up on that one, chatty cathy. Maybe next time you could just keep your stupid mouth shut. And FYI, those "aging stars"? What, you think they're STUPID? They've survived IN STYLE in one of the most cutthroat industries in the world. So I'm guessing they know what they're doing when they choose a story line. JPD9 should have called himself ADD10, (for Attention Deficit Disorder, for the whose-at-home) but hey, it's a free country. He can call himself whatever he likes.

The Prince of Tides (1991)

You know you're in trouble when...

[10/10 · 26 November 2006]

Whenever I read the user reviews for movies I like, I always go to the Hated It category first. There always seems to be a common thread between all these reviews and that is that the reviewer just didn't have the mental or emotional capacity to understand it and therefore begins making up a bunch of crap as to why the movie was bad. The first review for this category, written by some dork from Auckland, is no exception. For example, in the movie, Streinsand plays a psychiatrist. Obviously, given the theme and subject matter in the movie, singing certainly wouldn't be needed...yet this pathologically skeptical idiot manages to dis Streisand for either not singing? Or having a singing career that comes out in other movies or what? What exactly is the problem here? Bruce Willis is an actor who also plays blues harp. But he didn't play that on his way into outer space to blow apart that rogue asteroid in Armegeddon did he? Whaddaya think, 459? Was he fighting himself over that one? And then stupid goes on to say that the suicidal sister was given very little screen time, yet she instigated the events of the story. Well, let's examine this. In Armegeddon, that poor dumb rogue asteroid ALSO instigated all the events of the story. How much screen time did IT have? Also, it's based on PAT CONROY'S NOVEL, YOU MORON!! Rag on HIM or better yet, write your own goddamn book! For example, re-write Dances With Wolves! And make it ALL ABOUT ABRAHAM LINCOLN! Because, hey, he instigated everything that happened, right? And finally, Miss Upside-Down says Nick Nolte is not given much to work with. Excuse me? He's the entire STORY, you loser! But let me say a few things about the other strap-ons who dissed this movie. Several of them actually read the book and think the book was better. Allow me to disabuse them of that notion. I also read the book and was flat out amazed that Streisand was able to take a rambling, dis-jointed, almost incoherent manuscript and make it a first rate movie. Costner did this with Dances With Wolves (which seems to have been written by a 14 year-old for other 14 year-olds) and Eastwood did it with Bridges of Madison County. I've read only one other Pat Conroy novel, the excellent Beach Music, and I was expecting a masterpiece with Prince of Tides, given the brilliance of the movie but I was wrong. Some of the nonsense in the book was such that it's like someone else wrote it. For example, in the book, Calenwald was some GUY, some crazy homeless Rasputin type character that "Miss Lila" winds up having an affair with or some such idiocy. Give me a break! However, one negative reviewer of the book did mention one thing that unfortunately WAS correct. Barbra Streisand, as great a job of acting as she did in this movie, was not the correct casting choice for Susan Lowenstein. But that's only because I pictured Susan Lowenstein as being brunette. I pictured more of a Karla Bonoff type but the only actress I could think of for this role was Debra Winger. And now follows a second review.

Right at the very beginning of the movie, Nick Nolte, in a voice-over as Tom Wingo, supposes that his father Henry Wingo might have been a pretty good father if he hadn't been such a violent man...

Ya Think???

It only gets worse, dysfunctional family-wise. As much an a s s hole as Henry Wingo was, the mother Lila seems to have morphed from a reasonably decent person into someone who's only values were having money and caring only about appearances. I say she SEEMS to have morphed from A to B, but in fact, she was ALWAYS B. Her behavior should have at the very least caused social services to take her children away from her and preferably landed her in prison. Her greedy, grasping rapacious velociraptor-like appeal managed to get her oldest son murdered by a government that eats its young, (much like today's monkey government, starring George of the Jungle, and his CEO of Hallitosis "vice" president, giving new meaning to THAT term), her daughter on her third suicide attempt and Tom Wingo himself emotionally crippled without really understanding the reason why.

Tom comes to New York to offer insights into his sister's behavior to the psychiatrist, played by Barbra Streisand, who does a decent job although she would not have been my choice for the role. A minor subplot involves the psychiatrists husband, a concert violinist, who develops a hatred of Tom Wingo for coaching his son in the art of football. Probably he felt slighted for not having the sack to do it himself and therefore preferred his son to be a dainty, dolce affetuoso cake boy such as himself. How ironic that Jay Gould...well, never mind.

Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005)

so you're saying it's all about the BENJAMINS...

[10/10 · 24 November 2006]

I have been reading page after dreary page of people who hated this film. They all seem to have how much it COST them in mind for their standard. I myself watched the movie for free, since 99 percent of anything that appears in IMDb is available for free at the public library. That said, I don't have any AGENDA for dissing the film. I also note that many people had a problem with the score, which was probably a dead giveaway to where they're REALLY coming from. The score was haunting and sublime and generally EXCELLENT, (with a few notable exceptions, the Cody Whats-his-face being the most obvious) with the ability to evoke all sorts of positive emotions.

Of the people who hated this film, I get the impression that they obviously do not have the mental capacity to understand its value and they therefore assume that IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY! Like that fox who couldn't reach the grapes, they have to spin a web of lies to justify their own lack of sense. Also, did you notice how many people used the word "pretentious"? (Ooooh, look at me. I learned a new BIG WORD and now I'll use it in IMDb so people will think I am so UBER COOL!) Talk about pretentious... And then there's those losers who were bitching and moaning about it being pedophilic or pornographic. N, please. There ARE no children! And by the way, that little kid who played Robbie was GREAT, as was the one who played Peter. The expressions on the faces of the actors wasn't QUITE up to the standard of Bergman but they were very very close.

I do have one complaint though, it's a small thing and Miranda July could be forgiven. If she had a clip of all the idiots who hated this film being bulldozed into Mauna Loa during eruption, that would have been frosting on the cake.

A Touch of Class (1973)

Hey Sorvino! You're talking to the wrong person!

[7/10 · 21 November 2006]

I saw this movie when I was twenty-three years old. Paul Sorvino's line or question never really made any sense to me. He asked Steve (George Segal) if he loved her (Vicky, Glenda Jackson) enough to give her up. What kind of a nonsensical question is that? Vicky had nothing to lose with Steve choosing her. She would only lose if he DIDN'T choose her. So what does she get when Steve blows her off? Exactly what she already had. Suppose however that Sorvino had asked Vicky that question. THEN it would have made sense. Because Vicky would have been making a choice between having NOTHING or having Steve at the price of destroying a happy marriage. Vicky would have actually SACRIFICED something, her own "happiness" for Steve. But Steve wouldn't have the same sacrifice presented to him. His choice was simply, THIS woman, whom you love, or THAT woman, whom you also love. BFD!

2 years later, I found myself in such a situation (from the Vicky perspective), in circumstances so unique, I might as well have been in another galaxy. And I made the wrong choice. I destroyed a relationship and as for myself, I wound up with nothing anyway.

The Man Without a Past (2002)

partially cheated but so what?

[2 November 2006]

This movie was very odd. I suppose to someone from Finland, it would have seemed funny. As for me, I was mostly baffled by the complete lack of common sense of the authorities. Are the Finns really that stupid? When someone is robbed, he's thrown in jail for vagrancy? Or if their head is bashed in, they get thrown in jail for having brain damage? Why would anyone think that's funny? To be fair, there were some funny scenes. Well, one anyway. Minorly funny. The dog turning out to be a female for example. But that's pretty much all I can scrape up. Would that be considered a spoiler? In this case, it actually might. I was mostly left with the impression that all the characters in the movie were on a treadmill that was slowly winding down from a life that went nowhere anyway.

The Thomas Crown Affair (1999)

the dichotomy of women

[9/10 · 26 October 2006]

I've always enjoyed this remake. I went back and watched the original with Steve you know who. I would write out his name but when I do, I M D B treats it as a prohibited word. The script was written by a woman, Leslie Dixon. This is clear in the dialog she gave to the character portrayed by Faye Done Away. I know that's not how her name is spelled but then I M D B thinks her last name is a prohibited word. Idiots. Anyway, in the movie, the shrink accuses Thomas Crown of being a Peter Pan. How convenient to forget Jesus saying "You must become like little children". So when men do, women rag on them for being little boys. Also implied in the dialog of the shrink is a reluctance to commit, a common complaint of women about men, completely ignoring the fact that the man HAS committed. And that commitment is this: HE AIN'T MARRYING YOU, PIG. Get that through your thick skull.

The Three Faces of Eve (1957)

what a difference a day makes

[10/10 · 21 October 2006]

One of the things that always impressed me about this film was Joanne Woodwards gorgeous legs. I look at the ugly skanks today, Britney Spears, Tara Reid, Paris Hilton, doing everything in their power to make their bones show through their flesh, like Halloween came early this year and decided to stick around through the long grim winter of Ugly Bitch Hell. It's these same hideous human skeletons who look at babes like Woodward and say "she's fat". All I can say is, YOU should be so lucky. When exactly did this movement to become ugly begin? I remember back in the 80's when women (and men, but who gives a rat's ass about men anyway?) were buzz cutting off part of their hair and doing as much as they could to look like they evolved from the Burgess Shale. (Cyndi Lauper? Remember that haircut she sported? The projectile vomiting evoked from me could knock down a team of oxen) That's gotta be when it started. Women so under the thumb of other women's opinion of them, maybe even generated by that fruitcake Andy Warhol as punishment for being out of his reach... Wait a second. I was supposed to be talking about the 3 faces of Eve and I went totally off. Well, I don't care.

Intacto (2001)

totally unrealistic

[1/10 · 20 October 2006]

Are there really adults out there like the people in this movie? Who believe in such mumbo-jumbo, that is? Blind luck, as opposed to a Lincolnesque luck, may be considered a gift from the gods. So how can it possibly be stolen when someone touches you? Consider. If you're lucky, and you want to keep that luck, get used to spending the rest of your life ALONE in bed, pal, cause sex is all ABOUT touching. So THAT'S out. And what's up with those morons running through the woods? The one's who should be cheering are the one's who smashed into the trees. Because if your idea of being lucky is WINNING that race and then playing Russian Roulette with five bullets in a six shooter, then you need help. And by the way, suppose you win? Then what? I didn't see any legal papers being drawn up saying that you now own the casino. Samuel's life didn't seem to be all that spectacular even then. I mean, what exactly did he do except walk around a casino all day making more money? Which he never spent. This is SPAIN! Or a province under the hegemony of Spain. Everybody dresses like their lives depended on it. But consider. Anything Samuel can buy, like, for dinner, I can too! Only ten to a thousand times cheaper. I shop at WinCo foods and hobnob with the great unwashed. What do I care? Another problem I had was with Sara. Why was she trying to kill that guy? All he did was rob a bank. So what? No, I'm sorry. There's no reason to be called The Luckiest Man in the World if all it means is you have to face off with still another tired contender and murder him after he tries for the umpteenth time to murder you. Some life.

Lantana (2001)

a psychiatrist???

[5/10 · 20 October 2006]

Oh Please. Either the scriptwriter or the director or Barbara Hershey has never actually met a genuine psychiatrist. It's IMPOSSIBLE for them to be afraid. Unless, of course, they're complete frauds. With an understanding of psychology, Barbara Hershey would have NEVER in a million YEARS misinterpreted the driver's actions like she did. A psychologist and a psychiatrist NOT ONLY have wrestled with their own faults and conquered them, they have a capacity to read people that borders on telepathy. So, she would have never given in to fear for THOSE two reasons. I've been in more than my share of life threatening situations and I've chilled out the perp in less than 10 seconds...with the one exception being that the perp is in the midst of a psychotic episode (which explains the hook on my right hand but that's another story). This driver clearly was not. But then, admittedly, I'm not a woman and so I have to allow that their take on going for a drive with a stranger might be somewhat different than mine.

The Weight of Water (2000)

it took me 6 hours to watch this film

[3/10 · 18 October 2006]

But that's because it was so boring, I could only take it in 20 minute snippets. Then I would take a thirty or so minute break and play Freecell on my computer. The reason I continued watching it is because as bad as the movie was, Sean Penn was excellent. His introducing himself as William S. Burroughs was hilarious and his comic timing is flawless. One odd thing that came out was how much the Janes smoked. It was almost like the very first season of Dragnet, I mean the one in 1954, where cigarettes seemed to grow out of peoples faces. Regarding Elizabeth Hurley, let me just first say that when I first heard that Tomb Raider was going to be made into a movie, Hurley was the ONLY actress I saw playing the role, since, a) she looks exactly LIKE Lara Croft AND b) she's ALREADY English! Angelina Jolie, however, had won an academy award so that's where the money was. That being said, Hurley's character was so obvious and Lucas's character so unaware that their relationship seemed completely imaginary, unlike the Janes. There was an enormous amount of confusion regarding her character and at one point it was suggested that she played a major role in Sean Penn's character's (Thomas Janes) past, although this may have been a projection of Jean Janes' suspicious fantasy. What is also telling is that in the DVD, there WERE no deleted or extended scenes, nor were there directors comments. I got this movie because I saw the trailer. WHAT A SWINDLE! The person who has a future is the guy who put together the trailer. From crappy to snappy.

Gangster No. 1 (2000)

there WERE some obvious errors in casting...

[9/10 · 8 August 2006]

I was surprised and disappointed when I realized that Malcolm McDowell was supposed to be the older version of Paul Bettany. Who negotiated that screwup? First of all, McDowell is 5 feet 8, Bettany is 6 foot 3. What, did someone chop seven inches off both his shin bones? Even in their old age, Vincent Price, Fred Gwynne, Jimmy Stewart remained very tall men. How come they didn't substitute David Thewliss with Woody Allen? Also, I realize it's probably just acting but the only movie I ever really liked McDowell in was Clockwork Orange. He has the charisma and warmth of a black hole. Bettany, on the other hand, has far more screen presence than McDowell could ever hope to achieve. Which he never will, by the way. It's too late. He's old and dried up. Someone should just sweep his silly ass under the rug. You know how you feel when your summer vacation has only one more day to go after today? That's how I felt when the movie "caught up" to the present, when we had to now deal with McDowell exclusively. Gone are all the good scenes. Except David Thewliss' presence did manage to elevate the end of the movie. McDowell lends himself to being despised, not for the things his character did, since Bettany's character was allegedly the same, but for his mere existence.

The most glaring error was the fact that the early events supposedly took place in 1968 in London, yet these morons are listening to Perry Goddamn Como music, for Creisake! Where's the influence of the British Invasion? Where is the influence of the Beatles, the Stones, Led Zep? What planet do these dickwads live on anyway? No planet I ever heard of, that's for sure.

And the other error. Possible SPOILER: Step away from the computer...What, people didn't have LIVERS in 1968??? Forensics was unable to approximate the time of death to within 30 minutes? What the hell is wrong with England and their bull$hit court system? That guy was in ICU!!! How could he POSSIBLY have been capable of murdering someone? What was his motive? Payback for MURDERING HIM 30 MINUTES EARLIER? Jeezus H KRIST! Maybe it's those stupid pretentious fagggoty wigs those "barristers" wear on their heads like dirty underwear that overcooks their brains like the way the English cook all their vegetables to mush. That's why they have such rotten teeth. Tell me I'm wrong!

McDowells presence ruined an otherwise great film.

Napoleon Dynamite (2004)

the REAL appeal of the movie

[10/10 · 28 July 2006]

Warning: No matter how this review starts out, it's not what you think.

When we are growing up, when we're little kids, we go along with what the grown-ups tell us to do, no matter what culture we grow up in. We go to school, we eat what is put on our plate, we learn children's songs, anthems, pledges, proverbs, we dress in a certain type of clothing, relate to animals in one way or another, relate to siblings, older relatives, strangers, others in a predefined way and we never question it. At least, not while we're still little kids.

So we think all the things we do are THE WAY THINGS ARE DONE. We've seen our friends and our family also DOING THESE THINGS, so it's been reinforced all our lives, that the way things are are the way THEY SHOULD BE. And we shape our life, our opinions, our personality around this idea of how things should be, we EMBELLISH those things, even if it's all b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t.

So now we get to Napoleon Dynamite. Napoleon is an ARCHETYPE. He is an absolutely clueless true believer in the fluff and noise, the buzz and the hype all around him. Yet in the movie, it's an extreme form of this true-believer status that allows us to keep him at arms length from ourselves. We SEE the things he does, we understand the origins of his behavior and manage to convince ourselves that we are infinitely more prescient than Napoleon is but STILL we tend to laugh at him...in the same way that children or even our pets do things that make us laugh. We see beyond what they are seeing but still we understand what they are seeing.

The perception of the world that Napoleon lives in is just SLIGHTLY more unrealistic than the world WE live in. We get up and have our cereal, then it's off to work where we interact in various ways with our co-workers, we design boards for switching off a thermal scan at certain temperatures, or we anticipate how many snow tires we need to order for the coming winter, or we pore over the financial statements of our company looking for a way to trim costs. We come home, watch TV, kick it on the weekend, visit with people we know and then it's back to work, another week, another month, another decade...and the machine never stops because we never examine it or ourselves. Like Napoleon.

The reason the movie took so long to take off was because the initial reaction was of people who still believe in their OWN b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t. And Napoleon's universe hit a little too close to home. These are the people who hated this movie. The ones who came around to liking it or liked it immediately have already begun to assess the glorified sameness we have been herded into. And so this YES/NO sense occurs...and we laugh.

Drowning Mona (2000)

critics are like diapers

[7/10 · 18 July 2006]

The critics at Rotten Tomatoes hated this. They gave it something like 26 percent. What a$$holes. So with this in mind, let's finish the subject line. Critics are like diapers. They're full of $hit and they need to be thrown the phuck out. This movie was strangely hilarious. So it's not the Mona Lisa of comedy. So what? Bette Midler was great and so was Danny Devito. The only complaint I had was that that dickwad Jeff didn't get more hosed than he did but I guess I can live with him getting his hand cut off. Also, remember near the beginning that flashback kind of scene with that guy who punched out that chick in the bar? Did you see the dork with the glasses standing behind him? Where do they get these guys?

Watermelon Man (1970)

the strange hypnosis we live under

[7/10 · 11 July 2006]

I don't think the attempt to make Goddfrey Cambridge white worked to any great extent. It obviously wasn't the same state of the art makeup technology we have today, that can transform the Wayans' brothers into White Chicks or turn Michael Jackson into whatever it is he has become. Plus, Cambridge always sounded black in the movie, which further made his role as a white man not even close to credible.

That said, what struck me as strange was...how odd we were all those years ago. It all started with Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat to some fat-assed white man...and that led to the civil rights movement and a whole new world. There is certainly racism today, that's not really the issue and there's a good chance that racism will ALWAYS BE WITH US. But the difference is that back then, the hypnotism we lived under made our racism seem inevitable...a law of nature. Now it's just some form of almost conscious ignorance. Did you notice that Goddfrey Cambridge never actually kissed her? I mean, on the mouth? Was this in fact even a gender/race issue? Cambridge was a BLACK MAN and Estelle Parsons was a WHITE WOMAN. What if it was reversed? This was already 1970. William Shatner, a WHITE MAN, and Nichelle Nichols, a BLACK WOMAN, were the first people on television to share an interracial kiss, on the mouth, in Star Trek, and that was in 1966 so one could argue that a precedent had been reached but not the right KIND of precedent. The genders were reversed. As I watched this movie, I could see the reluctance that Parsons had with the physically intimate scenes, such as they were, she had with Cambridge.

For a movie that was 35 years old, I was actually surprised how many scenes I laughed at.

That Cold Day in the Park (1969)

Was there an alternate version or is it just me?

[7/10 · 1 July 2006]

I was 19 years old when I saw first saw this film, in the theater. I have a vivid memory of a different ending. Not completely different but significantly. I just watched the movie last night and I was wrong, so I guess the following can't be called a spoiler, since it never happened. The ending I remember was that the boy was hiding in the house completely naked, Frances Austen found him quite easily and after she confronted him, she slowly sank to her knees and went down on him off camera. Only his face was in the frame and it was pretty obvious he was letting it happen, albeit against his will. But nothing like this showed up in the movie. Sandy Dennis was 32 years old when she made this movie, Michael Burns was 22. In the movie, he complains to his sister that Frances makes too big a deal about sex. Yeah? Well, then, so go to bed with her dude, and get it over with. WTF?

The Favour, the Watch and the Very Big Fish (1991)

serving coffee

[6/10 · 18 June 2006]

This might be considered a spoiler although it doesn't give away the movie, it just describes one particular scene I always found totally hilarious. Hoskins is carrying a silver coffee service tray back to where Goldblum is so they can both have a cup. As he approaches Goldblum, Goldblum's face becomes a mask of fury and smashes his Jesus staff across Hoskins' head. Hoskins staggers and apologetically says "Ah cudn't rumembah if you took milk..." and then collapses...

Now I have to write other comments because unless I meet the ten line requirement, even though I've actually said all I want to say, I won't be allowed to post this comment. How ludicrous is that? Too bad I'm not getting paid per word. Which reminds me. Why do you suppose IMDb has such an idiotic stipulation? Do you suppose THEY are getting paid per word? Anyway, Goldblum showed the exact same face of rage when he began wailing on Kieren Culkin in Igby Goes Down. And once again, it was for almost the same reason. Weird.

The Shield (2002–2008)

pranks don't sound right

[12 March 2006]

None of the pranks really ring true. Especially in the fourth season, it's like the first season all over again. How is that possible? Plus, that guy who didn't have the sack to draw down on those bangers at the car wash. I'm sorry but it is totally unrealistic for him to take part in those pranks aimed at Dutch, the unscrewing of his chair, the moronic fliers, the comments. How come he didn't target Claudette? Both of these people saved his career, his reputation and suddenly he's trying to sabotage that by joining the butthole surfers taking apart chairs and sh*t? Homey don't THANK so. It also isn't in character for Vic Mackey. Being a good father requires a certain emotional maturity that would make his schizophrenic behavior vis a vis Dutch all but impossible. And about that strangling of the cat way back when...it's logical to think that Dutch's academic career would have had him reading most if not all of the Platonic dialogues and he would have obviously read Symposium. He would therefore know that he wouldn't have to COMMIT acts of evil to understand the nature of evil. People who are idiots remain idiots. They're not idiots one day and intelligent people the next. But in the Shield's universe, that is suddenly possible. Once a person gets a taste of being intelligent, why would they even DREAM of wanting to be a moron again? Vic behaves like a grown man on some days and then suddenly he functions on the level of a goddamn 9 year old? Sorry but I ain't buying it.