kezop_male Reviews

The Astronaut Farmer (2006)

Have dream without Being Hit over the Head with It.

[9/10 · 24 July 2007]

This movie reminded me "Field of Dreams" or "The Rookie," more than anything else. A seemingly well adjusted man with a family and family obligations; chasing an impossible, crazy dream; potentially putting his devoted family into peril. Charles Farmer (Thorton) has the requisite supporting wife and admiring kids supporting his dream. And while he should probably be the laughing stock of the community, in general, no one openly ridicules them. No one believes he'll end up in outer space, of course, but they accept him as a harmless crackpot.

Of course, Charles Farmer isn't "really" crazy, right? Of course, he really can get into space, right? Just like Kevin Coaster can communicate with the dead or Dennis Quaid can be a rookie (except, of course, that's a story based on fact).

This is a feel good movie about the power of having dreams, of being motivated by dreams at the expense of all else, and it feeds the propaganda machine of "we can be and do anything... no, really! We can!" Just like Rocky Balboa.

I wouldn't have ranked the movie 9 out of 10 if it didn't make me cheer, if it didn't challenge me to think a bit more about the dreams I might have lost along the way, and perhaps even more importantly, the dreams I may have. You won't get a lecture in this movie, well, not a big one. And you won't get hit over the head with a message. You probably won't feel overly motivated to chase a dream, either. But you just might feel like believing a bit more in the power of dreams at the end of the movie than you did at the beginning, and for me, that was worth it.

Lord of War (2005)

Has the feel of an important movie

[7/10 · 21 June 2007]

The tone of the movie established in the beginning is entertaining, though it doesn't seem to motivate the character's choice of actions. Growing up in the violence of Hell's Kitchen, he decides to becomes an illegal gun salesman for the local thugs. Hoping to expand his business, he and his brother work to enter the world stage.

Selling guns illegally is akin to selling any illegal product, from drugs to being a mobster like in "The Sopranos." But there's no sense of Cage's character being a mobster. His disconnect from what his product is used for and his responsibility of that use is interesting but probably a very foreign concept to 99.9% of the population.

He is so calculating and cavalier through-out the movie, it's difficult to develop a sense of empathy towards him. However, his character is presented in such an entertaining fashion, it's difficult to despise him for what he does. There are efforts made to suggest that he had a sense of morals, but truthfully, it comes across more as him just being a spineless worm.

The film takes a very dark turn in its final reel as his world begins to fall apart. When that happens, its light hearted tone is lost and the viewer is left not caring about the character. It recovers slightly at the end.

The Opening of Misty Beethoven (1976)

Before Porn, there was Erotica

[9/10 · 19 January 2007]

For a brief moment in the mid '70's, before herpes, AIDS; at the beginning of the disco revolution and the absolute beginnings of the VCR, American society had grown up enough to allow genuine adult entertainment on the mainstream big screen as entertainment and not disguised as a morality play like "Reefer Madness." Unlike its predecessors, "Deep Throat" and "The Devil in Miss Jones," "The Opening of Misty Beethoven" features rich production values and exotic locations. The production values of this film are on par with most Hollywood productions at the time and huge cut above "B" movies of the era.

Explicit sex fills this film, even when the main characters are not engaging in it, the background extras on screen are. It's an interesting mix, leading to explicit sex being both glorified and trivialized. More than any other single film, this movie celebrates the promises of the 1960's Sexual Revolution with candid portrayals of sexual behavior from solo sex to heterosexual to both forms of homosexual-ism, namely gay and lesbian (though the references to gay sex are not presented as direct man on man contact).

While the sex is explicit and at times shown in the kind of close-ups that makes one feel as if they are a gynecologist, few of the sex scenes follow the pattern of modern pornography where the partners are filmed in close-up and changing positions every three to five minutes. On one hand, little of the sex between the main characters is gratuitous, yet, since this IS a sex film, it can be argued it is ALL gratuitous. The story is clearly a twist on the classic "My Fair Lady" theme. Can a lowly, "civil servant" class sex worker be elevated to the pinnacles of being a sexual legend? The dialog can be very witty at times and the movie doesn't mind stopping the "action" for a few good lines. The acting is above average for the period. The hip, very vogue fashions of the day are a wonderful flashback to another time and may be worth witnessing for their own value.

By 1978's "Debbie Does Dallas," the moment was over. Production values had fallen along with the caliber of the story lines and quality of the actors ability to act. Theater owners were under political pressure about showing such explicit movies. Mainstream Hollywood never took the bait to make their own adult productions, marginalizing the industry. And most importantly, there was a new technology entering the homes of Americans that would allow people to view such explicit content in the privacy of their homes, the VCR (first introduced to consumers as the Sony Betamax in 1975).

The Illusionist (2006)

A taut, romantic drama

[10/10 · 11 January 2007]

Edward Norton as the illusionist "Eisenheim" gives us a delightful hero. To our modern day eye, it is easy to slip and think of his appearance as a cliché, but it is completely in keeping with the fashions of the time period for both men of Europe and, in particular, magicians. Full evening attire was the norm for a stage magician. Two elements were particularly fun for this former professional magician and history buff. First and foremost, the fine line that magic walked during the 19th and early 20th century (and before, technically, but trust me, it came to head with the scientific advances and discoveries of the late 1800's). During that time period, magicians were simply fooling audiences in much the same ways as they are today, yet the general population was much closer to the old beliefs and superstitions. Magic was an affront to science, though ironically, in its actual workings, it was more a celebration of science. Secondly, an element that is the focal point of the movie "The Prestige," and that is, the close guarding of secrets. While not all of the illusions presented are as faithful to real life as "The Prestige," it's close enough that it works. I saw nothing presented that could not be roughly duplicated (or actually was done) at the time. The ending is, well, truly satisfying. Sit down with your spouse, grab the popcorn, get past the rather odd beginning (which sets the pace and tone of the movie very well), and get ready for a GREAT movie.

Leap of Faith (1992)

"The Sting" meets Televangilists

[8/10 · 20 December 2006]

At times, a bit uneven of a movie that drags in places, but watching it, you're rewarded frequent gems of movie magic. The opening scene of Steve Martin talking his way out of a speeding ticket while his core crew places bets on the potential of his success accurately sets the stage for the charlatan of Martin's character, Jonas Nightengale. He's a shyster and proud of it. He's selling a bill of goods to willing saps and is clearly comfortable with the situation.

Seeing the character of Jonas Nightengale operate is a true joy, from his attempt to bed the local beauty queen to how he mixes truth and banter to foil the attempts of an overly wise sheriff played by Liam Neeson.

Martin's character very accurately employs techniques used by exposed Peter Popoff and it's worth doing a YouTube search of Peter Popoff to see the similarities.

The Angels of Mercy choir is outstanding to watch and to hear. Be sure to stick around during the credits to see and hear more of them.

There are undeveloped parts of the story, for example, Jonas's relationship with Jane (played very well by Debra Winger). It would have been worthwhile to know a bit more about how the two of them got started and why there isn't a romantic tension between the two of them. It's easy to assume they've been together, but there's no proof either way. She knows the act and him too well to be just a business partner and she's not presented as having a past seedy enough to get her into the conman business.

It's all fun and games, of course, until a real miracle happens and what's a good conman to do when faced with the real deal? Have fun with this movie, forgive the parts that drag, and you'll be rewarded with a movie worth watching.

The Prestige (2006)

More like "Memento" than "Batman Begins."

[7/10 · 7 November 2006]

As a former professional magician, the concept of this movie is close to my heart. It was fun seeing Ricky Jay, a real magician, playing a small part. Equally fun was the faithfulness with which most of the magic was presented. Rather than stoop to the level of camera tricks, the magic presented is the same as it would be presented by any modern day magician.

Similar to "Memento," this movie skips about in the time line where some information presented earlier makes more sense later when you see it in context. Be prepared for rather plodding plot more in keeping with the offerings of M. Night Shyamalan with a similar style twisting ending. Personally, I guessed the ending too early.

Faithfully reproduces the time period.

Personally, I think Hugh Jackman (as Robert Angier) and Christian Bale (as Alfred Borden) are too similar looking in appearance and demeanor, which made keep track of who was whom a bit distracting for me.

Stick It (2006)

Lacklust Teen Chick Flick

[5/10 · 8 October 2006]

Rented it to watch with my two girls, age 10 & 12. Thought it was funny that our 15 year son watched it, too... though young chicks in leotards could have been his motivation, LOL.

It's a bit lopsided. The gymnastics portion is good. They used lots of very talented gymnasts in the filming of it, so thankfully, what you're seeing on screen really happened, not some fakery with wires.

The motivation for Haley of being a good girl who's acting out against her bad parents is poorly presented. The history of Jeff Bridges' character as a dangerous coach and a washed up former star is poorly presented as well. There's no sense of threat in him and since his past is so poorly developed, there's no real sense of growth of in him.

The same is true of the main character, Haley. Her growth in the movie is poorly motivated. It is well established why some girls in the gymnastic world hate her, but the resolution of that is less than gratifying.

Additionally, the whole point of the ending is lost without watching the deleted scenes on the DVD version to fill in the gaps concerning the judges.

I had hoped that a movie like this would leave me cheering at the end. I had hoped for more growth in the characters. Ironically, the character who grows the most in the story was a co-star. My 10 year old thought it was a good movie, but not one she wanted to watch over and over.

Caddyshack (1980)

Classic Screwball Comedy Stands Test of Time

[10/10 · 20 September 2006]

Just finished watching this movie with my 16 year son, who was skeptical about it after seeing modern day screwball comedies like "Old School." He loved it.

Unlike at least one other reviewer, I thought Chevy Chase was great through-out the movie. With all the over the top comedy through-out the movie, it's easy to miss Chevy with Ted Knight and Rodney Dangerfield's over the top performances. Chevy clearly has some of the best lines, delivered so off-the-cuff as to be easily missed.

Bill Murray may be at his comedic best in this movie playing underplaying an over-the-top character with great effect. He's so funny, it's easy to spend your time watching this movie in eager anticipation of when he'll again be on screen.

Rodney Dangerfield is classic Rodney Dangerfield in a part that had to be written just for him. Much of his schtick is just as tired as Rodney looks, but all is delivered with his usual "I've got a squirrel in my pants" style. If you're a fan of Rodney, there's lots to like about him in the movie. If you hate him, though, be warned: his screen time will wear on you like nails on a chalkboard.

Ted Knight in a pseudo-Ted Baxter performance fits his role perfectly. If you grew up watching him on the Mary Tyler Moore show, you'll get more of the same.

Michael O'Keefe and Tony D'Annunzio play good counterpoints to each other in underdeveloped, but clichéd roles of "average nice guy" and "hip, cool guy" to Cindy Morgan's smokin' hot chick. (She is gorgeous!) Sarah Holcomb's Irish looks and accent are a joy. Too bad this was her last film.

Plenty of great characters with at least six or more mixed up plot lines held loosely together by the golfing theme and intersecting liberally. The setting automatically excuses most of the dating of the movie. Hey, everyone knows golfers have no fashion sense.

Rocky II (1979)

Same Story, Both Continued AND Re-told

[10/10 · 12 October 2005]

I'm old enough to remember the thrill of seeing each of the "Rocky" films during their original, theatrical runs. The magical component that Stallone achieved was to tell nearly the exact same story, twice in a row, with the same characters... and yet, he gives us a one-two punch that hits just solidly as the first.

It's truly a remarkable feat. Differences? We've already met all the characters. Gone is the sense of discovery, the sense of learning who these people are. We already know, don't we? Yet, Stallone's characters are sufficiently interesting enough for us to want to spend more time with them, seeing them in a world most of us don't know, living a life few of us would really want. While the sense of discovery about these characters is gone, our joy of being a voyeur into their world is not.

It's a toss up which movie, "Rocky" or "Rocky II," asks us to suspend disbelief more. In "Rocky," we have to accept that a nobody, unrated, club fighter could a) get the chance to fight the world champion. B) He could possibly defy all odds and go the distance. That's a huge stretch only possible in Hollywood movies, classifying the first movie as a fairy tale along the lines of Cinderella.

Soap opera-esquire is not a bad way to characterize "Rocky II" because of the emotional ride, but I don't find it as trite as a soap opera. Rocky's actions are very believable, from his earnings feeling like a fortune to him (when they were obviously not), to his illiteracy and his unsophisticated, "punch drunk" boxer. The ramifications of his past are believable. He fritters away the money and is unable to capitalize on his 15 minutes of fame. Hey, it happens all the time. Very believable.

With a pregnant wife, no job, and no way to pay his bills, he's backed into a corner. What's a fighter to do? (And in this case, I mean "a fighter" in its most literal sense.) He's willing to risk his health and even his marriage to do what any man should do: provide for his family.

Adrian's bit of drama is the single "problem" with the movie, but it's also the heart of the movie. It's not a movie about losing it all and coming back again, it's much more than that. It's about a simple man who's trying to do the best he can with the only tools he has. And when Adrian is first to go down for the count, it puts it all in jeopardy.

It's not until his wife is ready to accept him as he is, for what he is, that he can continue his quest, one more fight, for his family, for himself.

The story arc feels so similar to the first movie that this one is often tossed to the side, yet it truly is amazing how Stallone managed to re-imagine all the magic of the first movie and, better still, give us a second helping of it that's just as sweet. Enjoy!

Alexander (2004)

Avoid this unwatchable waste of time

[1/10 · 27 August 2005]

I'm sure there are movies worse than Oliver Stone's "Alexander," I just hope I don't have to watch one. And, to think I saw the "re-mixed" Director's Cut. It's even worse than other recent clunkers such as "King Arthur," "Van Helsing," or "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," and significantly worse than "Troy." In his remix, Stone removed 12 minutes. He should have removed around 45 minutes or more. Additionally, he moved two major scenes later in the movie, using them as flashbacks. It didn't work. It made an already confusing story still harder to follow.

Sometimes, hidden in a movie of this statue will be a gem of a scene or a performance so compelling one might feel a bit justified in watching it. That is not the case in this movie. Colin Farrell is fine. Angela Jolie is fine. Anthony Hopkins is, well, again: fine. Nothing remarkable about the scenery, set design, costumes, etc.

I'll admit it, I am not a big Oliver Stone fan, but I've seen enough of his work to now believe, if it says "Oliver Stone" on the masthead, I'll save my money for "Shrek 24" or something.

Kalifornia (1993)

Juliette Lewis rules this movie

[5/10 · 12 August 2005]

I wouldn't say I'm a huge Juliette Lewis fan. To me, she's a quirky character actress. Her slow-witted, country bumpkin, trailer trash portrayal in this movie is WONDERFUL! Brad Pitt, however, just misses in his portrayal of her boyfriend. There are elements of his country bumpkin, trailer trash portrayal that are truly wonderful. The way he walks, for example, is great. His look is spot on, too, including the chipped tooth (see the trivia for more info about that).

David Duchovny provides his typical deadpan, single note performance, demonstrating again a question of his ability to have any range whatsoever. There's so little passion to his character.

I am unfamiliar with Michelle Forbes, though her performance comes closest to matching Juliette Lewis's than any one else's.

I rated the move as relatively low as I did (a five) for two reasons. One, to help drag down it's total, because there are lots of 6.6 rated movies I happen to like. Secondly, it really ain't that good.

White Noise (I) (2005)

It Doesn't Suck

[8/10 · 27 May 2005]

As modern day scary movies go, it doesn't completely suck, which is more than I can say for a lot of them. It feels creepy through-out. Parts of it drag, but Michael Keaton does a good job through-out. As for the premise of the movie, lots is left unexplained. Too much as a matter of fact.

For example, after Michael Keaton's wife dies, he is approached by a E.V.P. researcher who claims to be able to contact his dead wife. A few scenes later, we see Michael Keaton talking to a medium without much set-up. Is it to signal that he's been trying all kinds of methods to contact her? At first, it feels as if the medium is a huckster, but just as he's about to give up on her, she blurts out several specific things that makes it clear she is the real deal. Confusing.

Exactly what happens to the E.V.P. researcher is unclear. Even less clear is whether or not he (the E.V.P. researcher who first contacts Michael Keaton) has experienced the same kind of things that happen to Michael Keaton. I don't want to give away any plot points, so I'll leave there, purposely vague. But once you see it, you'll understand what I mean.

Man on Fire (2004)

A Revenge Flick that Works, Mostly.

[8/10 · 12 January 2005]

Revenge flicks are as predictable as "Rocky" knock-offs. Take a highly trained, ex-super soldier/spy, disgrace them from continuing their previous profession, show them struggling to adjust to the civilize world. Next, have them fall in love, begin to heal, and for real fun, have the object of their affections snatched away from them. Suddenly, all the killing to come is justifiable homicide. Each death is cheered.

That's the structure of this Denzel Washington flick, but guess what? It works, mostly. Sure, there's the unbelievable back story of Denzel being an ex-super soldier/spy. It's established early that he's a man of unusual prowlness when it comes to killing. Just as it's established early that he's no longer able to continue his previous profession. In this case, alcoholism. None of this is a spoiler, since it's all given away in the first 15 minutes of the film.

What makes this movie exceptional (not great, just noteworthy) is the way mostly believable way the filmmaker justifies his relationship with the little girl. Even Denzel's motivation for letting go of the bottle is relatively believable.

Once the killing starts, we're rewarded with mostly believable acts of revenge killing on Washington's part. Only one killing is patently over the top in it's cuteness (the one under the bridge).

I guess the filmmaker hoped to have you drawn deeply enough into the characters and the story to forgive the clichéd ending. The killing under the bridge signals the end of believability for the movie as it races to tie up all the loose ends and give the required happy/sad ending.

I liked how the movie was directed and shot. It's use of subtitles is wonderful. Subtitles that actually ADD to the composition of the shot and reflect the emotion of the moment. A bit cartoony at times, but mostly, very effective and fun. The creative use of subtitles, along with the feel and visualness of the movie, will last much longer than the paper thin plot.

The Manchurian Candidate (2004)

Denzel his typical self

[6/10 · 31 December 2004]

Warning: May contain spoilers! Denzel Washington has one speed, one emotion, and it shows in each of the last few movies I've seen with him. There's never a range of emotions for IL' Denzel. He's intense and that's it, nothing more and nothing less. The few times he smiles or snickers (okay, scoffs with a smile) in the movie are a ray of sunshine just for its variety.

The movie IS intense, a taunt thriller that, at times, delivers a creepier sensation that most horror movies. Yet, in the end, I found it rather predictable. Though the filmmakers to do get maximum mileage out of the two major plot twists. (Spoiler ahead!) Of course the check-out girl was part of the government. Small twist, she was on Denzel's side. Plot twist two (another spoiler): Denzel is still under control of the Manchurians. Hm, okay. Not very believable, since he's already had his brain literally fried, but okay. It worked for the story.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

Virtually unwatchable

[3/10 · 7 December 2004]

Oddly, this movie was heralded for it's visual granduer. Meanwhile, I found it virtually unwatchable. I struggled through the first 20 minutes on DVD before stopping to head here to see what others had written. Maybe I was missing something. Apparently not. I appear to be seeing everything the movie has to offer, the supposedly clever juxtiposition of modern music in a "period" piece. I say "supposedly clever" because I found it trite instead of clever. I was supposed to be enamored by the rich, visual tapestry of this movie. Admittedly, it was impressive, but not impressive enough for me to suffer through the paper thin plot of the story. I found this movie annoying. The film making was novel, though I think calling it "inventive" would be a stretch.

Bad Santa (2003)

Better than "Lost in Translation."

[3/10 · 22 November 2004]

I'm all for quirky, black comedies. Heck, I like them. But I would clump this movie in with "Lost in Translation," "Eternal Sunshine," and even "The Cable Guy." Dark and black without much comedy. A smoking, grouchy, cussing, drinking, and over sexed Santa whose heart is slowly turned by a fat, loser kid who's never fully explained. The vain attempt to show character growth through the boy changing Bad Santa's heart is something you'd expect to see in mainstream Hollywood fare.

John Ritter is great in this movie. The same is true with Bernie Mac. The elf isn't bad, but not good either. As for Billy Bob Thorton, it's another one of his standard performances, great if you like him, some as always if you feel neutral about him. Personally, I wouldn't call this movie much of a comedy.

Frailty (2001)

"Frailty" is GREAT FUN

[9/10 · 15 November 2004]

The synopsis for this movie does a great job at explaining what to expect. It's a very good thriller. Well shot. Tough to believe it was Bill Paxton's directorial debut, though some shots do look EXACTLY like a storyboard version.

Still, there are a few shots that really look good and show some real imagination on the part of Paxton.

It's a solid story with some great twists at the end, several of them, all believable, all fun, and best of all, obscured well enough to make them true twists.

The child actors in the movie do a great, too. I'm usually wary of movies with kids in starring roles because all too often they come off as Nickelodeon rejects, but both these kids do a good job.

This movie is not gory. It's not very scary. But it IS very, very creepy.