da_lowdown Reviews

A Band Called Death (2012)

Sometimes, it sucks to be too far ahead of your time

[10/10 · 5 September 2014]

"What good will it do to gain the world and lose your soul?" (Mark 8:36)

At some point in our lives, most of us surrender our dreams to responsibilities of life. Family, mortgages, and the careers to sustain them. All these things of life. Some necessary. Some necessary evils. And all those unfulfilled dreams follow us to our graves. Let's face it, for most of us, it takes balls to follow your dreams, because it takes balls to fail big.

"Death", and its lead-man David Hackney, had the balls to follow their dreams. Bound by faith, family, and an unshakable confidence, they followed their dream despite the odds stacked against them. They weren't afraid to fail big. They knew that their music and their vision for the band had risks.

Listening to their music, it's evident that they were way ahead of their time, and yes, unfortunately, not what the mainstream audience expected. But still, they persisted past the rejections, disappointments and heartaches, buoyed by family loyalty and love of music.

The bright light shining through the disappointment and heartache, is the love of family. The the real core and power of this movie, is how your family's love and faith doesn't fail, even when everything else has.

Here's to the dreamers. Your dreams will be realized long after your departure. Your dreams will be your legacy and your loved ones the beneficiaries.

Rock on, all you misfits.

Southland Tales (2006)

A messy explosion at the idea factory, and not an editor in sight

[4/10 · 28 January 2013]

After watching Donnie Darko multiple times, and loving it despite all of it's flaws, I really wanted to like this one. But by the time the credits started to roll, I had a massive headache and a numb butt. Here's the rundown.

THINGS THAT WORKED

• Many of the set pieces work individually. Great energy, great ideas, great cinematography

• Quirky performances from most of the cast keeps thing interesting.

• So many starring roles and cameos from B,C and D list stars, I say there's gotta be a great drinking game in here somewhere

• Some scenes come across as fully improvised (this can be good sometimes)

AND THOSE THAT DIDN'T

• No coherent plot because....

• There are too many characters

• Too many plot lines

• Too many ideas and sub-themes

• Not enough discipline in the storytelling

• Some scenes come across as fully improvised (this can be very bad sometimes)

SUMMARY This movie feels like Richard Kelly jotted an assortment of clever ideas on index cards, and then threw them into a rotating fan, picked them off the floor, and then starting shooting the movie. The maddening thing is that there are moments in the movie where it starts to build coherence before it all falls apart again. I realize that he was probably aiming for an ephemeral 'dreamlike' quality to the storytelling, similar to something David Lynch has done (successfully) in the past, but Kelly is no Lynch.

Not a terrible movie. Just an interesting one that might test your patience. You be the judge.

One from the Heart (1981)

Style cannot compensate for lack of substance

[6/10 · 31 January 2012]

There are times a movie's style can overcome it's lack of substance. But not this time. When this movie was released back in the early 80s, it was the eagerly anticipated 'gamechanger' from the maestro himself. Coppola's novel approach to directing and editing using cutting edge technology (at the time) would revolutionize the art of film making. Instead, it was a commercial flop. Audiences found a shallow beauty. A gorgeous girl with clever quips and opening lines, but no real depth or heart.

The biggest problem for me was that the story feels so disjointed. It's a series of beautiful looking vignettes held together by a paper thin plot and flat two dimensional characters. A lot of the scenes feel stilted and over-rehearsed. There's no spontaneity or life.

It's not a complete waste of time, however. It is a beautiful looking movie. Terri Garr and Natasia Kinski look exquisite. There are a lot of interesting and eye catching touches. The set designs are works of art. You might like this if you are in the right mood, and want to see something different. But if you are looking for a coherent narrative, and engaging character development, you might want to pass.

Rubber (2010)

Like a great joke that gets told over, and over, and over again for 80 minutes

[23 July 2011]

The first 10 minutes of the movie had my attention. The entire opening sequence where the sheriff explains how things happen in movies for no apparent reason (after inexplicably mowing down rows of chairs with his car in the middle of a dirt road) had me in stitches. Clever! I had my hopes up, thinking I was in for some more goofy irreverent fun. But somewhere along the way, the joke got old. Essentially, more of the same for the next 70 minutes. Yeah, I get the movie's self referential approach, and although it was clever enough at first, it became a one note performance by the director.

One thing I will say, however, this movie shows how "Average Joe's" can make a technically competent film using reasonably priced DSLR cameras that do video (Canon EOS 5D Mark II in this case). Now, all we need is a good accessible script that doesn't try too hard.

The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

Felt like bait and switch

[5/10 · 7 March 2011]

David Norris (Matt Damon) is a young, charismatic politician on his way up. His sometimes impulsive nature leaves a wake of incriminating moments that work against him during his campaigns. Being in front of people helps placate the nagging emptiness he feels in his life. He seems lonely despite his success. One day, during a dark moment in his campaign, he has a chance encounter with Elise (Emily Blunt). The circumstances for their encounter seem odd, and yet the chemistry is instant and unforced. Their brief encounter inspires him to give concession speech that raises eyebrows and puts him on the political map again. And here, is where things get interesting. They have a second chance encounter. This time, they weren't supposed to meet. Not according the the 'master plan' set forth by the Chairman of the Universe. Because a case worker from the Adjustment Bureau fell asleep on the job, events don't get nudged in the right way, and something with apparently far reaching consequences, which isn't supposed to happen, does. Now a certain kind of unpredictable gravity has been created between the two. And it fights against the master plan.

The movie becomes ingtruiging as it explores the concept of free will versus pre-destination, or fate. If your belief system dictates a predestined future, what's the point of free will? Why make choices if you will be nudged in the direction of a predetermined future? At this point in the movie I sat up in my chair. Finally! A Sci Fi movie with depth! Then, a moral dilemma is introduced, which adds even more complexity: Sacrificing your personal happiness, possibly for the rest of your life, in exchange for the greater good of the people around you. It felt like the movie was about to do something really bold here. At one point, I held out hope that it might be going for a very unconventional (un-Hollywood) ending. Unfortunately, I think they lost their nerve. Maybe it was the reaction to a focus group? Or perhaps they caved to a greedy, pushy Hollywood executive more concerned with the bottom line, than with the integrity of art? (Nah, that's a bit far fetched….) Whatever the case, I would love to see some earlier drafts of the script. I'll bet they were probably more intriguing and intelligent that the final product.

Movies dealing with fate and time travel will always have some kind of paradox, or gap in logic. I don't think there will ever be a way around that. So picking apart the movie solely on those grounds is pointless. As long as a movie make an attempt at covering them plausibly, I'm okay with that. Despite all of the inherent gaps, this movie covers most them competently. That's not my problem with the 'Adjustment Bureau'. My problem with the movie is that it raises such intriguing questions, only to leave them unanswered. The few that are answered are approached flippantly. Maybe they lost me because I expected more than what the screenplay intended to deliver. They seemed to promise an existential drama, but delivered a cliché laden romantic date night movie (boy gets girl, it's us against the world baby, love will keep us together, etc. etc.). I walked out of the theatre feeling like a victim of bait and switch.

Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a horrible movie. Damon and Blunt are excellent. You can really feel the the easy rapport, and eventual electricity between them. The direction keeps things moving along at a brisk pace without sacrificing character development. Another plus: So many movies nowadays rely heavily on CGI flash to hide thin storytelling skills. The Adjustment Bureau doesn't make that mistake. But still, I can't shake the feeling of disappointment when walking out of the movie theatre.

Maybe the problem isn't with the movie. Maybe the problem is with me. I'm becoming a bitter and crotchety old man in my old age. Naah! By the way, TURN DOWN THAT MUSIC AND GET OFF MY LAWN!!!

Collapse (II) (2009)

Separating the movie from it's subject matter

[8/10 · 5 February 2011]

I've read several reviews that can't seem to separate the movie itself, from the film's subject. Here's my approach: I ask myself if the film moved me either emotionally or intellectually. If so, why? Then I write about that. In other words, I write about how the film approached the subject. Did it have narrative momentum? Was it modulated, or did it remain at the same annoying pitch throughout? Afterwards, if necessary, I write about my disdain, or admiration of the subject and his opinions. That's my approache to movies like this one.

Some complain about the lack of a counterpoint in this documentary. Well ... guess what ... a documentary's primary purpose is to document (hence the name ' documentary' ). It's not the film's job to always provide a counterpoint, it's the viewers job. Sorry to digress so early in my review. Anyway, to avoid creating any confusion about how I felt about this film, I'll separate my feelings on the movie, and it's subject.

MY OPINION ON THE MOVIE

If you like Errol Morris movies, you'll probably like this one. It's style is reminiscent to " The Fog of War". It has great narrative momentum. The camera and graphics keep the subject, Michael Ruppert take on Peak Oil, front and center. The editing keeps Rupperts monologue developing at a pace that wraps you into it's near paranoia. At one point in this movie, I started to think, "Holy sh_t! We're all screwed!!!" . This movie got me to thinking about how deeply dependent we are on oil. The steak I had for dinner, the car that takes me to work, the computer I'm writing this review on, all brought to you, courtesy of that thick black gooey stuff that comes out of the ground. As the movie points out, plausibly, oil does not have to run out (hell, there's plenty down there) it simply has to become harder to get to, to start jacking up prices uncontrollably, thus making life tougher for everyone. The film listens patiently, and carefully to an apparently sincere and lonely man crying that the "sky is falling" while we all continue about our business. The underlying tone is urgent, and hopeless. In the end, I felt uneasy.

MY OPINION ON RUPPERT AND HIS THEORIES

I'll come right out and say it, I think Mr. Ruppert is looking at the worst case scenario only, and nothing else. Yes, the way he says this whole situation will unravel sounds plausible. However, when you pick it apart, there are too many variable he dismisses too easily (e.g. evolving energy innovations). But before we dismiss everything he says too quickly, remember that he along with a handful of others correctly predicted the current global economic crisis. Many of the people that now ridicule him on his peak oil theory, also "poo-pooed" him back then. Then look what happened. On the other hand, Ruppert predicted a global depression. It didn't happen (at least not yet). The worst case scenario did not play out. Perhaps he's pointing in the right direction with peak oil, but overstating it's severity because he has such a dim view of human nature? Geez, I certainly hope so. Otherwise, we really are screwed. Watch this movie with an open mind, but don't be afraid to seek out counterpoints afterward.

Regardless of your opinion on the subject of peak oil, you should see this movie. IT might scare you, it might anger you. It will move you, as art should do.

Heaven's Gate (1980)

Squandered potential

[3/10 · 9 January 2010]

"Nothing pisses me off more than squandered potential!" my high school counselor yelled at me once. I totally get him now after watching Heaven's Gate.

Ruminations of my youth aside, he was right, few things are as frustrating as watching squandered potential. Which is why I became so exasperated with this movie. Looking at all of its elements, there was enough there to make a really great movie, and yet, there, in front of me was a meandering, lumbering mess of a film. Every potentially great element of the movie was thwarted by some miscalculated self-indulgence. No, it's not the worst film ever made. I can't say it's un-watchable. There are quite a few things about this movie that almost reach greatness. Almost. Dare I say, there is genius buried under it all. And that's the maddening thing about this movie, It's genius was ultimately sabotaged by the director's grandiose ego. Artistic excess, evident everywhere, sunk this film, and took United Artist with it (allegedly).

THE CINEMATOGRAPHY

The cinematography could have been great. A lot of the shots are framed and lit just right. Yet, all of this was marred by way too much Vaseline on the lens. Every shot, and I mean every shot, looks fuzzy and unfocused. At the one hour mark it became a distraction. At the two hour mark, it became downright irritating. I can only imagine what audiences of the 3 and 5 hour versions must have felt. There was something truly great cooking here, from a cinematographic point of view, but it was marred by over softening the image. Such a shame. I realize that the old west was dusty, but geez, did everyone also suffer from glaucoma?

THE EDITING

When you step back and think about the movie's story, central theme and performances (although sometimes uneven, mostly good), there was a really compelling movie here. However, the editing, or lack thereof, sabotaged any narrative momentum. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the long shot, and realize that every film has its own pace. As a matter of fact, I'm a fan of Cimino's previous effort, the Deer Hunter (which ran at a leisurely pace). The difference is that the Deer Hunter always kept the story front and center. But in Heaven's Gate, Cimino continuously extends scenes, almost as if he is forcing us to acknowledge how beautiful the shot is, and how brilliant he is. This vainglorious approach grinds the story to a halt in some points, and the film looses momentum. We lose interest because the film continuously seems to meander. There are too many instances of shots that should have been edited, because they contributed little or nothing to the story, but were probably kept because they looked good to Cimino. This movie should probably be analyzed in film schools as a cautionary tale, Or at the very least, used as an editing exercise. I believe there might be a good 90 minute film buried under its current 150 minutes. As an editing exercise, have the students reedit this movie just to see what we end up with. It might not turn into 'Citizen Kane', but I bet it would be an improvement.

THE SOUND

The sound mixing was another factor. The ambient noise in some of the scenes is so overwhelming that it drowns out the dialog. What was Cimino thinking? Dialog helps convey the story and develop the character. I get the feeling he was so focused in creating realism of the environment, he allowed the dialog (story and character development) to suffer.

Trust me, I'm not a part of the 'haters' bandwagon. After reading some of the positive reviews to this movie, I made an effort to like this movie. I not only kept an open mind, I had a forgiving mind. I also made sure I packed a lot of patience for this journey. Alas, it was not enough. For me, the story and storytelling always have to come first. Everything else, including self-indulgent artistry, must take a back seat. Cimino forgot this, and that's why this film failed for me.

By the way, I highly recommend the documentary "Final Cut". It's an engrossing little movie about how this entire debacle unfolded.

The Wrestler (2008)

The perils of living in the past

[9/10 · 27 January 2009]

Randy "the Ram" Robinson is stuck in the past. He was a wrestling idol in the 80s, but now spends his weekends in the small 'indie' wrestling circuits trying to relive his glory days, and scraping by on weekdays as a strong back at the local Acme grocery store loading dock where he is brow beaten and humiliated by a hateful mouse of a boss. Although he seems to still have adulation in the tight circles of wrestling, and some of the neighborhood kids, there aren't any real relationships in his life. His better days are way behind him, but he doesn't care, he just want to keep wrestling. After one particularly brutal match, he has near fatal heart attack.

After his heart attack, he attempts to establish a 'real' relationship with a stripper named Cassidy (actually Pam in her "real life") played by Marissa Tomie. Cassidy, like Randy, also operates in the margins of society and has seen better days. As an aging stripper, she struggles to sell table dances, and is often mistreated by the clientele. Unlike Randy, however, she makes a separation between her stage persona, and her real life as a mother. She even seems to have plans to leave stripping behind. His awkward charm almost wins her over. But we can tell she's smarter than that. This is a woman that's been hurt too many times in life, and her defense mechanisms need to work right if she wants to protect her son and get them to a better life. Some may view her as a cold and calculating bitch, but as we sit back and observe her, we see the human being beating inside the tough exterior. The ending scene shows just how human she is. And how sometimes, despite your best efforts and intentions, you're just a little too late to save some people.

After his heart attack, Randy also tries to re-establish his relationship with his estranged daughter. Their meetings provide some of the movies most poignant scenes. Their initial meeting doesn't go well. We can't blame her for her bitterness and anger. He was, after all a lousy parent. But Randy persists, and in a powerful scene by the beach, they seem to start on their road to reconciliation. There is a brief scene where she takes his arm as they walk, indicating her forgiveness. It almost brought me to tears. Beauty can sometimes be found in subtlety. His final meeting with his daughter is especially heart wrenching. It seems like he's finally turning a corner. He's earned our affection, and we want his redemption. But his old flaws resurface, and redemption slips away.

Initially, it seems that Randy continues to wrestle because he loves it so much. But as we watch the character flesh out, we recognized him in some of the people we've probably known in our lives. The old star athletes, or performers (actors and such) who can't get past their glory days. They can't move on with their lives and can't accomplish much else, because they are stuck in the past. Most would come to classify their kind as 'losers'. Randy seems to fit the bill. Unfortunate because despite his flaws, he has a big generous heart. He may be a 'loser', but he's still a 'good guy'. That's why Randy, and others like him are walking tragedies. This is not to say that nostalgia is a bad thing, but there is a difference between missing the past, and an insistence on re-living it. Poor Randy never moved on. I don't think it was his love of the ring as much as his love of the adulation and acceptance he felt in his past. His final heartbreaking words to Cassidy near the end of the movie verify this. This seems to be the heart of the movie.

The 'Wrestler' is a work of art. We need more movies like this to prove that great films can be made on a budget. The editing is lean enough so that it keeps the story-telling moving at a brisk pace. The Cinematography is appropriately grainy and downbeat with muted colors. The script is full of character details so that even brief supporting roles feel like flesh and blood. Mickey Rourke's performance was so good, I completely forgot that I was observing an actor. Marissa Tomei also holds her own with an excellent performance.

******Spoiler Alert******

Regarding some of the complaints about the 'open ending': Personally, I thought the ending was poetic. The tight shot of him taking that final leap from the ropes, as it leaving this world into another, and then a slow fade to black, was breathtaking. No, it didn't spell out his fate, but you can pretty much guess the outcome based on the story's and character's arc. Besides, focusing on the ending, is missing the point of the movie.

The past may have been great, but it's gone, so move on and evolve. Take care of your loved ones while you have a chance now. And there is always tomorrow.

Reckless (1984)

Triumph of style over substance

[8/10 · 28 November 2008]

I was a teenager working at the Cineplex when I saw this movie for the first time. It doesn't take much to stir teenage angst, and longing. I was an easy target for this movie. You see, at the time, I too was in a doomed relationship with a girl that was all wrong for me (or so it seemed to the myopic teenage eye). She was a drill team princess and I was a nobody from the wrong side of the tracks. I had an immediate emotional response to Johnny and Tracey's dilemma. It resonated with me powerfully at the time. "Reckless" has lingered in my memory along with all the other sweet nostalgia from my youth.

Time and distance grant you clarity. So now, twenty four years later, I think I can review this movie with a much more critical eye. After seeing it again recently on a fairly good VHS copy, some of the strengths that I remember are still there. The beautiful cinematography that is reminiscent of "The Dear Hunter" is still there. Many of the shots in the film give the Pennsylvania mill town a bleak and forlorn look that matches Johnny's life. The editing is dead-on and lends this film an urgency that matches the story. The music is used effectively throughout. Inxs, Romeo Void, and Kim Wilde, just to name a few, give each scene the 'feel' it needs to enhance the story. The home coming dance scene where Johnny punks out to 'Never Say Never' is a great example of how bringing together great acting, editing, music, and energetic camera-work into a scene can get an audience's heart rate going. The scene still holds up after all these years. Fresh faced earnestness of the performances from Quinn and Hannah also make this movie very watchable.

Despite all of it's strengths, I couldn't ignore the glaring shortcomings. First off, Quinn's character, Johnny, is not really very believable. To be more precise, the way girls react to him in the film (with the notable exception of Tracey) is not really believable. Look at some of the opening scenes where some of Tracey's fellow cheerleaders treat him like a leper and call him a weirdo. Who are we kidding? Let's face it, as far back as James Dean, good looking, brooding guys on motorcycles have been babe magnets. Had I known this back then, I would have saved my money for a bike instead of blowing it on beer and fast food every weekend. I will pause this review briefly to kick myself…. Okay, I'm back. On with my review. Johnny's relationship with the older lady at the bowling alley is never developed although it seems to hold promise for further developments. Perhaps a love triangle? I dunno, it just seems kinda weird how it is given attention, and then dropped. Aside from Quinn's character, all other characters are fairly two dimensional. Tracey feels underwritten. She's a perfect princess that decides to rebel just because her life is too perfect? Really? Huh. At least that's what a brief two minute scene tries to sell us on for her motivation for ending up with Johnny on her first night. Did I miss something? I attribute these anemic characters to an underdeveloped script that comes across as clichéd and formulaic.

In most instances, this would be the death of any film. At least for me it would be. But because of all it's other strengths, it actually turns out to be a pretty engaging little movie, even after all these years.

"Reckless" is a fine example of how style, and shameless pandering to the teenage psyche, can sometimes triumph over a substandard script.

The Happening (2008)

Disappointing

[3/10 · 20 June 2008]

I include "Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable" at the top of my personal mood-piece masterpiece list. Shyamalan has shown an uncanny ability in the past to conjure up tension and dread almost out of nothingness on the screen. That takes talent.

However, with this movie, it seems that he has become overconfident, overusing some of his old tricks to the point of gimmickry. The overuse of staccatos and things jumping out of the corner of the screen show that he was really reaching for the cheap scares, perhaps to hide a weak script. And that's were the problem lies: A weak script. Unlike his previous films, which were patient, well modulated, detailed, and flowing, this movie seems to just clunk along without creating any tension, character empathy, or dread. It doesn't do a very good job at making us care for the characters. The story feels hackish because the dialog is hackish.

I don't know the man, obviously, but judging by his latest work, he's become overconfident. Overconfidence breeds complacency. His complacency is evident everywhere, especially in the halfhearted script. I hope Shyamalan takes some time to prepare his next script.

I get the feeling he probably needs to get his ego in check as well.

The Mist (2007)

hope, despair, and that damned ending

[5/10 · 7 December 2007]

I'm not going to bother giving you a synopsis of this movie. The Stephen King novella has been out there for several years already. I urge you to read it. Should you just read the story and pass on the movie? Well, that depends on whether you should read more anyway, and whether you don't mind sitting through a pretty weak ending. But, more on that a little later.

Most of the original plot points and characters of the original story remain. The setup has been tightened, but at the slight expense of Norton's character development. The mist itself also does not receive the proper build up like in the short story. I love watching movies, but one of the medium's shortcomings is it's inability to get into your head, and characters head, the way literature does. I realize that books and movies are completely different mediums, and you shouldn't compare apples to oranges, but I digress.

What does remain is the building terror, hopelessness, and Lovecraft inspired people eaters. Mrs. Carmody's character receives more focus, but with good reason. Some folks may complain that it stereotypes, and slanders Christians. No, what it does is shine a light on religious fanatics, and their exploitation of people's fears and sense of despair. It attacks fanatics, not Christians. Got that? The same kind of fanatics that talk desperate young men and women into blowing themselves up along with other innocents, or drinking poisoned Cool-Aid in a South American jungle. Several of the characters passingly express their faith in God, but are not presented as lunatics. However, if you can see the Camrody character for what she really is, and what she represents, there is no need to feel offended. But if you took this character as a serious attack on your faith, maybe the shoe fits. Hmmmm. Oops, I digress again. Got ahead of myself.

Actually, one of the things I admired about this film was how well it presented this argument. Frightened, desperate people with no answers to mounting crisis (personal or otherwise) tend to flock to charismatic psychopaths that promise answers and solutions. This can happen to even the most 'normal' person under the right circumstance. Look at what happened in Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, Waco. 'The Mist' illustrated part of this dynamic pretty well. Marcia Gay Harden's performance is so effective, I almost denied her my praise. Some may call it overacting, but, have you ever heard a revivalist on a roll?

Another interesting point the film makes is how you can't expect that reason and logic alone will protect you or save your life. Like in the book, the Brent Norton character refuses to believe the dilemma they are in, simply because it doesn't fall in line with what he knows (or thinks he knows) about the world around us. In his mind, there is no need to fear something that makes no sense to you. If you can't see it, why fear it? This point of view costs him his life. And, at the other end of the spectrum, is Carmody, which I just discussed.

There are a couple of fine scenes of superbly executed terror. The pandemonium that breaks out during the first night when some of the creatures make it into the store, is simply amazing. The scene in the pharmacy had me almost in a fetal position in my chair. Well executed.

***** Major Spoiler Alert -I'm not kidding, turn back now!!!******

Still with me? Okay, Sounds like I really liked this movie, so far. Right? Well folks, sometimes a game is decided in the final seconds. There's no way I can talk about this movie without talking about the ending.

First of all let me clarify my position on the cookie cutter, happy Hollywood endings that give closure and warm fuzzies to all. I abhor them. Some of my favorite classics do not have happy endings with complete closure: Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Gone with the Wind, 2001 a Space Odyssey. A well crafted anti-ending should leave you with some kind of yearning, or maybe leave you reeling from 'punch in the gut' ending that challenges your intellect. I can see that they really tried for this, but they failed. Why? Well, it boils down to plausibility. You can get away with just about anything in your story telling, but your character's development and the story construct has to lead up to it. You have to convince your audience that their actions are plausible, no matter how outrageous.

Drayton popping bullets into everyone's head almost immediately after he runs out of gas is implausible because of his drive (and everyone else's) to survive just a few hours before. What?! You mean to tell me this guy's will to live turned on a dime that quickly? And no one in the car protested? How could Darabont have made the ending more plausible, thus more effective? How about watching (time lapse over days) them slowly run out of food, water, start to get sick. How about having them pinned down by those creatures for several days to the point that despair sets in. Then the ending would be plausible coming from these characters. And then watching their would be salvation roll in just a few seconds later would have made it even more poignant. Just another five minutes of film would have done it. But the way it was handled, it didn't feel natural, it felt forced and contrived.

I applaud Darabonts attempt at underscoring the importance of not losing hope. How falling into despair can lead to tragedy. If he had pulled it off, it would have been a true knock-out ending.

Unfortunately, the ball got fumbled in the final seconds. Such a shame.

49 Up (2005 TV Movie)

What am I going to do with my life?

[10/10 · 9 October 2007]

This is probably one of the most profound films I have see in awhile. I think most of us have asked ourselves "What am I doing with my life?". The movie won't provide easy answers to this question, but it might point you in the right direction. The common pattern I found in the film with their lives, is that the teens and early twenties are the most tumultuous period of life, and not always a good indicator of who you really are, or where you're headed. But if you look closely, most are now content in their late forties because they seem to have come full circle from age seven.

Compare their thoughts at age seven, to their lives at 49. Now ask yourself: Who was I at seven? What did wish for in life? What am I doing with my life now?

Following Sean (2005)

The choices we make, the lives we lead, the people we love

[8/10 · 31 July 2007]

Stumbled across this gem on PBS the other night. I was initially spellbound by the storytelling ability of the narrator (Ralph Arlyck), but drawn in even further by the tapestry of lives involved. When we think of the 60's and early 70's, we think of Woodstock, hippies, free love, San Francisco, etc. What we don't often dwell on are the lives implicated in the thick of the hippie lifestyle. What lead to those lives? Who were the parents? Grandparents? What impact did this lifestyle have on the children? Grandchildren? Not a judgmental piece of film-making, but it does raise a lot of questions. And no, it doesn't offer a lot of answers. But does life? An amazing piece of film-making.

Bug (2006)

A great film hindered by bad marketing

[8/10 · 5 June 2007]

Agnes is haunted by the disappearance of her child. "Why? How?" are the unanswered questions that torment her. She spends her days in isolation in a dilapidated motel somewhere in a desolate desert town. She dulls her pain with drinking, smoking and drugs. She has almost no friends, and no interests. Her loneliness is occasionally broken by her work at the bar, and drunken revelries with R.C., her friend and lesbian lover.

Then, one evening, R.C. introduces Peter into her life. At first their conversations are hesitant, and wary. But eventually, they both sense a connection. They are both desperately solitary souls with troubled pasts, searching for answers to their misery. "Why? How?"

After a violent visit from her recently paroled husband, Agnes latches on to Peter with a sense of urgency. Her dismal world is now spiraling into despair. Peter seems to provide some relief to her trouble through his company. Peter's not much to look at; quiet and unassuming. But there is an uneasiness to him that's hard to pin down. No matter for Agnes; he seems to "get her". Plus, in his own awkward way, he feeds her needy self-esteem. In a scene that's explicit and un-erotic (actually, it kind of creepy), they have sex, but you can tell that the connection is not because of mutual attraction, or anything remotely close to love, but rather, loneliness and despair.

As time passes, it becomes apparent that neither one has a firm grip on reality. Bugs are everywhere, and they are the vehicle for explaining everything wrong in Peter's life, and eventually his paranoia begins to project onto Agnes. She needs explanations for the pathetic state of her life, and Peter seems to provide answers. There are patterns everywhere, all tying into their shared delusion.

Is the doctor's appearance in the motel room real? Or just another part of their delusion? As things begin to spiral out of control, it's hard to tell because reality starts slips away for both, leading to some supremely ghastly moments. The final moments of the film are harrowing, tragic and inevitable.

This movie rattled me. I've seen mental illness up close. I've seen it's tragic consequences. This one hit close to home.

A great movie marketed to the wrong audience. Unfortunately, it's true that 'you can't sell roses at the fish market". This should have been marketed as an indie in art-house theatres. At least, it would have a chance at critical success and good word of mouth, but the greedy corporate studio heads probably couldn't help themselves.

No, it's not a horror movie in the traditional sense. And definitely not like any of the horror movies of late. Showing graphic depravity and torture doesn't require skill or a high IQ. But apparently, that's the only thing that 'moves' audiences nowadays.

Movies like this work well for people who posses empathy and intellect. Unfortunately, today's A.D.D. afflicted masses aren't affected by anything that doesn't appeal to their base instincts, or isn't spelled out for them in short dumbed down bursts. Why make the effort to think, right? After all, haven't the masses made 'hits'of garbage like "American Idol", and made stars of talentless morons like Paris Hilton?

I'm afraid that the current state of movie-making reveals the current state of society's psyche. Most of the comments about this film seem to point this out. Sad, isn't it?

A Walk to Remember (2002)

I was blindsided by this one

[8/10 · 23 July 2006]

I don't like teen movies and I hate sappy romances. I was cornered (by my wife) into watching this.

Fifteen minutes into the movie, we were into familiar teen movie territory. The handsome rebel, and the angelic good girl. Egad, is this 'Grease'? Where are the musical numbers!? But then, something unexpected happened. The leads broke from most formula conventions and actually started to develop into fleshed out, three dimensional characters. These kids grew into vulnerable, identifiable people driven by real motives. They drew my empathy. I cared about them. I especially liked the way they handled Moore's Christian character. These days, it's rare to see religious people portrayed as sincere and reasonable instead of self-righteous, Bible thumping caricatures.

Yes, it got a little sappy towards the end, but by that time, they had earned my affection, so I didn't really mind. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Lowdown's no wuss, but I hafta say, I got a little choked up near the end.

This movie proves my theory that even tired movies formulas can be made new by putting a spin on the way the characters are presented.

If you leave your tired cynicism on hold, you'll enjoy this one.

Superman Returns (2006)

I almost fell asleep

[5/10 · 5 July 2006]

I was really jazzed about seeing this movie. After several attempts in the past ten years to bring Superman back to the big screen, finally, we had a movie! So, with the afternoon off from work, and a latté in hand, I was ready to welcome back 'the man of steel'. A quarter of the way through, despite the action and special effects, I was unmoved. Determined to have fun, I lowered my expectations. But half way through, my mind started to continually wondered off ("hmmm, I wonder if they still use canola oil for popcorn? hey, I wonder if shut off the coffee-maker?"). Three quarters of the way through, I started to check my watch every few minutes. This wasn't what I signed up for. There I sat in the dark theater eagerly anticipating a return to childhood wonderment, and instead this curiously unengaging film almost became my Ambien. In the days since I saw this movie, I wondered about my reaction to the movie. I mean, all the ingredients were there: good storyline, snappy dialog, plenty of action sequences, great special effects. And yet, there I sat, yawning. Then, it hit me (actually, my wife noticed it): Superman, remember he's the main character, had very little dialog, and expressed little emotion throughout the movie. Most of the snappy dialog was everybody else's but his. This is a major flaw. How did I miss it?! It's hard to care about the movie, if the movie's main character is un-engaging, or downright boring. That's what it boiled down to for me. Superman was boring, therefore the movie was boring. Period. Oh, and the drab washed out film colors did not help hold my attention either.

Pass on this until it hits the dollar movies.

Magnolia (1999)

Awful...er, wait...I meant terrific...no wait, it's awful....no, I take that back .

[7/10 · 14 April 2006]

Enthusiasm is contagious. This film proves it. Despite it's many flaws, the sheer joy of film-making is evident in almost every frame. The camera swooshes, pans and sways, while the actors joyfully devour the scenery around them. Your can't help but be carried away by it all.

The film does have it's glaring flaws. Julianne Moore's performance stays at fever pitch for so long that it wears on your nerves. Melora Walters' scene where she tries to pass off some Amy Mann lyrics as dialog were cringe inducing. And the scene were everyone sings brought the movie to a screeching halt. File that one under, "Gee, it seemed like a good idea at the time". And finally, the frogs. So many mentions and disapprovals about frogs. Personally, I though that the frogs brought a nice cathartic touch to the entire story and underscored the point Anderson was trying to make. What else would you expect from a movie as heedless as this one.

This is not a film for the timid. Apologists for assembly line mainstream tripe need not apply.

I can best describe this film as: audacious, bold, unapologetic in it's sincerity, unabashed in it's emotion, flawed in it's execution, and ultimately (and most importantly) oh-so watchable. You may not agree with all of it, and may not even like it, but just try and look away. I recommend it, but at the same time, you have been warned.

Flightplan (2005)

Ever had one of those meals.....

[3/10 · 27 March 2006]

Ever had one of those meals that was really great? Wonderful atmosphere, great service, terrific food, and then about an hour later, you get really bad heartburn and an odd aftertaste. Then, it gets worse, stomach ache, nausea, and maybe even diarrhea. Next thing you know, you are up all night wondering when all the anguish will end. Suddenly all memories of that great dining experience are erased by the hell you have to live through.

"Gee Mr. Lowdown what does this have to do with 'Flightplan'?" Well, it's the closest metaphor I could come up with to describe my reaction to this movie. Great while you're experiencing it, but with a downright nasty aftertaste hours later when you are trying to digest it.

This is one really slick production (to borrow several other reviewer's observations), and Jodie Foster is a master of her craft. She is truly effective in this role. This movie WORKS while you are watching it. However, despite all of the film's assets, the gaping holes in logic (screenplay) implode this movie going experience.

Would I recommend it? "After all, it was an effective thriller while your were watching it, right?" Yes. It was entertaining. BUT, getting back to my original metaphor, would you recommend a friend to the restaurant that had you crapping up a storm? Well? Would you??

Ah-ha! There you go.

The Fog of War (2003)

'Sometimes you must engage in evil to do good'

[8/10 · 11 March 2006]

A voice from the bowels of the war machine. This is the thought process that goes into war. Rarely do we get such a clear and unobstructed view into a man's mind on the subject. What makes this film unique is McNamara's perspective on war. He wasn't just close to the war machine, he was one of it's integral mechanisms.

Although this is an Errol Morris film, McNamara is front and center for most of the running time. Clearly, this is his movie. Although he comes across as sharp, calculating and articulate. You can tell that beneath that facade, there is a deeply conflicted man, that may still be negotiating peace with his conscience.

McNamara's honesty is unflinching, and unapologetic, just as it should be to present a spin free view of some of the pivotal moments in our modern history.

Everyone, regardless of your political affiliation, needs to see this important film.

Armageddon (1998)

Plausability, all we ask for is a bit of plausibility

[3/10 · 11 March 2006]

I like big dumb action movies. They do entertain. Suspending disbelief is part of the requirement for enjoying this type of flick. But they should at least make an effort, please at least a little, at making it plausible. This movie makes minimal, if any, effort at doing so. Here is a short list of some of the inexplicable stupidity (presented in free-form quick-cuts, just like the movie): fire in space(need oxygen for that kids), gravity on an asteroid, an asteroid the looks more like a comet, exploding debris from a space station that leaves neighboring shuttles untouched, space suits that never run out of oxygen, apparent wind (in space) blowing the smoke and vapors from the shuttle crash.

Oh, and don't get me started on the clichéd action sequences and bad dialog. This review would go on and on, and I would bore you, but probably not as bad as this loud flashy stinker would.

Only the decent special effects saved this from hitting bottom with me.

Fearless (1993)

An emotional meditation on the fragility of life

[10/10 · 28 February 2006]

I first saw this film ten years ago. I was left speechless. It left me feeling strange for a few days. Profoundly sad, and yet enlightened. I saw this movie again a couple of days ago, and it has not lost it's emotional impact.

To me the movie's message is simple and, paradoxically, complex. At it's simplest level: Life is fragile and ephemeral, appreciate every moment. At it's most complex level: when confronted head on with this fact, as many disaster survivors are, it can shake the very foundations of your being. Your relationships, religious faith, and mental health can be forced to their outer edges. It's no wonder that Bridge's and Perez's characters are so moved, and moving.

It's the complexity that makes this film fascinating (just look at all the symbolism other viewers have found!). It's simplicity makes it accessible. But it's the performances by Bridges, Perez, and Rosellini that make it emotionally engaging. There are so many comments on this film, like mine, emotional and gushy, to the point that it may sound clichéd, but trust me, this film merits this kind of reaction.

This is not a movie to be seen with a group of friends, or to be taken as light fare, rather, like a good book, or your favorite music, should be seen in an environment where you can let it's magic envelope your senses.

I recommend seeing this film periodically to remind yourself that life is more than your career, fancy car, or any other material belonging. Indeed, it reminds us that life is much more that what WE can see, hear, taste or touch.

Enjoy.