msmith-56 Reviews

Them (IV) (2021)

Existentialism allegory?

[7/10 · 5 December 2022]

Like most art, this film seems to be as much a reflection of the audience as it is a message apart. In some way, this might be interpreted as a modern story about the dawn of subjective consciousness. In another, it could merely be pointing out how we really do not fully understand the world we have created for ourselves, and how trying to do so becomes an exercise in futility. Some might just see it as a meaningless piece of existential banality. Each interpretation is probably correct in reflecting the interpreter's view of the movie. All that aside, the production values were excellent, the pacing was even, and the acting was generally well done. There is no powerful story to carry the viewer through the roughly ninety minutes. It is more like interpretive dance than ballet. As such, character development was practically non-existent. It was very hard to get invested even in the main character, Daniel, who played a pawn in a poorly defined game.

Some say art is something that creates emotion without agenda, be it love or hate, excitement or numbing, joy or disgust. 'Them' seemed to provoke frustration in the way the Assistant and her brother, Sleepwalker, acted upon Daniel, who was more like a project than a person. The Assistant, Rebecca Calienda, had some particularly compelling moments, well shot, but was relegated to an excessive amount of voice-over narrative. The Sleepwalker, played by Alex Reece, could be easily mistaken for a James Marsden performance. There may be a small lesson about the ineffectiveness of immense power, but that just might be me.

If my review does not seem to tell you anything, you probably will not want to watch the movie.

Surviving Christmas (2004)

Rough Year?

[10/10 · 24 December 2020]

The COVID-19 pandemic cast an ugly pale across 2020, a year ending on a lockdown note. If you are unfortunate enough to be spending Christmas alone, you have my sympathy and a suggestion. Watch 'Surviving Christmas' on some streaming service (e.g., Amazon Prime), and you might feel better about being in lockdown. Aptly titled, this feature film starts Ben Affleck, James Gandolfini, Christina Applegate, and others ad-libbing their way through a storyline that makes a Saturday Night Live skit feel like Dickens' Christmas Carol. Mr. Affleck's performance may explain why Jennifer Garner left him. The story is often crude, at times barely lewd, almost always rude, and lamely tries at the very last minute to slap on a happy ending like lipstick on a pig. In other words, the perfect 2020 Christmas Story, damn it!

Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Comic Book on Film

[8/10 · 7 November 2017]

I know, both 'Comic Book' and 'Film' seem out of date, but this movie may be the index case for the 21st century version of merging both. Ragnarok seemed to capture the cocky adolescence of traditional comic books while delivering the big screen visuals one expects from a theater film. The acting was slightly better than most superhero films, too. Benedict Cumberbatch's Dr. Strange cameo was well done. Chris Hemsworth was much funnier than in Ghostbusters. Even Kate Blanchett's character showed some texture and pathos in spite of her limited appearances. Humor was well placed, and special effects were first class. The music and sound effects were both better orchestrated and less intrusive that usual.

On the unseemly side, Anthony Hopkins did seem to phone in his limited role, Mark Ruffalo seemed to have been dragged into his role, and Karl Urban seemed underused. As for the plot, this is a comic book story.

BTW, stay for all the credits.

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Definitely a Sequel

[6/10 · 9 October 2017]

Short Strokes: 1) Loud sounds - the audio mix in the theater put far too much mid-range in what should have been very low frequency bass. The result was like the movie Dune. Fortunately, this was somewhat infrequent. 2) They make someone old look young again, and it reminds me of Carrie Fisher's character in Star Wars: Rouge. Clever, but not quite good enough and, therefore, distracting. 3) There were no small actors in original Blade Runner, even the smallest roles were great performances. Not so here, very good acting but little showmanship (Ford's and Hoek's roles were exceptional).

Summary: Any time you are following a cult classic with a sequel, you expect the lights to be a little dimmer and the edges to be a little duller. True here. Expectations were set in 1982 and recently elevated with a $50 million marketing blitz, and it is hard to live up to that. There was more playing it safe in this movie: no loose ends like crane cables on 'flying' police cars or brown-eyed Rachel's green Voight Kampff eye. No daring, too little stress in Gossling's character and not enough vixen in Robin Wright's. No one tried to pull off a scene stealing performance like Rutger Hauer's or Hy Pike's.

As for cinematography, the look was often muted, which made the scenes feel longer than they should. Otherwise, it was a spectacle unto itself. It might have been the theater's projector, but the dynamic range seemed too narrow.

As for the story line, it seemed very much like a logical progression from the original. The dialog was engaging, and it left questions unanswered for another sequel.

Bottom Line: a sure bet but not enough risk taking to be great.

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)

Disneyland Move

[6/10 · 24 July 2017]

No, I am not saying that this was a Disney movie. What I am saying is that this movie was more like a trip to Disneyland, where the spectacles are almost everything, and no one expects Shakespeare.

It was visually wonderful on the big screen, and the 3D gave it a little extra 'oomph' to the special effects. When I stuck with the eye candy, I enjoyed it just like a Disneyland ride. The sound and music was excellent, too. And many of the performances, from Rihanna's to Herbie Hancock's, were surprising and well done.

That said, the two leads are pretty much what everyone else has said. Dane DeHaan's character, Valerian, was the strangest and least impressive. Cast as a playboy/super agent, he came across as neither and had the look of someone overworked and sorely lacking a good night's sleep. As a result, Cara Delevingne's character, Laureline, came across as someone who might not need a love but was forced into a 'relationship'. Her best scenes, when Valerian needed her rescue, gave her a 'Christina Ricci moment' that seemed more like a sibling than a paramour. A brother/sister act would have worked, as much of their interaction seemed to have its root in childhood.

I was prepared for the 'lack of chemistry' and focused on the spectacle that persevered throughout the story, which lacked any suspense.

What would you expect at Disneyland?

Baby Driver (2017)

Deja Vu

[10/10 · 10 July 2017]

Imagine it is 1987, and you are a budding teenage screenwriter/director. You wake up in the middle of the night with a great idea for a script about a young man with a Sony Walkman and hearing problem who can drive a car like Ryan O'Neal in The Driver. Your guy is younger and more innocent, and you picture Brad Pitt, who you have been watching on TV's Dallas, as your star.

Along side Brad, you see Jennifer Jason Leigh, after seeing her in The Hitcher and Sister, Sister. She is the young heroine, a waitress. For the sinister mastermind, you envision Gene Hackman. And for the heavy, ruthless hard-ass, you picture Samuel L. Jackson, fresh from Spenser: For Hire. Throw in Mel Gibson as another heavy and a cocky ingenue Marisa Tomei (from the World Turns) as his moll. Finally, you add a soundtrack with work from Paul Simon, James Brown, Dave Brubeck, The Commodores, Isaac Hayes, Barry White, Queen, The Beach Boys, Randy Newman, Quincy Jones, Ike and Tina Turner, The Allman Brothers Band, Aretha Franklin, Phil Collins, Kiss, and a whole bunch of newbies.

You call it "Baby Driver" and hitchhike to the studios in Hollywood, who are impressed by your juvenile spunk and love the idea but cannot see the casting. "Brad what?" "Gene is doing another Superman." "Samuel L. who?" "Marisa Tommy?!?!?" "You will never get Mel in a supporting role." "What is all that music 'mixing' about?" "Go home and grow up!" You are discouraged and set your script on your shelf. However, you never give up.

Thirty years later, you dust it off and get Ansel to do Brad's role and Lily to do Jennifer's. Instead of Gene, you get Kevin Spacey. For Mr. Jackson's role, you recruit Jamie Foxx. Finally, you pull in John Hamm and Elza Gonzalez to fit Mel Gibson and Marisa Tomei's roles.

You keep your soundtrack intact, including the newbies who are no longer new, and add newer newbies, too.

Done.

Ghost in the Shell (2017)

Solid Amalgam of Classic Sci-fi and Action Films

[9/10 · 30 March 2017]

Take some Blade Runner, throw in some Matrix, 5th Element, and top it off with the Bourne Identity. Of course, there is at least $120 million in CGI F/X, too. Wrap that all around Scarlett Johansson, and you have a pretty sure bet.

The acting was excellent, and the plot line works, partly because it is tried and true. The only flaw, in my opinion, was the driving of cars. They have robots that can do just about anything humans can do, but they do not have a car driving itself. I do not know if that is a spoiler, but it seemed like it spoiled the movie just a bit for me.

The city skyline really looked like a future Hong Kong, and there was an occasional grittiness that offset the CGI nature of the spectacular cityscapes. Most of all, I thought the casting was spot on, even though Ms. Johansson could have been played by an Asian actor. Matt Damon ran into this with The Great Wall, but I think that only die hard Shirow fans will be disappointed, as the mix of nationalities was purposeful to the Ghost plot.

Ms. Johansson may make a Bourne-like series out of this. I recommend paying $12 in the theater, as it does well on the big screen. However, I found that the 3D added absolutely no value, and I was sitting dead center and in the back. FWIW

Ex Machina (2014)

Well done, but . ..

[7/10 · 26 April 2015]

. . . somewhat derivative. Aside from some scenic views that might be from Montana's Glacier National Park, the entire film could have been a stage play. Caleb is a young Bill Gates type minus the bravado. Nathan could have been better played by Zach Galifianakis. And Ava is a female Sonny (I, Robot) with better make-up but less panache.

The Turing Test is the tiny bit of technical grounding for this story of seduction and survival. In reality, the test is really about how easily people can be fooled rather than how clever software can be. Each time the Turing test is run in the real world, they use humans as control along with software, and many of the humans are thought to be machines, too. This movie could have used such irony to create a much greater effect.

Like 'I, Robot', Ex Machina's suspension of disbelief is compromised by having Ava act and move so gracefully. If any machine could move so effortlessly, its inventor would win the Nobel Prize, even it the machine could not speak. The other compromise was the use of card keys, a technology older than every character in the film. It seemed poorly contrived.

As for the drama, there is no chemistry between Caleb and Ava, and Nathan lacks a certain edginess that Zach naturally brings to his characters. It could have brought Caleb and Ava together more convincingly.

I gave it a 7 for its premise, production qualities, and the ending, which was nicely done in spite of another suspension of disbelief compromise. Personally, it could have been awesome as a computer-animated fantasy film, a'la Beowulf 2007. Regardless, I would say that it is worth a Matinée for sure (pun intended for Unreal Tournament 2004 fans).

Attack of the 50 Foot Cheerleader (2012)

Sad but Untrue

[2/10 · 18 July 2014]

As one who remembers the Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, I was hoping that the special effects would have improved after 55 years. Well, the improvement was not worth the viewing. I suppose the 1993 made for TV version will still be the 'next best thing'. Ms. Jenna Sims was respectable as Cassie, the cheerleader, although her general beauty was as poorly concealed in the beginning as her beast implants were in the end. Ms. Olivia Alexander had the role of character with the most attitude, head cheerleader Brittany, though Treat Williams went sufficiently over-the-top as the pharma-mercinary. Sean Young played 'mom' by Skyping-in her performance, literally. Everyone else was either adequately camp or, sometimes, momentarily cute. The best scenes were also the shortest.

The one thing that I do not understand if the use of remanufactured breasts. If you are going to show bosoms, the show ones that look real. Ms. Sims, an otherwise lovely lady, displayed breasts that would shame most plastic surgeons. Most of the others topless actresses were similarly endowed. The most nuanced and effective character was Mary Woronov as the house mother, who was part Masterpiece Theater and part House of Horrors.

As for the plot, yes there was a plot, the story held up. University research onto cell regeneration turns into an overblown disaster. Of course, people growing and shrinking like balloons was completely implausible, but that was par for the movie. The pharma angle, which included clown-like pharma-enforcers was the only truly camp acting that held up, mostly thanks to Treat. The chemistry between the Ryan Merriman character, Kyle, and Cassie was as contrived as the pink serum that made her grow. The big finale might have worked if the special effects had really held their own.

One last mention of Sean Young, if you are old enough to remember Ms. Young in Blade Runner (when it premiered), then this movie will make you quite sad. Still a looker, the actress who played Jenna's mom was a total waste in this production. If you looked closely, you could still see tiny hints of the actress who was so compelling in Jane Austen in Manhattan and No Way Out. However, you had to look though a microscope, which is a hard way to watch a movie. Such is life.

Tammy (2014)

Flat and Sad

[2/10 · 3 July 2014]

In spite of a great cast, Tammy went over like a lead balloon. From the "everything bad just happened to me" beginning to the unfortunately predictable ending, the few laughs were unintended. Ms. McCarthy, who did so well in Bridesmaids and The Heat, could not buy a laugh, and her trademark edginess was missing. Susan Sarandon made a heroic effort as her comedic sidekick (not unlike Sandra Bullock's character in The Heat) but never really could overcome the lousy script.

Other annoying elements were the lack of regional accents (they were suppose to be traveling through Kentucky), scenery that looked more like the Carolinas, and some really great talent such as Toni Collette was given nothing to work with or left on the cutting room floor.

Ms. McCarthy has great talent but with so little to work with, she put almost nothing on the screen. Bottom line, it wasn't funny.

Oblivion (I) (2013)

When the Telling is better than the Sotry

[5/10 · 20 April 2013]

Sometimes, it is impossible to separate the story from the storyteller. When that happens, suspension of disbelief is easy, and the art becomes a part of life. This is rare. Often the great story is told and the teller succeeds by bringing it to the fore and staying out of the way.

A movie is a great story teller, but often the medium eclipses the message. This is clearly one that does. The polish of the production almost blinded me from the view of the movie. Great FX, immense star power, and an excellent score left whatever was the point of the movie on the cutting floor. An escape? Yes. However, as the plot developed, the lack of character pathos and reliance on amazing vistas let my mind wander. Any time the story gives you time to think, it is usually a bad thing.

Tom Cruise was excellent, as usual. The rest of the cast, including Morgan Freeman, complemented the star well. But the story never dared to go anywhere you might not have guessed, and the ending was predictable in a way that did not make me feel perceptive.

Have you ever met a person who was so meticulous, so well groomed, proper and predictable that you wondered if he/she was real? No? Then see Oblivion.

Inception (2010)

This is not my idea

[5/10 · 25 July 2010]

Normally, I never review movies, as I feel most reviews are written either by shills or psychos, of which I am neither. However, this movie planted an idea in my head that it was a really great movie. It was like a dream, and since its inception I have been compelled to write something wonderful about it. I find this to be fascinating, since my memory of the movie was that of a Vanilla Sky / Dark City swirl as one might see by flushing both down a drain, which I have also been compelled to do but have thus far resisted.

You ask, "but what does this mean?" I answer, "if you must seek out the meaning, then you have missed the point." I feel compelled to give this answer as I feel compelled to relive memories of my dear dead wife, who is actually very much alive and sat next to me in the IMAX theater, protecting her ears from the 12,000 watts of audio this movie cranked out with impunity.

That is my review, hardly one of either a shill or a psycho, as I have told you nothing about the movie, except, perhaps, how compelled I was to write about it. I gave the movie a 50, because I neither endorse or deride it. However, I do feel compelled to say it was the single greatest work of art since the Creation, but that is just my idea and, for the life of me, do not know where I got it.

2012 (I) (2009)

Oversold with a TV Ending

[3/10 · 14 November 2009]

Marketing WAY oversold this disaster flick, promising to deliver an "end-of the world" scenario and delivering a very lame ending. The movie starts out slower than I expected, with a lot of TV-level family 'drama' and "character development." The action does not begin until 30 minutes into the film, after trying to explain way too much! I had entered the theater with my disbelief suspended, and they spend overtime creating doubts. Everyone knows that the more 'facts' you throw at the audience, the more thinking that goes on instead of watching. It was like sitting through an engineering report before riding the Six Flags Riddler's Revenge. This was unnecessary and made the movie too long.

Once the real show started, the special effects were worthy of the best Disney rides. Things came apart nicely, and there was just enough detail to give you that "bodies flying out the windows" realism. The airplane perspective was understandable and not implausible enough to be a distraction. However, seeing LA, Las Vegas, and Yellowstone get bashed to bits was not enough. Other venues such as Hawaii were mere glowing glimpses (though the White House wipe-out was pretty good). There are too many "quiet moments" in-between that were like going to the bathroom between rounds of a fight. Finally, the ending started out pretty strong, if not a bit corny, then went "happily ever after" in the most ridiculous biblical way. It was a deal killer to have the engineering "part one" explain how the world was going to end in ways that Armageddon would envy, then get us to believe the deck-o-continents was shuffled and re-dealt in less time than it takes to get through the NBA playoffs.

Good bits were (1) China saves the day (2) Woody Harrelson goes out in great style (3) there is no mention of terrorists or global warming.

Acting is OK. John Cusak gives a journeyman performance that was everything you might expect for a disaster film. However, he was on screen much too long, as were many others. Amanda Peet was acceptable as the ex-wife but offered no value-add. Danny Glover looked shell shocked as the President but did not linger long enough to make it a problem. Thandie Newton was passable as the President's daughter but lacked the charm of her other works such as the Chronicles of Riddick. Oliver Platt was OK as the cold bureaucrat but nowhere up to his West Wing performances. And Chiwetel Ejiofor was passable as the "do-gooder PhD that cannot figure out the obvious until it is too late but still gets the girl" guy.

Bottom line, get into the moving 20 minutes late, plan for a popcorn break after Vegas goes, and leave just after the waters crash over Tibet. Or wait will the DVD comes and skip those parts.

Oh, the sound mixing was excellent. Post production made everything seamless with the minor exception of the backdrop of Cusak and Harrelson as Yellowstone went up (those flares were a tiny bit off). No sex, little blood (a few wounds), fleeting expletives were few and hard to catch, and no political statements.

Borat (2006)

Blazing Borat

[10/10 · 5 November 2006]

While not at the side splitting-level of Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles, Borat clearly delivers as the best laugh-per-production-dollar movie in the history of bathroom humor. It is a nice combination of literally in-your-face slapstick and sidebar sight gags that can send you back for a second look. Mr. Cohen is excellent as a Hebrew-speaking Jew hater, but it is really the supporting cast that turns every lesser joke into a gut-busting wedgie. While never an academy award winning performance, every supporting role begs the question "are they real or central casting"? I still have no clue.

One role, Miss Pamela Anderson's, was clearly her best movie performance. I suggest everyone go to the theaters to see this. Part of the film's experience is feeling the tension build in the audience as Borat sets up a joke that could easily start wars in thin-skin parts of the world.

Marie Antoinette (2006)

waste of money

[1/10 · 22 October 2006]

"Clueless meets Barry Lyndon" with neither the wit of Alicia Silverstone nor the cinematography of Stanley Kubric.

Marie Antoinette is an unsuccessful mix of contemporary music, plain language, amateurish cinematic directing, and very poor editing. While well photographed and properly acted, the combination of painfully long shots and banal dialogue made for a two hour movie that seemed to run four hours. Some scenes such as the carriage ride to France, shots of Versailles, and many of Kristin reminded me of watching paint dry. Other shots looked like home movies with pans that went nowhere and added nothing to the narrative. If this had been an Indy film, it may have been excusable as a good first effort. However, this was a major release with minor efforts in many key areas – a waste of money both in the studio and at the box office.

Lastly, the movie kept all the visceral aspects of the French Revolution far from the audience just at the French government kept it from the royal couple. Unfortunately, it did not translate into viewer empathy for either Ms. Dunst, who was hardly convincing as a 14-year old, or Mr. Schwartzman, a clear candidate for the role of Nero in a G-rated remake of Caligula.

Sofia needs to take some more lessons from her dad in the art of making a major release.

Time Walker (1982)

Memorably terrible

[1/10 · 29 July 2005]

I saw this over 20 years ago and still remember. It was the only movie I walked out of before the end. Horrific acting combined with a pathetic "King Tut as the mummy" plot and dialog from a poorly stocked vending machine, this stunk to high heaven.

The only actor that I recognized at the time was a TV actor from a rip-off of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. His performance seemed forced, like somebody was pointing a shotgun off-camera with a sign that said "act or else." I strongly recommend this to anyone constructing a "worst movie" list.

In all fairness to the crew who put this together, I hold no ill will. It takes a lot to make a movie and get it into the theater. For that they deserve some credit. However, it still was a terrible movie.