08-09-03 Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008)

Seen: Sept. 3rd, 2008
Format: Theater
Rating: 4

I wasn't quite sure what to make of this film. I figured the best thing to do was go check it out.

I'd waited long enough and went in the middle of a weekday, so I had the theater all to myself. Usually this is a very good thing, as I can watch the film in peace instead of dealing with talking, cell phones and the snorting and grunting of the masses as the gorge themselves on 'corn.

This time, I could have used some mild irritants to help keep me awake.

Nodding off in a film is never a good sign.

It's mostly my fault though. I was tired from a long morning. I had not paid enough attention and then reviewed all that had happened in the Episodes II and III. There's a lot of convoluted machinations that lead to the schism we now recognize as the core of a long saga.

This film requires that background. You're required to be a fan, to understand the intrigue and guile that's swirling around this part of the story. This film is a small chapter in the middle somewhere. It's a footnote to flesh out both the saga itself and the evolution of Anakin Skywalker.

From a pure story perspective, it does the job. But as a film, it leaves much to be desired.

It's a strange conglomerate of Saturday Morning Cartoon Show and Melodrama. There are copious action sequences interspersed with banal, expository dialogue. One follows the other in sequence until the inevitable conclusion.

To be fair, this is the Star Wars formula, and has worked wonders in the past. But here is seems contrived. The film seems firmly directed at the younger folks who have developed a passion for the saga. Characterizations are broad and simple. Dialogue is forced, predictable and often trite. The drivers and allegories are blunt and unsophisticated.

Again, this is the Star Wars formula. I guess it bothers me more here because it's animated. The whole thing seems a bit more juvenile when it's a cartoon. Like Flash Gordon, it seems easier to believe the fantastical when there are real people acting it out. We believe them more than we do a mobile artist's rendering. There are animated films with great impact, but they are generally more driven by artistic styling or subject matter.

Suffice to say that this one didn't impress. It fell flat for me, who stood in huge lines back in '77. Unless you're sure it's your cup of tea, you'll probably want to wait for the rental.

But I'm sure the video game will be awesome.

The Good: More Star Wars
The Bad: More convoluted and banal
The Ugly: Hutts, again

08-09-02 Wall-E (2008)

Seen: September 2nd, 2008
Format: Theater
Rating: 7

I'm a Pixar fan. Who isn't? I've gladly paid to see each of their films in release, some multiple times.

But this is one that I vacillated over. Not because of the subject matter; to be frank I wasn't very informed as far as plot went. I hesitated simply because I found Ratatouille such a grave disappointment.

While I'm not here to review that film, let's just say that for me it fell far short of the mark which Pixar has consistently set for itself.

Wall-E is a return to form, of sorts.

The themes are fairly simple and straightforward. We are again chided for our shortcomings as a culture. We are again shown our folly by the simple and directed actions of our anthropomorphized stand-ins. We've had toys, insects and cars previously. This time around it's robots. The characters are interesting and fairly original, but not so striking as to become the icons we have from the past.

There are the obligatory references to classic films of the past; all of them reasonably subtle and well done. There is slapstick. There is love and wonder. There are lessons both simple and complex, abject and heroic. Their learning is not without pain, but there's little here that should cause your toddler any deep distress.

In short, it's fairly classic Pixar. And that's the problem.

I wonder whether Pixar hasn't been allowed to grow up a bit due to its contract w/ and eventual ownership by Disney. Wall-E is good, but still really the same beautiful, glossy pap that we've been fed several times before. The whole shtick is losing it's originality. Both Finding Nemo and Monsters, Inc. were fresh and original. The Incredibles cashed in on the comics craze, but was action-packed and frenzied enough that I can give it a pass. Since then, we've been in a slide.

And I can't help but wonder if it will be the norm for a Disney owned Pixar

The Good: Pixar edges closer to its roots
The Bad: Not as deep as might be expected
The Ugly: Dystopian future in family Fare

08-08-14 Wanted (2008)

Seen: August 12th, 2008
Format: Theater
Rating: 7

There are two sorts of people in the world: those who want to see this film and those who don't. Of those who do, there is a further bifurcation; those who will admit it and those who won't.

I wanted to see this film.

The appeal is simply visceral.

Angelina Jolie: I just like looking at her. The fact she can act is a bonus. Mo like James McAvoy, so there seems to be something here if your tastes run thataway as well.

Action: lots of it. Most of it thoroughly over the top and so far removed from believability that I just don't care. There's some fantastic gags here and unlike some of the latest Bruckheimer dreck, they're actually fun. They make you shake your head, say "no way" all with a big fat grin on your face.

Yes, there's plot too. Also ridiculous and far removed from reality, but again: fun. Suspend your disbelief for a few hours, take what the expose to you as gospel and watch the sparks fly. Its not Shakespeare, or at least Richard III Shakespeare, but I'd bet he'd have had a good time as well.

You're not going to remember this film. It may take a month, it may take a few years, but eventually it'll fade from your memory. That just fine, this isn't cinema, this is a flick. Its for letting you escape for a few hours. Its for having fun and reliving with your friends. Its just a good bit of escapist fantasy.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

The Good: A no holds barred joy ride
The Bad: Morgan Freeman. Love him in this step out.
The Ugly: What goes around, come around

08-08-13 MirrorMask (2005)

Seen: August 12th, 2008
Format: DVD
Rating: 7

I once dated this girl who recommended reading Neil Gaiman. I haven't gotten around to any of his books, but saw this and figured I'd give it shot.

It was weird too.

That's not an entirely bad thing. Nothing's much worse than sitting through two hours of knowing exactly what will happen next. This is definitely not that. Sure, there are certain conventions even here, but overall it's one delirious surprise after another.

This is a Fairy Tale in the germanic sense. It is, in many ways, a morality play. The stark duality of the fantasy world, the worlds themselves and the characters reminds us constantly of the existence of choices and the very real consequences of those decisions. Everything matters in this tale.

Gaiman and McKean have woven and incredibly strange, haunting and yet very beautiful world here. It's positively creepy much of the time, but still seems coherent via its consistency. The rules are all there to be discovered, and once illuminated, are rigid. There is not as much chaos as may meet the eye.

Visually, the film is a feast. It's rampant with CGI, but this is one time that that statement is far from a condemnation. There's true artistry here. Much of it simple, more of it highly complex, subtle and layered. I'd like to say its beautiful, but it's probably more accurate to say that it's fascinating, as there is a much unsettling material here as there is simple beauty.

Performances are solid, but a bit hard to rate, given the material. The lines between actor and character are often impossible to distinguish' not due to craft, but because there little reference for this sort of film.

If you're a lover of the fantastic, or of tales of consequnce, this one might be for you. It you like the stylings of David Fincher. Chris Nolan or early Ridley Scott films, you may find a visually intriguing. Be warned however, that despite the involment of Jim Henson's shop, this one may not be for the littlest ones.

The Good: Fantastic and Brilliantly styled
The Bad: The nightmares the children will suffer
The Ugly: Vying against ourselves

08-08-02 Playing By Heart (1998)

Seen: July 6th, 2008
Format: DVD
Rating: 6

Wow. Where to start?

Let's get this out of the way: I'm a serious romantic.

And I mean with the big R. Honor, self-sacrifice, nobility, grand and all-consuming love, poetry, passion, intensity or purpose and desire., the whole nine yards. I may not show it much, as it's not so useful a trait in contemporary society, but it's all there simmering under the surface.

And this film is romantic. It's all the things that love is; big, complicated, passionate, tragic, stupid, enveloping, painful, joyous, confusing, ad infinitum.

It's a nice little tale. There's lots of folks at romantic crossroads. Each of them has decisions to make, things to learn. There are romances to kindle, some to re-kindle and some to fan furiously least they die of the suffocation of neglect.

There are good and great performances by good and great actors. There is drama and humor and tension and release.

It's all there, and it's all very nice, and if you come across this late at night while cuddling with someone you love, then go for it, you'll probably have a very nice time.

All that said, there are probably better films in the genre that you'll want to track down first.

The Good: It's about love. Love is good.
The Bad: Lost in a wave of entertwined ensemble love stories
The Ugly: The games we play

08-08-01 Harper (1966)

Seen: July 2008
Format: Broadcast (HDNMV - HDNet Movies)
Rating: 5

This little number came up one evening, had a bunch of stars, and so I thought to myself, "heck, way not?", set the DVR and went to bed.

At least going to bed was the right decision.

This film is chock-a-block with stars. It's a regular who's who of beautiful people from the period and the previous period. There is some heavy duty talent here as well as pretty faces. They are all simply marvelous in their roles; and I mean that sincerely. In most cases, the quality their performances are the only reasons the characters work at all.

This is a hip film. It's very rooted in the scene that was being laid down in the mid-sixties; baby. If you dig on that vibe, you'll be movin' to the smooth groovin'. Or something. I was two at the time, and while I can appreciate the ambiance, it doesn't make the film for me.

And this seems to be the issue.

Harper relies on star power, pop culture hipness and current Issues. At the time, that probably made a significant and possibly even interesting film. But when that's all that's offered, it won't and doesn't stand the test of time. It may be interesting from an anthropological perspective, but there's little else here.

The plot is standard, twisted, PI gets in over his head material. There are all sorts of weirdos and perverts. There's people who aren't who you think they are, and those who are exactly what they seem. The twists are mostly of two varieties; those you saw coming, and those you can't understand. There were a couple that I found surprising and valid, but for the most part they're either confusing, pointless and exist merely to introduce or further a subplot or they're obvious.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't complete loser. If you're a serious fan of any of the plethora of fine actors here, it may be worth your while to see where they were at this part of their career. If you that's not you, and you're not a hard core PI or sixties film fan, you'll probably want to pass.

The Good: Newman in his prime
The Bad: Derivative tale with uninteresting twists
The Ugly: The games people play

08-07-22 The Dark Knight (2008)

Seen: July 17th, 2008
Format: IMAX
Rating: 9

This review is a cop-out.

I'm way behind in writing about films, and I wanted to get one more out before going to bed.

This one is easy.

GO SEE THIS FILM.

Nah, that's not all.

I hate seeing films on their opening. I hate crowds and try to go when no one else will be there. Tuesday afternoon about four weeks into a run is a good time. I am not a morning person. But I bought tickets weeks in advance, paying a ridiculous surcharge, for a sold-out 6AM screening of this film.

And I couldn't be happier.

I didn't really enjoy this film, it's really not a fun film. At some level, you probably won't either. But I was impacted in a way that can hardly be expressed. This film moved me. On some basic level, this film reached into my psyche and shuffled things around a bit.

There's lots of reasons that this happened. Ledger's performance is definitely one of them, but hardly the only one. Nolan's writing and vision is spectacular. Bale's performance is wonderful, just for the space he gives his own character as well as those around him. Oldman is subtly smooth; compare this role to his others and you hardly recognize him. I'll even give some praise to Aaron Eckhart, the man I love to ... well not like so much. Here again, he surprised me.

The film is a visual gem. Forget the action. Simply look at the pictures that Nolan and cinematographer Wally Pfister paint. The look of the film itself is a huge part of the way it communicates. And not just in the way it uses dark, but the way it uses light as well.

The soundtrack simply rocks. I generally don't like to be aware of a film's sountrack, but I was aware of this one and actually enjoyed it. It's subtle, complex and avoids being as obvious as what we're feed in most mainstream films.

Enough already. If you haven't seen this, go get in line.

And if you have seen it, please don't spoil it for anyone else.

The Good: Great performances and a smart script
The Bad: Living inside The Joker
The Ugly: The lost potential

08-07-21 Yanke Doodle Dandy (1942)

Seen: July 6th, 2008
Format: DVD
Rating: 9

My girlfriend was the one who talked me into this film. She was born outside the States and moved here when she was nine. This is a favorite film of her family's, which they generally watched together on the Fourth.

If you've read the entries for The Roaring Twenties or The Public Enemy then you know that I'm pretty impressed by James Cagney. Mo had a reverse of my experience. She first knew Cagney as George M. Cohan, the focus of this film. She had great difficulty reconciling this character with the ones she encountered when she sought out his other films.

Talk about shattering youthful delusions.

Basically, this film is a Cagney tour de force. He had a great reputation as a vaudeville man, and he pulls out all the stops in his interpretation of Cohan. He's a dance machine. It's simply stunning to watch the control that he has over his body, and the utter confidence with which he moves. I'm left lacking superlatives. His singing, while hardly iconic, is rich, committed and suits the character well.

Put his amazing performance together with very capable performances from supporting actors, with a thoroughly American tale told in a straightforward manner and you've got the makings of a classic.

What's remarkable about the writing is how unsentimental it is. While it's not completely devoid of nostalgia, it walks a fine line between presenting the story and becoming too involved in it. This is true as well with it's patriotic nature. This is not a patriotic film, but it is the screen biography of a very patriotic man living in patriotic times.

It's a very honest effort which doesn't work to win us over, instead letting the characters tell us their story.If we have any heart at all, we'll do the winning ourselves at that point.

See this film. See it with your family, with your friends, prehaps an immigrant. See it and remember what it is means to really become and be an American, instead of just wearing the label.

The Good: A heartwarming, true, All-American tale with an incredible performance.
The Bad: Being framed
The Ugly: How far we've fallen from this tree

08-07-15 Criminal (2004)

Seen: July 13th, 2008
Format: Broadcast (HDNMV - HDNet Movies)
Rating: 3

If you've been hanging around, waiting for me to slam something, this might be your day.

I watched a great little Argentinian film several years ago called Nueve Reinas. It's a slick and fun little con film. It's real and charming and intriguing all at once. I loved the thing.

And then I saw that it, like so many other great foreign films, was being remade stateside. I cringed. I looked a the cast, felt a little better, then promptly forgot about it.

Imagine my surprise when at the end of this film, I see the credit for Nueve Reinas.

I'm a middle aged guy who watches too much film. I can't remember details and plot points as well as I once did. But it never occurred to me that this was the "same" story. Only at the end did it finally feel familiar.

I'm trying to figure out why.

Criminal is produced by the Section Eight, the Clooney/Soderburgh venture that's produced some outstanding work over the last five years or so. It's got some good talent. Reilly and Gyllenhaal may be at the top of their games now, but they were hardly slouches all the way back in aught four. The supporting cast is competent, at the very least. They're adapting from an excellent source.

So why doesn't it hold up?

One: Diego Luna.

Sorry folks, this is not the guy for this role. He's not tough, he's not smart, he's not crafty, he's not charming. He's a skinny waifish latin dude who can't grow a beard. No way is he any of the people he's supposed to be in this film. I never believed his character. Everything he did and said felt forced and wrong, from the very first scene.

Two: Writing.

Soderburgh had a hand in this, which is a real shame, as I have tons of respect for him. But this didn't pan out. It was too dour. Too fatalistic. Nueve Reinas was dark, but in a sly and amusing fashion, not a maudlin one.

None of these characters have any life. They're dead people going through some strange dance, pulled by whatever strings life has dealt them. The only smiles we see, disregarding Michael, until the final scene, are forced ones. These people have no verve, no love of their lives.

While I don't speak Spanish, the original was full of humor and innuendo that came through in translation, and I've read there was much more before translation. All this seems to have slipped through the cracks.

I've got to attribute this to writing and direction. I know that Reilly can infuse a character with more life than he gave Richard. I know that Gyllenhaal has a subtler range than we see in Valerie. But they, and their compatriots, are so one dimensional, that when we finally get the payoff, we can't believe in them.

Basically, I didn't like a single character in this film, where I liked most of the ones in its progenitor. I really didn't despise any of them either. And that's a problem.

See this one only for comparison or completeness, but the original is highly recommended.

The Good: Stealing from the best
The Bad: And not remotely doing it justice
The Ugly: Choosing your friends poorly

08-07-14 The Prisoner of Second Avenue (1975)

Seen: June, 2008
Format: Broadcast (HDNMV - HDNet Movies)
Rating: 6

I'm a big fan of Jack Lemmon. Though he can and does play over the top, frequently, he's got an amazing range and an everyman quality I find engaging. He was starring, I was watching.

And I got Anne Bancroft as a bonus.

The film is written by Neil Simon, adapted from his play. This is a good thing, because no one understands Simon's work as well as Simon does. This is a bad thing because Simon is a playwright, not a screenwriter. His visual sensibility is for the stage, not the screen.

In this case, for the film to succeed, the director must be particularly strong, lending his vision and style to the material. Simon had good and even great success at this with Herb Ross. But here we have Melvin Frank directing, and the film really never gets its legs.

There's a very static quality to the film. Scenes feel staged, actors tend to move either little or dramatically in a defined space of off-stage. The camera is very static and rigid. Most scenes are played from a single perspective, which makes me feel that they are forced on me, rather than expanding in front of me. With the exception of a few dramatic pans and zooms, there's really nothing for interest from the camera itself.

Editing here seems very static as well. Cuts are simple and functional, and while they don't detract from anything, they really don't add much either.

In all, the presentation of the film is very bland.

Which is a great shame, because there's some very good acting to a very good script here.

While the material may not be as accessible for those not living that particular lifestyle in that particular culture, Mel's problems and the way he transitions through them are material with which we can sympathize, if not directly relate. His shame and slow decline are played quote nicely.

Bancroft's Edna is a great foil. Her own transition is excellently portrayed. It's their ultimate strength in each other that makes the story work, and the dark humor that Simon does so well is in full force.

I can't call it great, but I won't say that I wasted my time either. If you love film, see this one as an exercise. If you love Simon's work, it's a must.

The Good: Tour de Force acting
The Bad: Not the best transition to film
The Ugly: Forced relaxation

08-07-10 So I Married an Ax Murderer

Seen: July 8th, 2008
Format: Broadcast (HDNMV - HDNet Movies)
Rating: 4

Mike Myers is tough for me. I have to give him credit for his uncanny ability to see right to the heart of what make something funny. I also have to admit that his ideas are simply gold.

But it's the execution that really matters.

Myers' film generally fall flat for me. They leave wishing that he'd made different choices, generally about how he lets his other stars participate. Each of his films is really a vehicle for him to ham it up, which sometimes works.

The thing about Ax Murderer is that it's the nascent form of his more modern work. Even at this point, the formula was mostly complete. Pretty girl with a quirk, protagonist with a bigger quirk who mugs consistently, a sidekick whom he upstages and various minor amusing characters. A central theme to riff on, an ethnicity or tradition to riff on to keep things fresh. It's all as present here as it is in his later films.

And it works just about as well.

My problem with all his films is not their subject matter. I'm not easily offended and can take a joke at my expense, especially a brilliant or poignant one. My problem lies in the single note nature that they take on. While the jokes may be spread out, each one is, in turn, beaten utterly to death. Myer's doesn't deliver a punchline, he beats it repeatedly into senselessness.

I believe that some folks actually enjoy this, as some sort of meta-humor. It's beyond the nudge-nudge-wink-wink all the way to laughing at people laughing at something that's simply no longer amusing, much less funny.

The film is OK. It's not the worst thing I've seen by far. Nancy Travis is sweet, funny, and does the slightly psycho turn fabulously. Amanda Plummer is a bit type cast, but serviceable. Anthony LaPaglia is the surprise here, turning in an amusing part without overplaying too badly. His bits with Arkin are truly inspired, though under explored. Phil Hartman is magnificent, and I'm reminded how badly he's missed.

If you think I'm an idiot at this point, go immediately and see this (again). If not, keep looking for it on late night TV, curl up with your beverage and companion of choice and draw your own conclusions.

The Good: A nostalgic look back
The Bad: Seeing it all, then having to wait for it all to happen
The Ugly: Mature women on the make

08-07-08 Quid Pro Quo (2007)

Seen: Jun 24th, 2008
Format: Broadcast (HDNMv-NDNet Movies)
Rating: 6

HDNet is doing a pretty cool thing. They're producing films. Pretty decent ones. And they're distributing them via Magnolia, but previewing them, in HD, right into my media room.

This, I like.

Quid Pro Quo hooked me via trailers on HDNet by having two qualities I look for in film; a twisted and edgy premise, and Vera Farmiga.

Vera's a wonder. She a wonderful actress, a veritable chameleon. She inhabits characters in a rare fashion. I was first struck by her work in a bad Paul Walker vehicle Running Scared, which should have been a disaster, but somehow saved itself. I'll stop now before I get myself in trouble, except to say that she definitely delivers again here.

Nick Stahl delivers as while. His repressed, internalized portrayal. of Isaac is impressive. While some of the places Isaac is required to go are a stretch, he seems to pull them back to the land of the possible.

The subject matter of the film is eerie. We have two attractive people playing in a world of the twisted and even sick. They're outer beauty belies their inner corruption. They are not evil, and we can have compassion for the things they feel, the things they are compelled to pursue.

While brave, this juxtaposition is also the ultimate Achilles heel of the film. It strays to the brink and rather than plunging over, claws it's way back toward normalcy by way of resolution. Our characters are given excuses for the behavior, excusing them from the bizarre frailties that made them interesting. They don't need excuses. They don't need redemption. Allowing them to escape frees us from their confines as well; having invested so much to get to this point, it's quite unfair.

Despite this ultimate foible, the film is well executed. The story is compelling. The characters and their relationships interesting. The style suits the film well. It's interesting and immersive but not oppressive. The rest of the details fall in line as well.

In all, it's more of an interesting exercise than a complete work. There are moments of sheer brilliance here, but in the end, like so many, I felt a little bit cheated.

The Good: Strong acting and design
The Bad: An unfortunate twist
The Ugly: Wanting to give up what someone else hasn't got

08-06-25 The Sting II (1983)

Seen: June 24, 2008
Format: Broadcast (HNDMV - HDNet Movies)
Rating: 3

This film makes me wonder when the habit of creating derivitive, substandard work in the effort to cash in on the popularity of another work began. I'm sure there's examples as far back as the written word, but this film may be the defnintive case.

Everything great about the first film is missing here. Bad plot. Bad Music. Bad Acting. Bad Costuming. The whole thing is just bad.

Except Oliver Reed. Him, I liked. Not the character so much as what he did with it.

The other actors tried. But there really wasn't a whole lot there to work with.

Mac Davis is out of his league. I love Teri Garr, but come on, this character is so thin, and really not her style, there's no where she could go. Karl Malden is game, but poorly cast. His Macalinski is so over the top it's almost a caricature.

Gleason I save for last because his performance may be the most true of all. Newman played Gondorff with panache and style. A bit of tough, a little slick, but intelligent and not a fundamentally evil man. Gleason was a carney, and it shows in his portrayal. His charm here is paper thin, he in wily and crafty, but not so intelligent. He plays his friends, his family, everyone. Gleason's depiction may be much more true to the spirit of the grifter, but it doesn't make this a better film, especially when flying in the face of an established character.

The con here is too loose, too improvised. The interactions are too slick and clever. There's no tension created by possibility of failure, and we really don't believe the consequences are dire.

Bascially, this one falls short along all dimensions. I'd avoid it unless you need it to complete some collection you're compiling.

The Good: Oliver Reed
The Bad: Greed
The Ugly: Absense of style

08-06-23 The Fall (2006)

Seen: June 19th, 2008
Format: Theater
Rating: 7

Tarsem Singh made a little film called The Cell. There were a lot of problems with that film, but it's visual sensibility was simply stunning. It far outstripped the actual screenplay, and basically left the rest of the film struggling to catch up. That dichotomy was ultimately its downfall.
The Fall, I'm happy to report, suffers no such problem.

There's the same sweeping visual sensibility here. It's a grand film, full of stunning vistas and large swaths of texture and color. Some scenes are paintings and one wonders if they really should be in motion. But move they do and gracefully. The visual metaphors strike deep and hard, driving us even deeper into the film. It does lack most of the twisted tones of its predecessor, and is not as consistently striking, but the trade-off is very worth its slight de-emphasis.

What's been traded for is plot and character.

There are no great characters here, but there are fairly real ones. Their motivations are simple, even base, but they are honest. Love, fear, ego, hunger,envy, lust; they're all here. People aren't complicated in this world. They are driven by simple desires that we can readily grasp because they speak to us in simple ways. We know and understand these people and we know and understand their bonds.

It is in their breaking of those bonds, to show us their multiplicities as seen by others where they are exposed and become hyperbolically themselves. Deep in fantasy, their most real natures are revealed.

Its almost a cheat, this fantasy. It allows Tarsem to do incredible things and remain firmly in the bounds of his created reality. Instead of feeling cheated, I feel a bit relieved and even envious that he can step so far out of the real, and share with us his visions, and yet cradle it all together and neatly stitch it back onto the framework of reality when required.

That was a mindful. I'd suggest you make your own determination.

The Good: Locations, Locations, Locations
The Bad: Our own Odious nature
The Ugly: Making someone your Accessory

08-06-21 Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (2007)

Seen: June 20th, 2008 (ish)
Format: Blu-Ray
Rating: 7

So this is a Judd Apatow screenplay. That means that I'm going to have some reaction to it.

I don't love Judd and I don't hate him. I think some of his stuff is hilarious and the rest of it generally isn't. I guess you have to give him credit for going for it, consistently, all the time. He doesn't pull any punches and anything worth doing is worth doing all the way.

In the case of Walk Hard, that's a very good thing.

Satire seems to have gone through several iterations over the last two decades. Chris Guest and crew invented the mockumentary genre and proceeded to run it into the ground over the next twenty five year, albeit with some great success. The over the top spoof, generally starring Leslie Nielsen in some capacity continues its long tradition, with a range of quality from exquisite to appalling.

Walk Hard lies somewhere outside these. Its definitely a spoof, but it shows a sensitivity and reverence that keeps it well out of Scary Movie territory. While it lampoons the nature and cliches of the music industry, it still cares. It also manages to be blunt and make statements that verge on if not dive into the sacrilegious for serious fans of certain artists.

John C. Reilly's performance is simply amazing. The way the man can just become a character is stunning. Dewey Cox isn't a single character, but dozens, somehow firmly and obliquely linked through the convoluted plot line. Reilly manages to fully realize all the manifestations of Dewey, yet still convinces us that he's always the same guy. His ability to say the most absurd things with not just a straight face, but a sincere one, is incredible.

I will always remember and love his take on Dylan. The film's worth seeing for that 30 seconds alone.

Jenna Fischer is excellent as well. Her characterization is spot on. Her sincerity, as twisted as it is, matches Reilly's line for line. The character isn't written as well, but she makes the most of it.

The gags here generally work. A few are trite and some others just get old, even if they do pay off. But for the most part, this is one clever, funny film. There's more than one gem here, and it never quite falls victim to its own cleverness. There's fine comedic sensibility here, at all levels.

If you're a music aficionado, see this one. You may be a bit, or even more than a bit offended at times, but you'll probably find it worthwhile.

The Good: Straight faces all around
The Bad: Trippy Machete
The Ugly: Fighting in India

08-06-19 Man of La Mancha (1972)

Seen: June 15th, 2008 (ish)
Format: Broadcast (HDNMV - HDNet Movies)
Rating: 7

As a kid I saw Man of La Mancha in summer stock. Gabe Kaplan played the lead, and despite the seeming mis-casting, did an admirable job.

O'Toole does a better one.

I was impressed as a child by Quixote's quest and moved by his sheer dogged determination. I was impressed by how fully he embraced his quest and how completely he committed himself to it. O'Toole does that and more here. His complete and utter sincerity in the role is compelling. He becomes Cervantes, Cervantes as Quixote, and beyond to Quixote himself, as appropriate and does so with immersive abandon.

It's a bit of a shame he couldn't sing his own parts, but you have to admire him as an artists for trying, failing, admitting his failure and helping to find a suitable voice double.

The other players do admirably as well. Loren is excellently cast and does a remarkable job given the fact she's not a singer either. James Coco as well, does admirably, though he seems less fully engaged than most of the rest of the cast to me. The bit players are also well-cast and come through, Harry Andrews being a stand out.

My only true reservation about this film is it's seeming indecision about itself.

The "play" parts of the film feel very much like a play, both from their staging, the way they are shot and production design employed. This bothered me a bit. I'd like to have seen a more filmic representation here. Instead, we get more what the live performance offered. This is a shame, because these are the parts of the story, the "fantastic" parts that could have been greatly enhanced by creative use of camera, staging and lighting that would have been limited in a live performance.

In effect, the film is an effective recreation of the play, with an excellent performance by O'Toole. I'd have preferred something that took more of a chance with the medium, but hey, I'm a film fan.

The Good: O'Toole's incredible sincerity
The Bad: Limited use of the media
The Ugly: The righteous preference of delirium

08-06-18 The Sting (1973)

Seen: June 14th (ish) 2008 and back when I was a we Lad
Format: Broadcast - HDNMV - HDNet Movies, and VHS and Network Television
Rating: 8

The soundtrack from this film was a fixture in my household as a kid. I'll always think of this film when I hear Joplin, whose music I adore.

And that's not a bad thing.

As a kid, this film was more than a touch convoluted. As an adult, that still holds true. I have a large soft spot in my heart for good con films, and this on is quintessential. As far as the genre goes, its well done, accessible and yet still holds your interest. There aren't a huge number of surprises, and those aren't that unforseeable, but it still, through shear charisma, sets its hook and plays you 'til the end. As a good con film should.

The cast is all-star, and has a great time here. Redford and Newman are classic together, with Newman more than holding his own here. Shaw is powerful and commanding. Eileen Brennan, Ray Walston, Harold Gould and a half a dozen slide deftly in to their roles, not unlike their actual characters.

Hill melds them all together into a simple and graceful melange. While the dialog isn't particularly outstanding, the flow of the scenes is graceful and fluid. The whole film has a a graceful movement that is again,subtle and deceptive. Hill's work is exemplary, particularly the way he simple gets out of the way and gives his cast and material the space to work and breathe.

The look of the film is the one thing that grates a bit for me. The whole thing feels very "back lot" to me. There's an artificiallity that hard to dismiss and ignore. Perhaps this is intentional, given the subject matter. If so, its a shame, as it serves more to draw attention rather than deflect it. Costuming is interesting and generally excellent. Edith Head's had is deft and sure here.

The soundtrack is simply amazing. The music is pure Americana, and the arrangements do it great justice.

Watching this film again after several decades was a bit of a revelation. To be honest, it wasn't nearlyas magical as it was to me as a kid. But it was also so much richer and thorough than I had the capability to appreciate at that age. There's great care and attention to detail here, and it makes the film work despite some of the design choices.

While the rating may not seem to indicate it, this film is an American classic, and definitely worth your time.

The Good: Nostalgia and One Beautiful Con
The Bad: An artificial feel
The Ugly: Sleeping with the enemy

PostScript: Check out this image.

Some Updates

Some reviews that I've finally finished are up. They're timestamped over the last week-ish so you may need to go Back to the Future.

More on the way.

08-06-10 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Seen: June 10, 2008
Format: Theater
Rating: 5

This is hard. It's been nineteen, that's 1-9, years since our hero graced the big screen. Not to disparage the whole "Young Indiana Jones" thing, as I'm not really familiar with them, but I'm talking about our venerated hero, in is full glory. A long time. A long, patient wait.

The film's beginning sets the tone for everything to follow. Basically, we get nostalgia and cheap CGI. If that's what you came for, you'll be content, if not sated.

The opening scene seems a nod to Lucas' great American Graffiti, which had a star studded cast containing our Mr. Ford. But whereas that film had a gritty, palpable realism, this one has a smooth plastic sheen that's unavoidable. I wondered out loud if that effect was intentional; if the point was to enhance the feeling that it was all a sham, all made of foam, spackle and greasepaint. Perhaps so, given the nature of the skull's origin, and the plethora of theories, of varying degrees of sanity, concerning exactly what our government may be hiding from us.

The plot as well, while temporally consistent, is pretty thin. What the villains are after and their motivations are not any more rational than in previous films, but somehow seem thinner, less well defined. The "legends" around the skull are also thin and tenuous, and even less defined. Your ability to suspend your disbelief will be tested here, because the veneer that is plot can't hold it's own weight.

During the action sequences are where we find oursleves on firmer ground. Here's where we reminded that we're actually in an Indy film. There's spills and thrills aplenty. The action is fast-paced, but not dizzying. There's appropriate comedic relief and the occasional squeem inducing moment so critical to the series. The characters are in full bloom here, doing what they do best, even the new kid.

Acting? It's there. This is a cast of accomplished veterans and talented newcomers. They do nicely with what they have to work with. LeBeouf, Ford, Hurt, Winstone and Allen tackle their roles with gusto. Blanchett and Broadbent are appropriately more reserved, but no less involved.

I can't say I hated this film. Even thought I hated aspects of it, there's enough nostalgia and fun familiar ground here for me to sit through the utterly absurd parts of the film

All the while, waiting, patiently.

The Good: Reconciliation and generational hand-off.
The Bad: Whose skull? You've got to be kidding.
The Ugly: An unexpected journey to ant land.

08-06-09 Shall We Dance? (Shall we dansu?) (1996)

Seen: June 7th, 2008 (ish)
Format: DVD
Rating: 9

If you're just here for recommendations, see this one soon.

For the rest of you, this isn't going to be very interesting because there's not much else to say than I loved it. I wavered between 8 and 9, but have to give it the fuller marks because it's so darn engaging.

This film requires a little commitment on your part. You'll need to be willing to be swept up in each moment as it unfolds. You'll need to listen and find its rhythm. You'll have to open you mind a little to the idiosyncracies of a different culture, and after doing so test the limits of your empathy a bit.

This is all required because of the film's simple and unflinching honesty. It exposes its characters to us; not merely introducing them but showing us their fears and staunchly protected secret desires. They may be exposed immediately or gradually, but with one exception, we become intimately aware of who they are and what drives them.

The exception is Tamako. And she may be the exception purely because she is as she appears. She is not without guile, not without secrecy, but her intentions are so plain, so honest and so obvious, even to the characters around her, that she needs no dark secret to make her interesting. Her grace, beauty, patience, kindness and wisdom are more than enought to win our hearts.

I won't go into any technical aspects other than to say they are generally excellent and often brilliant. Lighting, composition, movement are all used to excellent effect; the visual component of the storytelling doing justice to the writing, acting and direction.

Rant, rant, rave, rave; go see it already.

The Good: Looking for one thing, discovering another
The Bad: Stigmata, where ever you find them
The Ugly: Losing your hair

08-06-07 A League of Their Own (1992)

Seen: June 7th, 2008 (ish)
Format: Broadcast - HDNMV - HDNet Movies
Rating: 7

I'd always heard that this was a good film. But it has Madonna in it. I just couldn't believe the two could co-exist.

And I'm kinda right.

The Material Girl may be the lowlight of the entire film. Sure, she "acts" like a hussy and dances up a storm, but are we really to believe that she's a competent, much less exceptional ball player? Color me skeptical.

With that out of the way, I've got to admit that I enjoyed all the rest of it. I enjoyed the whole gender-bias thing. I enjoyed the crusty baseball veterans forced to adapt to a womens' game. I enjoyed the battle of women wanting to be recognized for their prowess, but needing to play up, in some measure, their sexuality. It's all good fun.

And there's some other interesting angles. Sibling rivalry. Attempted normalcy in wartime. Addiction as an escape from the effects of time and fame. The effects from actively contributing and what happens "after"

There's a lot going on here, but somehow it all fits. Everything has it's place and time and though things are definitely carefully planned and place, nothing seems too contrived. The avoidance of the predictable ending seems to bear this out. There's some bits which are mildly unexpected, but not overly surprising.

Davis is solid, if a bit stolid. Hanks' role was a delightful surprise. He play well against type here. His attitude and reactions are unexpected and priceless. The mean streak he managees to generate is surprising. Lori Petty is actually very good, disappearing into her role. The rest of the cast is very good, the exceptions being Madonna and Jon Lovitz, who, God Bless Him, doesn't fit at all, but who's perfect for the role.

All in all, it's an engaging and watchable film. It's complete and whole, with ends tied up. It tells a sweet story that manages to vear away from the saccharine at appropriate moments. While it's no great masterwork, it's a good diversion from the day to day.

The Good: Performances and some playing against type
The Bad: Getting a Telegram
The Ugly: Rosie O'Donnell, what HAPPENED to you?

Out of Practice

I'm going to try to pick this up again. It's been too long, and I'm itching to view and write.

And Hockey season's over.

Don't expect the daily thing, but hopefully you'll see a few reviews a week, and hopefully they'll vary as much as they have in the past.

And maybe a guest writer will drop in.

08-06-05 Vertical Limit

Seen: June 3rd, 2008
Format: Broadcast, HDNet
Rating: 2
In a previous life I was a climber. A technical rock and ice climber, not the be-suited brown-nosing kind. I wasn't awesome, and I wasn't really an alpine climber, but I was good enough to buy the gear for a local outdoor shop, to put up a few routes, and to meet and climb with some really talented people. Climbing was my identity for a while, and I took it seriously.

Which is why, when Vertical Limit came out, I averted my eyes as quickly as possible and allowed whatever psychologists call that defensive response to erase it from my memory.

Now I live in the flatlands. And it came by on HDNet, and I decided; "Hey, it can't be THAT bad. And I used to think Robin Tunney was kinda hot. And there's Paxton. And it can't be THAT bad."
It's amazing what out minds will trick us into.
I'll hereafter refer to films of this ilk as a "Pooh movies". Not because of their resemblance to offal, but because they are made for bears of very little brain.
This film is a thrill ride. The plot, and we'll be generous by using that term, is not designed to tell a story, but rather to provide a thin foundation loaded with pitfalls into which we can fling our characters to watch them wriggle out. It's all about cramming as many terminal catastrophes as non-sensibly possible into two hours, while tidying up every dangling thread neatly and predictably.
There is no character development here. Caricatures are simply popped from their sealed blister packs right into the scene, where they proceed to rant or whisper in appropriate fashion so that we don't mistake them for substantial representations of humanity. Occasionally they may actually do or say something unexpected; generally to get a laugh or create a calamity.
The technical details of the film are simply appalling. It's uncanny how much resemblance nitroglycerin has to antifreeze. And the way it only becomes unstable when the pace of the film dictates. The climbing is generally ludicrous, and though tempted to go into detail, I'll just say that the basic technical and philosophic details are present, but so hyperbolized as to become unrecognizable.. There are problems with the military, medicine, electromagnetism, physics, and the list goes on. I'm not adverse to suspending my disbelief, but having it torn from me, rent to shreds, set on fire and the ashes handed back is asking a bit much.
All that ranting aside. This film is a thrill ride. If you can bring yourself to not care about anything but the action, there's plenty of that. There's avalanches, and explosions, and long falls, and hanging from precipices, and the list goes on. Someone is constantly in danger. Though unbelievable, their plights are no less than thrilling. The body count is high. The right people live, and the wrong people die. It's a master work of predictability, all tied up in a very pretty package.
And pretty it is. The camera work is very good, especially on location, whose vistas lend themselves well. There's a cleanliness and simplicity to the outdoor footage that's inspiring. The shot choices are generally excellent and edited to great effect. The studio shots are much less inspiring, though serviceable. There's some really pointless and very bad CGI as well. But there's some really decent visual sensibility here, and it's a shame it gets so caught up in the avalanche.
And the last word? Wow. If you actually read this far, you'll want to pass; but I'm sure you know someone to whom you can recommend it.
The Good: Sometimes visually interesting and stimulating
The Bad: Hurts my brain
The Ugly: Everything but the pretty pictures

What (the heck) happened, and maybe some progress...

If you're reading this, you just might care, so here's what's been going on, and why the blog's been pretty much dead over the last 5+ months.

Basically, I fell in love. Again.

Shortly before the hiatus, I made a long trip to a far away city to visit family. The city is the one that I happened to have gone to college in. While I was there, I looked up an old friend, one whom I had loved very deeply and with which I had a beautiful and tragic romance. Fast forward a number of years, actually a great number of years, and here we were again.

There was dinner; and late night drinks and later night coffee. There was staring intently into each others eyes at a Farmer's Market. There was long distance romance, huge phone bills and frequent weekend flights.

Then, just before Christmas, on Dec. 21st, there was a 26' Penske diesel full of my crap driving a thousand plus miles to move in. Some months followed as did another Penske (highly recommended) with the rest of the junk.

And basically I've been busy being in love, adjusting to a new/old city and a new job, and trying to change in a few dozen other ways at the same time.

It occupies my time. I just haven't had the 3 hours a day required to watch and write.

I HAVE seen some film. My new SO, who we'll call Mo, actually convinced our alma mater to construct a BFA film program for her and was it's first graduate. She's all about the film too, and has actually studied it extensively, and so keeps me on my toes.

Hopefully some reviews will follow, though I'm not going to guarantee any particular frequency.

Thanks for your support.