philip-1 Reviews

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

No plot; no characterization; intolerable experience

[1/10 · 3 July 2012]

I gave up on this movie one hour in, when all I could discern was that there was a "mole" in the British spy service. I don't think that's really a spoiler since the subject of the film and novel is well known. However, when that is the only clear plot detail to emerge in an hour's time, you know the movie is a complete disaster.

Regardless of the who's who of British acting talent in the film, none of them under the misguided director's influence can save the experience from being dull, boring, confusing, and in the end, annoying.

Who are these characters; after an hour you still don't really know. Why are they all so depressing? You don't care because you really don't know them.

This may be one of the SLOWEST paced movies in cinema history. The actors mumble lines in a host of British accents; the musical score is slow; there is a lot of space between speeches; lots of deadpan staring; the director's art house cutting takes us all over the place without helping us to know where we are; flashbacks come and go but your not sure they are flashbacks. This is only part of the frustration of suffering through the first hour of the film. You keep on waiting and hoping for something INTERESTING to happen. You get nowhere!

No one seems to have bothered, and I am talking specifically about the director and screenwriter, to tell the story in this movie to keep the viewer interested; a damning and hideous flaw.

I decided to see the movie based on many of the positive reviews in the press. Well, I admit, to all, I gave up after 1 hour. I have no desire to return and see if things improved after that; doubtful, since the film is so consistently lifeless. Life is really too short to waste a minute of your time on this tedious exercise in obtuse anti-narrative.

Seeing Heaven (2010)

Tedious rent boy dreams

[4/10 · 28 March 2011]

Seeing Heaven is a very artistic film that certainly has a unique and often hypnotic aesthetic. The depiction of the gay porn sub culture is rather plastic and not very believable, but that is not what really defines the film.

The bizarre visions that the lead character has while attaining orgasm is really the main focus. The fatal mistake here is that director Ian Powell lingers on these nightmarish visions and repeats them with little variation, over and over again until the viewer just loses patience with the entire project. They certainly are intriguing at the beginning of the film, but when one sees the same collage of clips reoccurring throughout, they become annoyances that only hold up what little story there is. Ken Watanabe's constantly repeating music adds to the ever increasing monotony of the entire proceedings.

Actor Alexander Bracq is believable and beautiful to look at, but his understated, almost sleeping-walking like presence adds to the gradual boredom that sets in for the viewer. There is plenty of steamy sex and attractive bodies in the film, but frankly, if this is what you're looking for you might as well watch a real porn film rather than an artistic miscalculation about the porn industry.

With a faster pace, a better editor, and a more interesting script this might have been a really great experience. As it is, I'm glad to have seen it, but certainly would never return to this unsatisfying picture.

The Vampire Diaries (2009–2017)

Trueblood for Dummies

[1/10 · 27 September 2009]

After experiencing Alan Ball's amazingly creative series about vampires on HBO, I approached this with some excitement as I enjoy vampire tales. Sad to say, based on the first three episodes, the series is woefully devoid of any originality or inspiration. It plays like any one of the CW's teen angst series. It's infantile, badly written, and dreadfully dull.

STORY LINE: Very run of the mill. At least Twilight had interesting characters. The supposed teenage girls in the series are your typical lot of vacuous mental lightweights. They were obviously cast for their looks as opposed to any Thespian ability. The two brothers are better, but after one episode they are so predictable, it's laughable. And who write's this stuff. It plays like a Grade C, low budget horror movie. The lines are trite and barely plausible. The story line so far could have been written by a third grader. No, I take that back. There are third graders who could do better. Even the directing is bad; episodes drag badly and Ian Somerhalder pops of the same way every time. It's not scary and worse, it's not alluring or interesting. There's not a whit of real fancy or fantasy.

ATMOSPHERE: The show really doesn't have a particularly creative atmosphere unless you count a few CGI effects and fog rolling in every time something sinister is going to happen; how cliché is that! Twilight had terrific art direction, as does Trueblood.

SOUNDTRACK: I suppose the target audience (teenieboppers) like the endless and annoying soundtrack of rock and pop songs. Again, it's indistinguishable from all the other CW teen shows. This crappy music has become boilerplate with these shows. Don't bother telling an interesting story; just pummel the TV audience with a noisy song track. The sound editor should be shot! The songs were so loud in the pilot, that you could barely hear the dialogue. The music in Trueblood is inspired; in the Vampire Diaries it's just schlock and it gets in the way.

VAMPIRE MYTHOS: There is nothing new, interesting, or particularly creative here. The Ann Rice novels are masterpieces compared to this. Twilight was vastly superior. Vampire Diaries has absolutely nothing new to say about vampires; Gilmore Girls meet the cute vamps. Ugh!

What's truly distressing is that a network like the CW caters to the lowest possible common denominator. If HBO can produce something so rich and appetizing, why is the CW content to feed our teenagers this steady diet of trash! Very depressing! Maybe something will develop in future episodes, but unless a new writing team, new director and some new actors are brought in, I don't hold out much hope.

My One and Only (2009)

Wonderful Road Picture

[10/10 · 16 September 2009]

This is truly an engaging, endearing and very funny look into relationships; both romantic and filial, typical of the 1950's.

One member here criticized the movie as hetero-phobic; I wouldn't go that far, but men in the 1950's were certainly not metrosexuals! And the classy blond belle which Ms. Zellweger plays with pitch perfect demeanor is just the type of woman that would attract unattractive male attention. The brutes she meets give the film its energy and give her a journey worth making for the audience. And there are two supporting male characters who are good hearted in the film, so the criticism simply doesn't hold up. Zellweger has never been better!

What we have here is a funny and poignant story about the survival of a woman who leaves her husband in the world of the 1950's. As good as Ms. Zellweger is, the movie is stolen by the two very gifted young actors who portray her sons; Logan Lerman and Mark Rendall. The two of them couldn't be more different, but they are brothers and understand each other and understand their mother. Lerman plays the more grounded of the two and creates a very real and sympathetic portrait. Rendall plays the flighty older brother; obviously gay and has a good deal of the "zinger" lines which he delivers perfectly. After 20 minutes, you want to be with this family for the rest of the film.

This is the kind movie that depends on writing and Charlie Peters has given us a convincing and at times, very witty screenplay. You feel and understand every character. The movie is directed with an understated classiness by Loncraine. It moves from adventure to adventure fluidly with assurance and style. And the production design has perfectly captured the era.

Don't miss this one! Frankly, one of the best films of 2009.

Say Uncle (2005)

Failure on Every Level

[1/10 · 30 August 2009]

I liked Peter Paige in QAF, but sorry to say, he is no director and he shouldn't be directing himself.

The movie has no consistent tone.. it tries to actually take a light hearted approach to a very touchy subject and in the process only succeeds in really making one feel creepy about the main character and the topic of supposed pedophilia.

Paige simply can't bring off this character. There are too many inconsistencies and after a while you start talking back to the screen frustrated with the guy's entire approach to life. I'm sure there are naive people like this, but Paige simply makes this character depressing and unattractive. A third of the way through the film you wish he would just go away or that his friends would have a major intervention!!

That being said, the core problem with the film is Paige, the director. The movie drags; badly. The musical score doesn't go with the tone of the film and becomes annoying. The other actors and characters are bland and one dimensional. Paige cannot elicit a single interesting performance. A wonderful character actress like Kathy Najimy gives a dull, lifeless performance as Paige's adversary. The other moms are equally pedestrian as are Paige's boyfriend and boss at work. Add to that, the screenplay by Paige has no wit or cleverness which was certainly needed to make such a difficult subject even work on film.

For all it's "good intentions" the movie from a purely dramatic standpoint is a mess. The big climax doesn't really work and adds to the film's generally depressing contour. Perhaps a better writer and director could have made an engaging film out of this story. As it stands, save yourself the frustration and skip this!

High School Musical (2006 TV Movie)

Likable performances buried by bad script and bad score

[3/10 · 2 August 2009]

The only thing to recommend this over rated movie is the highly talented young cast. There's no doubt that Zac Efron has a charisma on screen and he's very likable here. The other leads are similarly talented even if they lack his spark.

What's wrong here is a commentary on contemporary pop culture. In short, the music, choreography and script are trite and boilerplate. That kids and adults find this a viable musical from a great tradition is really sad. The music is utterly forgettable with equally uninspired, unclever lyrics; the choreography is overly busy; a tactic these days in Broadway and movie musicals to attempt to hide how bad the material actually is. Audiences will get their physical dance rush and forget how crappy the the songs really are. Worst of all is the script. All the students are super nice kids. This high school doesn't exist anywhere. The drama teacher is an idiot; Zac's father is even worse; not for one moment do I believe he's a father, a teacher, or a basketball coach. The opening scene simply can't be believed as anything but a pipe dream fantasy from a different movie. And finally, the brother and sister song and dance nemesis of the leads are so badly written and one dimensional that you have to wonder why Disney paid the screenwriter.

The sad part is that Disney can certainly sell this on Broadway and people who have no idea who Cole Porter or Richard Rodgers is, will flock to it in droves.

So, a waste of lots of young talent. With a decent script and a better score and a director who wanted to say a little more, it might have been a really great movie.

The Awful Truth (1937)

Dud!

[3/10 · 14 October 2006]

High expectations for a great screwball comedy, but it just doesn't measure up. It's basically the screenplay. It drifts along and eventually outstays it's welcome. With more wit in the writing and a better overall cast, this might have worked. It's a predictable story told with no flair. Dunne has little charm and the two actresses who play the aunt and the mother are absolutely terrible. The direction is slow which adds to the disjointed feeling of the whole movie. Grant was way better in other comedies.

If you're expecting something on the order of My Man Godfrey or His Gal Friday, you will be sorely disappointed.

Adam & Steve (2005)

Miscast, Poorly Acted, Unfunny Comedy

[3/10 · 29 September 2006]

My summary pretty much says it all. I hate to ponder all the glowing reviews of this travesty at IMDb which would lead me to believe that my fellow gay audience must be so starved for entertainment, that they would praise a mess like this.

Let's go through the list of what's wrong with this movie.

Firstly, it has a terrible script. The jokes fall flat everywhere, the characters are cardboard, and there isn't a single sympathetic character to be found in the whole movie. I love that some people have found it "realistic". Believe me, there aren't any people that resemble the idiots and misfits in this film; gay people, straight people, parents; you name it. They are mostly all unattractive, hapless people that you don't want to spend 90 minutes with.

Secondly, the movie is horribly miscast. Craig Chester is not a good director regardless of the budget. He shouldn't have cast himself in the lead; he hasn't a wit of charm. Why Steve would want this guy is a complete mystery. George Bush has more personality. I always worry how much of an ego trip is really involved in someone writing, directing and staring in a movie. With results like this, it should be a criminal offense. The other actors are equally bad. Mr. Chester and Mr. Gets are so bad in the movie's first scenes, you know they won't get any better later on. Parker Posey looks bored with the whole project. Adam's parents and sister can't act; neither can Steve's; his mother looks the same age as he does. The straight room mate of Steve is a miserable actor. Where did they find these people and how did they survive Chester's direction???

Thirdly, the movie is badly edited. At least half of it should have gone on the cutting room floor. Some of the scenes are so bad I was talking back to my TV screen in a sarcastic manner. Why does the dog have to get stabbed??? Why does Parker Posy have to do three or four really annoying stand up routines??? The two step scene at the end would have worked in a more clever movie, but in this one it just seems like an appendage.

I was glad to send this one back to Netflix never to be seen by me again. What is truly appalling is how many people enjoyed this misguided attempt at comedy. It really tells me that we are really getting stupid in this country.

Fantastic Four (I) (2005)

Fun, entertaining movie

[8/10 · 14 January 2006]

After Roger Ebert put this on his worst of 2005 list, I had to wonder how much more out of touch the movie critics in this country have to be to get an academy award of their own.

Certainly, this was not remotely deserving of being on anyone's "best" list; but it hardly deserves the critical beating it has taken. It's an uncomplicated, fun comic book movie with excellent performances, a decent screenplay, great special effects and a wonderfully light ability not to take itself too seriously.

I certainly enjoyed it more than either Spiderman movie. At least in this movie you don't have to watch Tobey Maguire "act".

Fighting Tommy Riley (2004)

Superlative Drama

[10/10 · 7 January 2006]

Fighting Tommy Riley is simply one of the best Indie films I've seen. It had me glued to the screen within ten minutes. J.P. Davis is a multi-talented man. In addition to playing the title character, he wrote the screenplay and produced the movie as well. And he can act! On the surface he looks like an underwear model, like so many up and coming 20's actors, but this guy has a complete emotional vocabulary. Mainstream Hollywood should be at his doorstep. He completely inhabits Tommy Riley in a way that very few actors with the right "look" could ever hope to achieve. Casting veteran actor Eddie Jones was a coup. Jones meets Davis's intensity on every level and the two of them create a complicated and wonderful rapport. Jones, in fact, is heart breaking; a character that so often slumps into empty sentimentality is rendered with honest reality.

The film is directed superbly. The story is told clearly and directly. The gay subtext of trainer lusting after fighter is handled frankly, sincerely and with a bittersweet truth. It exposes a sad case in our society, straight or gay, that older people are denied physical love at every level.

This is a far more engrossing film than Hollywood hype favorites Cinderella Man and Million Dollar Baby. Director O'Flaherty has more talent in his pinkie than does Ron Howard and Clint Eastwood in their collective big buck bodies.

Being Julia (2004)

Classy, Classy, Classy

[10/10 · 14 February 2005]

"Being Julia" is just a terrific tour de force for all involved. It's the kind of classy entertainment, beautifully scripted, acted and directed that Hollywood these days seems to have abandoned. It's the kind of the thing the BBC might do, but here it has the Hollywood budget and a frightfully good international cast.

Many critics have compared the movie to "All About Eve" but the resemblance is merely superficial. They are both backstage theater soap operas. But whereas "All About Eve" is deeply cynical and in the end a bit disturbing, "Being Julia" is sexy, hilarious, classy fun.

Annette Bening is radiant in the title role. She drips charisma from the beginning to the end. She's stylish and utterly stunning. You need to see this picture just for her. But she is surrounded by a top notch supporting cast. Jeremy Irons and Miriam Margolyes are delightful, Margolyes in particular as rotund admirer with a lesbian bent. Shaun Evans is perfect as Julia's young amour and Thomas Sturridge is deeply effective as her son. And Michael Gambon is superb as Julia's acting muse.

Movies don't get written like this anymore. Here's a screenplay with wit and panache that can go from bitchy to poignant in a flash. It's no wonder Bening and the rest of the cast were attracted to this lavish banquet of language and innuendo.

A must see for anyone who yearns for intelligent, classy entertainments on the screen.

Sideways (2004)

BORING MISERABLE DUD

[1/10 · 30 November 2004]

Forget about the review comments that celebrate the brilliant direction, writing and character development.

Forget about the review comments that complain of the beastly attitudes towards women.

And forget about reading most of the clueless national critics!

This movie is just plain dull! It's first and fatal problem is that the main character is an uninteresting loser; the last person with whom you would want to spend two plus hours.

Adding insult to injury, Mr. Payne plods along in low gear for more than an hour. After a while you tire of the cute wine banter and you're already tired of both of the male characters. The plot is as thin as a bad chianti with a vinegary aftertaste that isn't pleasant. Way too many scenes of dining in restaurants and sitting at bars. Only the last 20 to 30 minutes does the director give us any real sparks. By that time, I had had my fill of this depressing, boring downer of a movie. Worse yet, the final act is utterly predictable. Only two funny scenes involving golf and a faked car crash save the film from being a complete wasteland of mediocrity. You know when you are looking at your watch and two hours seems like three that you've been wheedled out of another $9.

That this movie is talked about as one of the best pictures of the year is simply laughable. It further illustrates to me that our movie critics are attracted to the pedestrian and the pedantic and we follow like bemused sheep. Not even worth renting.

I Heart Huckabees (2004)

Hollywood Goes DaDa

[15 October 2004]

David O. Russell's movie "Flirting With Disaster" is one of my all time favorite comedies. It's a funny, quirky script full of surprises with great performances and brilliantly directed. So I went to I HEART Huckebees feeling that the master had returned. It had a cast to die for. How could it fail?

Well................let's be positive at the outset. As an existential, dada-esque exercise in the Apollinaire theater tradition, the movie tries very hard to entertain with surrealism and candid meaninglessness for it's own sake. The celebrity cast obviously believed in this screenplay. Everone attempts to give a meaningful performance of this meaningless material. It's a fascinating experiment for a Hollywood movie these days and it's too bad it is such a failure.

Russell's problem is that he only rarely is able to turn his philosophical, heady, art house dialogue into something humorous which would be the only thing an audience would really want from these diatribes. He does achieve it in a few places particularly in a hilarious dinner scene presided over by Richard Jenkins . Suddenly you find yourself laughing at a line that connected. The problem is, that a majority of the script doesn't connect and as an audience member you begin to feel that the actors and director are having a great time without you.

A lot of the movie is downright boring after a while. I found myself yawning; trying to stay concentrated. But so much of the movie never goes anywhere and has no real comedic or dramatic payoff. In this way it fails as theater and fails as entertainment.

You can't fault the talented cast. The blame rests squarely on Mr. Russell who wrote and directed this well intentioned but utterly misguided movie. That it could have been brilliant is highly probable! But Russell's self indulgence (certainly not present in "Flirting With Disaster") completely does him in.

It's not so much a waste of time to see, as it is a baffling experience. I say again, the most potent thing about this film for me is wondering why Hollywood executives didn't axe the thing before it got off the ground!

Sherlock (2002 TV Movie)

Satisfying Holmsiana

[9/10 · 10 October 2004]

This made for television movie proves once again that some of the best cinematic entertainments are turning up on the boob tube with little fanfare and sometimes no advance warning. This is definitely something I wouldn't have minded paying for in a theater!

Case of Evil is a delicious, chilling, and welcome reinventing of the Sherlock Holmes mythos. It is well directed by Graham Theakston, moves along at a rapid pace, presents a well rounded cast and is fairly well designed for a low budget project.

Holmes is a young man in this treatment with a young man's desire to experience the world. James D'Arcy is turning out to be one of the most promising of a new generation of British actors. He is simply superb here. Not content to just rattle off Holmes's lists of deductive prowess, he finds nuances in the character that are often overlooked and brings a very fresh face to a familiar personage.

Roger Morlidge is equally interesting as Watson bringing a real sense of insight and medical intellect to a character that is too often a bumbling sidekick. This Watson is a partner to Holmes in every sense of the word.

D'Onofrio doesn't disappoint either, creating a truly despicable villain. Richard Grant does a wonderful cameo as Sherlock's incapacitated brother.

The rest of the cast is quite good and the screenplay takes us through a darned good yarn. Give this a try. It's already on DVD!

Angels in America (2003)

Appalled at many of the other reviews

[3 October 2004]

I'm downright appalled at the proclivity of negative reviews of this HBO miniseries on IMDb. It just proves that the worldwide public (especially those in my own USA) have been so dumbed down to for so long by commercial television and cinema, that when something comes along by a brilliant playwright directed by an iconic director with some of the greatest acting talent of our times, they feel they need to write some of the most entertainingly misguided reviews I have ever seen. UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Did they think this would be an action movie!!! Did they know that it is a film version of two plays; one of which won a Pulitzer Prize and the other a Tony Award!!!

AIDS indeed is a depressing topic, but not nearly as depressing as the deterioration of intellectual perception in our society. This mini series walked away with a bundle of Emmys because it is a brilliant, thought provoking feast of language and ideas that makes an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie seem like a Saturday morning cartoon from the early 50's.

Those of you that bought your DVDs and hated this; all I can say is thank you for supporting HBO films so they can make more of this kind of stimulating, artistic and awe inspiring theater.

David Copperfield (1970 TV Movie)

Worthwhile Adaptation

[9/10 · 13 September 2004]

Delbert Mann's TV movie of David Copperfield is unique among film adaptations in that it tells the entire story from a series of flashbacks rather than an ongoing narrative. It works extremely well, adds to the emotional punch of the entire story, further illuminates Dickens' wonderful characters and is aided by a haunting musical score by composer Malcolm Arnold.

It also boasts a pretty fabulous cast including Dame Edith Evans, Susan Hampshire, Richard Attenborough, Ron Moody, Wendy Hiller, Lawrence Olivier and Sir Ralph Richardson; a veritable who's who of the finest British actors of the 20th century! Some have commented that Robin Phillips is bland as the title character. I couldn't disagree more. He is certainly the most cerebral, tortured David in any of the adaptations and also cuts a handsome figure in the movie. In short, he's splendid.

Now to the currently available DVD quality. I certainly agree that it is not good. The colors are a bit washed out, there is some clipped editing and a few moments of nasty film print. That being said, it is far from being unwatchable as some others have suggested. The musical soundtrack comes through fine and the dialogue is clear. And as much as I would welcome a digital restoration of the film, it's TV origins suggest that this would be unlikely.

Frankly, having the movie on DVD at a bargain price is blessing enough. I highly recommend it to those interested in an outstanding version of the story and willing to put up with technical imperfections.

On Edge (2001)

Good opportunity wasted

[2/10 · 7 September 2004]

I love figure skating. It's my favorite Olympic sport and Lord knows it has it's eccentric, bizarre side which is why it was ripe for a mock documentary like this. However, director Slovin (who also co-wrote the screenplay) is no Christopher Guest. What Guest did to community theater (Waiting for Guffman), dog shows (Best in Show), and country music (A Mighty Wind) is inspired lunacy. One can only wish that he'd taken on this subject as well. Slovin is simply not up to the task. Not by a long shot!

The over-the-top writing is only intermittently funny. The direction is slow and clunky! A lot of the jokes are forced. Most of it is downright stupid. The reason Guest succeeds in his mockumentaries is because he takes the original subject matter very seriously. His players and situations are very true to life. That's what makes them funny. The characters in "On Edge" are not so skillfully veiled tropes of real people like Tonya Harding, Nancy Kerrigan and Michelle Kwan. They are not conceived properly and in the end simply become annoying and unreal. It doesn't help that the three female leads cannot do anything with the material. The idea of an ebullient, overweight skater may work for a five minute Saturday Night Live skit, but over the course of 90 minutes it strains the reality of a real or fake documentary. There aren't any people like this. A 250 pound skater could never do a triple jump. So instead of poking fun at the real world of skating, Slovin invents fantasies to satirize, weakening the entire movie as a result. The movie actually reminded me of another mockumentary "Drop Dead Gorgeous" about a regional beauty queen contest. The difference is that in that movie the girls competing are totally believable. It's hilarious! The female figure skaters in "On Edge" are not.

Jason Alexander gives one of the worst performances of his career. He is embarrassingly dull. He adds little to the movie. And why would a documentary film maker spend so much time with a Zamboni driver in the first place! He should have been smart and passed on the movie. Chris Hogan as the documentary film maker is square in delivery and hopelessly miscast. You don't believe he's a film maker at all! It would have been better to have the character an unseen person behind the scenes. John Glover has a few funny moments as an over the hill Russian skater but the barely acceptable accent wears out its welcome fast. And ice skating legend Scott Hamilton delivers a horrid, unfunny, overly broad, embarrassing performance as a prissy, chain smoking, yellow toothed, bad hair day skating judge. You wonder what he got paid to debase the sport this badly. Adding insult to injury, other skating legends like Kristi Yamaguchi, Robin Cousins, Peter Caruthers, Randy Gardner and Ty Babilonia appear as competition judges. Did none of them realize how bad this movie was.

Well, the studio did. They sent it right to video. And if you see it in the video store, spare yourself. If you must have a figure skating movie, try "The Cutting Edge"! That at least honors the sport!

Aero-Troopers: The Nemeclous Crusade (2003 Video)

Slow

[1/10 · 5 September 2004]

Badly written, slow sci-fi animation story. Characters are cardboard which perhaps fits the puppet like animation. Miserable pacing of the story.

Action sequences are not edited well and are difficult to follow. Background animation is miserable and often out of focus. Obviously this is a low budget attempt.

The dialogue is ludicrous. They all seem to talk like Yoda from Star Wars? Why?

There are good ideas here; just poorly executed.

Don't waste your time. Not even worth a rental.

The Event (2003)

Over long, dreary HIV movie

[17 July 2004]

Only one thing saves The Event from being a total loss; Olympia Dukakis! When she is on screen, the warmth of her being and the grace of her acting temporarily convince you that this is a good movie. She plays a pivotal character and she packs an arsenal of subtle and powerful emotion!

Unfortunately, there are many, many minutes of film dealing with the other characters, most of whom have a faceless, gray presence that gets annoyingly boring. They are not helped by an episodic, way too long screenplay and episodic and short-on-creativity directing. The climax of the film is genuinely moving (thanks mostly to Dukakis), but it takes so long to get there that you feel cheated that you didn't care more for these characters during the balance of the film. The little coda after the climax is unconvincing and unsatisfying.

Lots of unnecessary pop songs intrude along the way. Parker Posey is the only other actress to induce any sparks. If you can wade through the slow spots, its worth seeing for Dukakis; but barely.

Napoleon Dynamite (2004)

Dullsville

[2/10 · 14 July 2004]

I can't believe all the positive reviews from IMDB users and some of the press. This movie had me literally yawning and looking at my watch hoping it would be over.

There are three or four big laughs! That's it! The rest is a depressing, dreary story about equally depressing, dreary characters. I almost feel sorry for the people that actually found this movie entertaining. They must be masochists!

There is virtually nothing fun about the character Napoleon Dynamite or his family. They are all such unmitigated losers that you just can't find them funny. Pitiful would be the operative word.

The movie is slow, the direction dull, and the characters wholly unsympathetic. Like it's lead character, this movie is a downer. Spare yourself.

De-Lovely (2004)

Half a movie!

[5/10 · 11 July 2004]

One had hopes that this would be an intelligent, witty movie about Cole Porter since the Cary Grant movie was pretty silly. Unfortunately, they only have half a good movie here.

The good half is simply the excellent performances of Kevin Kline and Ashley Judd. They are both splendid and since the other characters in the muddled screenplay are reduced to relative unimportance, Kline and Judd pretty much have the movie to themselves. They don't disappoint. Both give multi-layered, textured performances worthy of their talents.

Where the movie fails and fails badly is in two key departments; the screenplay and the most of the musical numbers.

Cole Porter had a rich, fascinating, debonaire, ribald life. You'd never know it from this screenplay. The few supporting characters like Monty Wooley, Boris Kochno, Louis B. Mayer etc. are reduced to window dressing. The parties Cole attended couldn't have been this boring. We virtually meet none of the famous performers he must have worked with. Where are Bert Lahr, Mary Martin, Alfred Drake, Ethel Merman... The homosexual content is tame by today's standards. Having a lot of pretty boys in the scenery doesn't really cut it. Too much of the film concentrated solely on Linda's great sacrifice. After a while it gets simply tedious. So much of Porter's theatrical and society life has been left out entirely. Where is the witty and clever banter that must have gone on. Porter was one of the great lyricists who's wry wit and humor were legendary. It's a testament to Kline that Porter doesn't become a complete bore in the movie.

The musical numbers are another matter. Only John Barrowman and Caroline O'Conner (doing a pretty good impression of Ethel Merman) come close to the style of singing done in Porter's time. The rest of today's pop stars d'jour are simply awful. They haven't a clue as to the style, the meaning of the lyrics or the fun of the melodies. People listening in the 30's and 40's would have been appalled.

The worst by far is the complete sabotaging of "Begin the Beguine". The poor song is re-harmonized to oblivion and barely recognizable. And Sheryl Crow should never be allowed to assault a Cole Porter song again.

Additionally, a few songs from musicals are simply done as combo, club performances with an audience sitting in a theater!!!!! Only Anything Goes and Kiss Me Kate receive real Broadway production values. It's another example of a missed opportunity to add some theatrical excitement to the "love story".

It's all too bad. With Kline and Judd so excellent, this could have been fantastic. As it is, it is ultimately unsatisfying and musically, an insult to the great composer! I guess it's a bit more truthful than the Cary Grant version, but barely.

Troy (2004)

A Wasted Effort

[3/10 · 15 May 2004]

Troy is an impressive movie in many ways, but it could have been sooooo much better. It doesn't achieve what Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy does by integrating action sequences, excellent cgi effects and a good script in a satisfying manner.

The culprit here is the script. It's mostly soap opera drivel. The opening sequence in which Achilles squares off with a brutish Mr. Clean clone is not worthy of a serious effort; it's cheap and stupid! Paris's first dialogue with Helen is even more painful:

"Last night was a mistake," she says.

Really poetic, huh! Maybe that's why Orlando Bloom and Diane Krueger have ZERO chemistry. The script makes Agamemnon and Menelaus into utterly cardboard villains and it kills whatever Brad Pitt could have done with the equally cardboard Achilles.

It's a shame the script does away with the gods in the story, but that would probably have meant making two or three movies. What's more unforgivable is the absence of the strong female characters in Homer's epic; Cassandra, Hecuba, Klytemnestra. What's left is the wimpering Andromache and Briseis misinterpreted to a comical degree. Helen, who supposedly is the catylst that causes all this, is a cipher in this treatment. It's also a shame the good performance of Julie Christie as Thetis is wasted on one scene. Surely a flashback showing her dipping the young Achilles in the river Styx would have explained his one spot of vulnerability.

The action sequences are impressive and the cgi effects are quite good, if not on a par with the best. The cast is very attractive physically, but most of them are defeated at every point by the shallow screenplay. The two that survive the best are Eric Bana's elegant, human Hector and the great Peter O'Toole's tragic Priam. The only scene in the movie that reaches any emotional height is O'Toole's scene with Pitt in which he pleads for the return of his son's body. Here the screenwriter found some poetry and depth. If the entire movie had been written this well, it would be a classic.

Most of the rest of O'Toole's performance is speant in the ridiculous viewing stand that the Trojan's built for their royal family to watch battles or whatever else goes on on the front lawn!

Brian Cox's Agamemnon particulary suffers from the inept script. He is forced to be a predictable and dull villain. Orlando Bloom is a similar causualty although I find it hilarious that many of the national movie critics have criticized him for playing Paris as a cowardly, vain, callow youth. That's exactly what Paris is; it's the writing that is bad; not neccessarily Mr. Bloom.

I also think Wolfgang Petersen is a coward for purposely distorting the homo-erotic features of ancient Greek society. Patrocolus is Achille's cousin in this treatment, rather than his friend, soul-mate and sometimes lover. We only see Patroculus practicing swordplay with Achilles. It is erotic in it's own right, but that's as far as Petersen goes. In fact, he makes sure that we see Pitt sleeping completely nude with women several times in the movie, lest he turn off the typically brutish, straight homophobes that would likely buy tickets in droves for this movie. Don't educate these schmucks; cater to them.

So, yes, it's at least an enjoyable popcorn movie. But with the money poured into this project, it might have been truly great had they trusted Homer's original a bit more and perhaps made two or three movies that would have adequately covered the epic story. They thought Peter Jackson wanting to make multiple movies was doomed to failure and he laughed all the way to the bank!

The Butterfly Effect (2004)

Tantalizing Thriller

[9/10 · 17 February 2004]

I went to The Butterfly Effect suspicious that the some of the bad press the movie has gotten is because the press doesn't like Ashton Kutcher lately. He's too damn successful (like Martha Stewart in a way) and needs to be taken down.

Well, this movie had me glued to the screen for the 2 plus hours. I was so caught up in the tall tale that this film tells, that I was afraid I'd miss something. It's a film where you have to concentrate. You're a bit exhausted at the end.

The story could have been written by Edgar Allen Poe it is so twisted. Sure you can find plot holes in it, but frankly you can find and create plot holes in every movie ever made. If you're hooked by the story, than who cares! This story will hook you in 15 minutes!

Some have said Mr. Kutcher is miscast; that he's just a teen comedian trying to do something more serious; more artful. All I can say is that his performance is quite good, doesn't resort to easy histrionics, is believable and runs the gamut between a lot of different emotions. He's the genuine article and he exudes star quality. Other male stars of Kutcher's age would probably have done justice to the part, but Kutcher does everything required of the script and does it well. If you can't see that, than you must be jealous that he's dating Demi Moore!

The film is directed at a break neck pace and my interest became more intense as the Kutcher character undergoes all his "time reversals". The supporting cast is excellent, particular Amy Smart who is smart enough to go from sorority Girl to a hooker with complete conviction.

Yes, it's a bit like Memento, but a bit easier to follow and it has a definite conclusion that ties up all the ends.

Don't trust the national critics on this one. Great entertainment!

Meet Joe Black (1998)

Awe Inspiring

[10/10 · 5 February 2004]

Meet Joe Black is a beautiful in just about every way. It's 3 hours long and if you let the beauty of this film take hold of you, you'll not feel as if any time has gone by at all.

It's a film about "death" and it is rich in everything that make a movie a sentimental favorite in the "It's a Wonderful Life" vein. In short, if you do not fall under the spell of this film, you are a hopeless cynic without a whit of heart!

What's beautiful about Meet Joe Black? First of all, it's directed with such love and and an eye for detail that you can't take your eyes off it. The art direction, cinematography, musical score and staging are blended into an artistic triumph. The music by Thomas Newman is especially brilliant; haunting and sinuous.

The cast is so good, it's hard to believe the movie was received so disparagingly by critics. Brad Pitt's impersonation of the devil inhabiting a young man's body is pitch perfect in every way. He gets everything right; a child like innocence of first experiences. Anthony Hopkins has never been better. Claire Forlani says more with facial expression than a thousand lines. Her love scenes with Pitt are unique. They're not only erotic, but deep and soulful in all the right ways. Marcia Gay Harden is perfect and Jeffrey Tambor as Quince gives a delectable portrait of a character we've all met and known from time to time.

This is a "feel good" movie, so it was automatically dismissed by half the critics out there. It not only makes you feel good about life and death, but it makes you contemplate a lot of the important, simple issues of our existence.

A classic in every way that will be loved by the lucky souls who really understand it.

The Magnificent Ambersons (2002 TV Movie)

Finally a coherent film version of the Tarkington classic

[31 January 2004]

Let's face it; Orson Welles's movie of The Magnificent Ambersons is a magnificent mess through no fault of its highly regarded director. Cut and edited to pieces by studio hacks (Robert Wise!!!) with the excised material now lost, the movie exists as a mere torso rather than a whole experience. So much is missing, that the movie is hard to follow unless you've read the book. The movie is certainly not what Welles wanted and it is unrepairable; a great tragedy in film history.

The new version on A&E may not have Welles's unique directorial ability or atmospheric lighting in black and white, but it does tell Tarkington's story coherently and on the whole, quite successfully. Director Alfonso Arau has purposely avoided the look of the Welles film, opting for a rich, epic color palette. The art direction is beautiful and you really get a flavor of turn of the century midwest American life.

Many reviewers have complained of Jonathan Rhys-Meyers performance of George. Frankly it is a brave and quite accurate portrayal. Tim Holt in the Welles film was hopelessly too mature looking to play Tarkington's headstrong brat. Georgie is not a very sympathetic character in the book and Rhys-Meyers studiously avoids turning him into the bland leading man that Welles allowed Holt to portray. Those that take issue with Rhys-Meyers don't know the book. He is the right age and certainly the right look for this difficult character. He is a dynamic actor that isn't afraid to be true to a character's inate nature. He's not easy to take at times, but Georgie isn't either!

Many have also criticized Jennifer Tilly's Fanny as not being the equal of Agnes Moorehead. Again, Tilly is closer to the book. Fanny is a hapless character which Tilly invests with a wonderful degree of humanity coupled with her unique brand of eccentricity. Moorehead had not not an ounce of charm and frankly was miscast. Madeleine Stowe, James Cromwell, and Bruce Greenwood are all excellent as are the supporting players.

Is this the ultimate version of this classic. Of course not. It is, however, a well made, BBC style television movie that is very true to Tarkington's novel and tells the story clearly, unapologetically and with some amount of panache. I give it an enthusiastic recommendation.