Fenrir-5 Reviews

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (1999– )

Law & Order: Liberal Lecture Hour

[1/10 · 20 January 2008]

Although this started out as a promising show, a better title for what it quickly became would be "Law & Order: Liberal Lecture Hour". Each episode of the show is a transparent allegory or a direct presentation of some liberal crusade in which the dialogue completely focuses on the detectives, lawyers, clerks, victims, and random passers-by reciting some left-wing diatribe. At first they had the decency to at least include a cardboard cut-out of a figure to respond to these arguments. Now they don't even bother with that; it's a straight lecture, complete with occasional raps on the knuckles with a ruler for not caring as much as these fictional characters obviously do.

Many times the stories won't even involve 'special victims'. The writer might throw in some crime that at first appears to be under their jurisdiction, but this will quickly be discovered to be false. Yet the detectives just care so much (and so should you!) about the tenuously tangential political/social issue that they are compelled to make it their crusade. And laughably they are always able to secure some meaningless, fictional victory over it by the end of the show.

If that's not enough to drive you away, there's one other major problem with this series: the completely overbearing and ridiculous way the show worships Mariska Hargitay. Not only is her character completely preposterous - she has, in turn, been a cop, a detective, a computer crimes investigator/hacker, an undercover agent with the FBI (while making sure not to insult the hippies she's spying on, and making a point about police brutality), and so on - but also has an overbearing, sanctimonious back story and has to be told she's "beautiful" every third show. It becomes really preposterous when she decides to take one of her many vacations; while she's gone the show does nothing but mourn her absence, complete with shoulders-up close-up static scenes of her randomly inserted into stories so we won't go into deep withdrawal.

Chris Meloni doesn't fare very well in a role that has been almost entirely phased out. He was originally the 'muscle', but left-wingers don't like muscle, so now he's morphed into kind of a touchy-feely, whiny crybaby who pines for his cardboard cut-out of a wife and family and apparently feels bad for being the necessary tough guy. His role is unintentionally hilarious because the makers of the show have no idea what to do with him. They want a tough guy so people who like cop shows will watch (because enforcing the law requires tough guys), but if they make him too tough they'll lose the left-wing audience who likes the sermons and thinks violence is icky. So one show he'll punch a guy, and the next show he's in therapy for it. There's an episode where he takes down a combative perp using a choke hold - the only action sequence in the show - and is then castigated for the rest of the episode for 'excessive force'. On the ridiculous 'Abu Ghraib' episode they had him utter the completely laughable lie that he had "used force" to compel a confession, but "9 times out of 10 is was counterproductive". Makes one long for the halcyon days of Andy Sipowicz.

The rest of the cast are increasingly irrelevant, pencil-sketch background characters. Though there have been abortive attempts to flesh some of them out, they're almost entirely ignored except to occasionally throw in a line representing their one dimension of characterization. Is there a pimp in this story? Bring in Ice-T! Does anybody use the word 'conspiracy' in this one? Bring in Belzer! And there's usually not much courtroom drama in an episode - the cops generally browbeat the audience for at least 45 minutes, minus the occasional chase scene - so we generally only see the pretty ADA give her speech. Which always reflects the lecture we've been given all episode and comes to the obvious conclusion: everybody who doesn't agree with the left-wing point of view on the issue is evil and should be in prison. But not executed! They're against that.

So basically if you want to worship at the temple of Hargitay, believe everything sent to you in an email by MoveOn.org and love the Daily Show, and think the best entertainment is to hear your own opinion regurgitated to you based upon the latest opinion poll, this is your show. If you think Hargitay looks a little mannish, actually want to see a good cops/lawyers show, or find trite presentations of important issues tiresome, there's better to be found.

The Manchurian Candidate (2004)

If It Ain't Broke ...

[1/10 · 8 January 2005]

Although the marketers insist that it isn't a straight remake of the original, it obviously is – all they key elements are the same. The new twist is supposed to be a post-modern take on America, because every liberal with a camera loves to point at the United States and laugh. Yet somehow it just feels simple and lazy. All the observations are obvious; the supposedly sly political commentary is about as elevated as Al Franken pulling a funny face, or Michael Moore ingratiating himself to Canadians by assuring them how stupid Americans are.

Denzel Washington is the epitome of cool. I don't think he can give a bad performance. He gives this movie all his effort, and I would say that his performance and the brief one by Jeffrey Wright as Al Melvin are the best parts of the film. But even Washington can't overcome a scenery-chewing, cringe-inducing overacting seminar given by Meryl Streep, the exercise in blandness that is Liev Schreiber, and a generally inconsistent, heavy-handed, and patently ridiculous storyline.

The movie starts off on the wrong foot with a jarring and poorly-constructed opening. We are subjected to about five minutes of soldiers playing cards in the back of an armored vehicle, while different loud rock tracks cut in every few seconds. This is the credit sequence, and it is not crucial to the movie. But it completely fails to draw the viewer into the atmosphere the filmmakers are trying to set (Wyclef Jean destroying John Fogerty's "Fortunate Son" doesn't help).

Then we have brief action in Kuwait and a sudden jump cut to the present day. Raymond Shaw is running for the Vice President position, and everyone believes he heroically rescued his entire squad in Kuwait. Marco is on the lecture circuit, speaking to Boy Scout troops about his time in action. He is confronted by former squad mate Melvin, who tells him that he is having bad dreams and who shows Marco a journal of drawings and notes. Marco reacts strangely to this – rather than admitting that he has these bad dreams himself, he holds Melvin at arms' length. We all know at this point that Melvin will turn up dead later in the movie, so it's best to say your goodbyes now.

This is where the first plot hole of the movie shows up. Suddenly Marco is completely involved in this conspiracy theory, merely by seeing Melvin's journal and having some more bad dreams. Are we expected to believe that in the years following the incident in Kuwait, the men of the unit never got together to discuss what happened? That none of their superiors found it odd that they gave the same word-for-word description of what supposedly happened, or had the same nightmares? Marco tries to speak with Shaw, who is busy with his campaign and incredibly controlled and domineered by his mother. On the way to speak to Shaw, Marco is approached by a woman named Rosie (the required love interest) who mysteriously invites him to her New York apartment. Here we have another plot hole, as Marco discovers an implant in his shoulder while showering (so he never touched his shoulder for over ten years before this?) but loses it down the sink. Marco then arranges a meeting with Shaw and in a curiously homo-erotic scene bends him over a table and bites his back. This allows him to steal Shaw's implant, which he then gives to crazy scientist friend Delp (another plot line that goes nowhere) who for some reason gives Marco a massive electric shock to the head. I'm sure he explained why he did this, but his accent was so damn thick I couldn't understand a word, and in the end it makes no difference whatsoever.

More of the conspiracy is revealed as the presidential election draws near. Marco continues investigating, clicking a Google link as dramatic music plays. Turns out that Rosie may be a federal agent. Shaw himself waffles (he's a flip-flopper!) between robotic guilt and robotic ambition. Meryl Streep eats a couch. Shaw wades into a river in a full suit and kills a man with a kayak, then drowns his one true love. Nobody finds this suspicious. Then suddenly the federal agents who didn't believe a word of Shaw's story completely trust him and escort him to a private room with the man, on the eve of the election; both men are triggered and start the assassination plot … which has a bizarre twist at the end.

There is one aspect of the storyline – a dropped plot line – that particularly frustrated me. In the original movie, it was killing his childhood sweetheart that caused Shaw to rebel. In this version we are subjected to a few torturous scenes of Shaw insisting that Jocelyne was his one true love, despite the fact that the two actors have absolutely zero chemistry (to be fair, what woman could love a robot). Then Shaw offs her in a river with her dad and the entire plot line is dropped. This just makes no sense. In fact, the entire scene where Shaw kills the Jordan family is ridiculous – killing a man in the open in his kayak? This screams screenwriter phobia.

Why go to all this trouble just to get a guy elected president? It doesn't appear to be very hard to do, particularly if you have the right last name. But at this point in time the demonizing of Americans has become a cottage industry, and everyone wants a piece of the pie. It doesn't seem to matter to the people who buy this stuff whether or not the story is believable, coherent, or even entertaining. As long as it's critical of the United States it's in. If that's your mindset, I suggest you cozy up with this tepid remake and lather up your back for a good patting. Otherwise it's just more grist for the cable TV mill.

That '70s Show (1998–2006)

That 70's Feminist Show

[25 April 2004]

For quite a while I was convinced that this was a good show, largely from the strength of the first season. The first season was very honest and open, and all of the characters were quite well developed. The driving story was obviously that of Eric and Donna - a well-written teenage romance surrounded by interesting characters and funny jokes.

However during the second season things began to change. Suddenly everything seemed to be about feminism. Midge, the nextdoor neighbor, began talking about her "needs" and how Bob was an ass for not respecting them. Several shows revolved around comedically showing Midge trying to reach her goals, and Bob not understanding. Little heed was paid to the fact that Midge was a spoiled housewife who did nothing to aid the family, and that putting her own dreams in front of her family was selfish. Bob was just an ass for not understanding. I mean, how offensive is it to be asked to cook a meal for a person who works all day putting a roof over your head? The nerve of some people!

Then the worst thing possible happened: Donna became virtually the same character as Midge. In every episode dealing with their relationship, Eric would do something goofy or stupid (or which would be characterized as goofy or stupid), and he would end up apologizing to Donna. Again and again and again. Finally, when Eric asks Donna for a commitment we are expected to accept that this is wrong (because Donna is selfish and wants to put her individual dreams ahead of her relationship). So they break up, and then most of the fourth season deals with why Eric is such a dumbass for losing her, why he is wrong, why Donna is right and such a great catch, and so forth. Not once does the story revolve around why Donna was wrong for her attitude, or how she made mistakes. Because she's female, and thus perfect.

The attitude is visible in every aspect of the show. All the men beg for sex, and women grant them the favor ... if they're lucky. The men buy the women gifts and fret about how they may not be doing enough for their relationship. The women just complain about how stupid the guys are. Examine this show a little more closely. Kitty is the perfect mom, Red is the brutish and ignorant dad. Donna is the perfect woman, Eric is the goon boyfriend. Midge is the enlightened woman, Bob is an idiot. When Midge abandons her family it is ok because she was "unhappy", but Hyde's dad is a loser for leaving his family. Ah, the justice of the double standard.

"That 70's Show" became just another victim of the female market, like so many other shows during the early 2000's. In the spirit of revamped new-age feminism, women were consistently portrayed as the sage, wise members of a relationship, and men as the childish goons who always mess everything up. For years this paradigm has been visible, from prime-time dramas to comedy to commercials. Strange that nobody sees this as offensive. Obviously the common sense position is that men and women are of equal potential intelligence and both need to give up some things to have a relationship. But common sense doesn't sell, does it?

Most recently the show has become annoying because the stories aren't developed anymore, it's all about the joke. Like all Fox sitcoms which last more than three years, the show has become jarringly self-referential and complacent. Which is a sad ending to a show that had so much promise.

Poolhall Junkies (2002)

Poolhall Junk

[1/10 · 28 February 2004]

I rented this movie on the recommendation of an enthusiastic pharmacist who, while filling my prescription, went into great detail about how amazing the trick shots were. He was right. The trick shots were pretty cool. It's the movie that sucks.

What we have here is perhaps the least original movie ever committed to celluloid. I am amazed that so many names were willing to stoop to the level of appearing in the film. Perhaps they were all starving for the chance to spew some tough-guy dialogue, and lord knows there hasn't been any talented people writing tough-guy dialogue for a long time. Unfortunately this movie doesn't offer any respite.

Mars Callahan (who? exactly!) wrote and directed this movie. Methinks he spread the peanut butter a little thin. One would hope that, since he apparently doesn't have a shred of originality in his body, Callahan would have focused on more expertly crafting his film. But no. This sketch is strictly paint-by-numbers. Most of the plot is ripped wholesale from The Hustler. There are some scattered elements stolen from other movies, and they are stitched together with all the beauty and finesse of a Frankenstein monster. The seams are numerous and visible.

This is our story: Apparently our hero, whose name I do not remember, is a pool prodigy. At a young age he decides he wants to become a pro. But not a hustler - hustlers are criminals and petty thugs. This kid is so good that a special spot is created - a fifty-first spot out of fifty - so that he can partake in a tournament. Then we're supposed to believe that the tournament team would only send a single letter inviting him to the tournament. That in fifteen years he would never run into anyone who would say, `Hey, why didn't you show up for the tournament?' That in fifteen years nobody would come looking for this amazingly talented kid. Yes, it's patently ridiculous, but the title card says `fifteen years later' so I guess we have to believe it.

So fifteen years later our hero is, naturally, a pool shark. Is this a shocking plot twist? Not really. This is the type of movie where you know the minute someone says something like `We're not going to have a party at my parents' house! No way! Not gonna happen!' that there will then be a lightning-fast, comedic cut to a raging party at that person's house, complete with the kid screaming about the damage everyone is doing to his carpet. Can we really expect a movie that stoops this low to have anything new or interesting up its sleeve?

Within seconds of the fifteen-year mark our hero finds out that his bookie screwed him, so he screws his bookie. The writer/director manages to make this scene completely powerless and ineffective. He seems to think that peppering his speech with contrived and forced-sounding `fucks' and `niggers' will make it sound authentic. But it just sounds contrived and forced. Like someone who owns every Quentin Tarantino DVD and watched them, over and over, trying to figure out the pattern to the dialogue (Three words then a `fuck'! That will make it sound cool!). Callahan is so creatively bankrupt that he even includes one particular tough-guy brag TWICE (albeit with a slight alteration). I'm guessing he thought this would be funny. Instead it sounds forced and stupid.

So our hero then tries to go straight, selling his pool cue (right) and taking a construction job (right). But, although he is supposedly surgically gifted with his hands, he cannot even drive a nail into wood without bending it. Then, in a shocking and heartbreaking scene, we learn that the construction business is corrupt. Our hero will have none of that. So he ends up hustling again. Somewhere along the way he meets Ricky Schroeder, but I forget why.

The already sinking movie is dragged completely down with the introduction of our hero's stereotypical, ridiculous society girlfriend whom I can only call Annoying Bitch. Annoying Bitch spits out the standard `no man of mine will make a living hustling!' speeches with zero conviction, and after our hero hustles her boss in an attempt to win her a job at a tony law firm, she dumps him in the standard hack screenwriter style. You know, one of those loud party scenes where everything would be fine if the screaming shrew would only shut up for five seconds and let the guy finish a thought. But of course this doesn't happen, and of course she leaves him, and the movie drags on.

I wish I could tell you what happens after this, but this is the point at which I shut the movie off. I just couldn't take it anymore. As usual, the only bright spot in this film is watching Christopher Walken sink his teeth into a role that is not worthy of his time. By refusing to spit out the word `fuck' every two seconds he elevates his scenes a great deal - and even gets a good joke in about our hero's hair. I should also tell you that this joke is the only funny joke in the movie. The rest is leaden one-liners; tired sitcom relationship humor; and crappy, ancient bar cons that the writer apparently got out of a library book, and which would only get the bettor beaten like a rented mule in a real bar.

There is nothing redemptive about this movie. Nothing at all. It is a complete waste of time.

Spider-Man (2002)

Spider Dork

[29 December 2003]

After watching Spiderman, I guess I can see why a lot of people liked it. It has most of the ingredients: an intriguing fiction, likeable characters, and over-the-top villains. But the problem is that all of this stuff comes right from the comic book, and the movie doesn't add anything to the mix.

I guess in the end I just can't believe Tobey Maguire can do a backflip.

Even before I knew the guy had back trouble - a fact revealed during headline negotiations for the sequel - I just didn't think him athletic. I felt kind of bad for Tobey when he took off his shirt to show his new, spider-enhanced physique. Still so very, very puny. If you were in grave danger would you want this morose, wiry individual showing up to rescue you?

I imagine this is how I would have felt had another casting atrocity, the purported selection of Nicolas Cage to star as Superman in an attempted revival of that serial, had somehow burrowed its way into the light of day. I was already sufficiently outraged by musing my way through Michael Keaton as Batman. Michael Keaton? Nicolas Cage? Tobey Maguire? Why must superheroes now be short, bent men with jowls and hangover beards?

The superhero genre has been crying for a new star since Christopher Reeve had that horrible accident. Yep, Superman IV. The whole paralyzation thing didn't help matters either. Since then it's nothing but self-proclaimed auteurs slumming. The meek demeanor, the muttered punchline, the complete lack of any form of physical authority - that may work just fine when you're looking for some character-acting Oscar in some costume drama about dancing orphans. But it doesn't make a good superhero. Who wants to root for such dorks?

Everyone says to me that this is something we should applaud, that Peter Parker was a dork in the comic series and thus should be in the movie. But in the comics, which I read quite frequently for free in the Long Beach K&B, did not play up Parker's geekiness. It wasn't a badge he wore. The reason he seemed so uncool was because we knew what he was capable of. And the important point was that if you looked closely enough at this guy you would see that he was a hero.

I think that's where Christopher Reeve really nailed his role. When I was a kid and I saw SuperMan, I thought he was a cool guy. He's 6'4', he's strong, and the chicks loved him. Who doesn't want to be like that? In contrast, what fun is it to watch some dork like Maguire whine about his posture?

The rest of the cast isn't much better. I am no big fan of Kirsten Dunst. I have never understood the attraction. She's just a plump, plain-looking blonde with bad teeth. I don't think those are horrible qualities, but is it really worth applauding? She sleepwalks through her scenes with incredibly fake looking red hair, a dim smile on her face as if she didn't keep her eye on her drink at a frat party.

Willem Defoe, an actor whom I used to like, just creeps me out as the Goblin. There's something lizardlike about him. I think he'd make the perfect Gollum. We are forced to endure another shirtless wimp scene from Defoe. He does this in a lot of movies. It always looks like he's flexing really, really hard; like he's trying to _act_ muscle onto his chest. Poor guy. He's just so stringy, like a free-range chicken. And he has gotten really campy in his old age. I remember how much he stunk up `Boondock Saints', and from sheer good will I was willing to blame it on the director. Guess I was wrong.

Despite bad casting, there are other factors to keep the movie from being a success. All of the scenes seem to share the exact same lighting. This is particularly apparent on SpiderMan who is the bumpiest, shiniest 3D model I have ever seen. The whole thing looks very stagey - there is no feel of grit or reality to it. It's like watching a bunch of comic geeks re-enact some fan fiction they wrote and taped with their mom's camera. The direction just isn't exciting, and I don't feel like I'm watching a story as much as I am watching a re-enactment of a story. I am a big fan of Sam Raimi, but somehow he doesn't get it right this time.

The effects are uniformly horrible. When the CGI takes over it is blatant. Even the concepts for the effects are lame. When Peter caught all of Mary Jane's food on her plate a part of me died. It's so mundane and cutesy and looked so fake. All of the Green Goblin scenes felt like watching an episode of the Power Rangers. It's just cheap to have _two_ stars who fight only when they have completely obscured their faces. I guess I can just sense an outsourced fight. I picture Defoe eating a hot dog and Maguire getting a chiropractic house call in his trailer while these two stuntmen duke it out in Taiwan. So who should we root for: Quong, the sweaty stuntman in the Power Ranger suit, or Yubang in the Spiderman pajamas?

But the formula is well in stride so now we will have to endure a sequel to this travesty written by none other than `I'm gay, so give me an award' Michael Chabon. Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse.

Bad Boys II (2003)

Boring Boys

[22 December 2003]

The one word that best sums up this movie is boring. Certainly other words describe it: tasteless, self-satisfied, egotistical, childish, idiotic. But in the end the quality that sinks the movie is the fact that it is just too long and too little happens.

As many others have noted, the charm of "Bad Boys" was really that it was not planned to be a powerhouse hit. Sure there was some slow-motion and a few explosions, but the movie really worked because Lawrence and Smith had great on-screen chemistry. They played off of each other very well. The presence of Tea Leone - whose comic timing I did not appreciate until this awful sequel - only helped matters.

Now we have the requisite sequel, and it appears the gloves are off. Everything that worked in the first movie just bombs here because everyone seems so sure that it will work again. The chemistry between Lawrence and Smith seems forced as they go through the tired "Lethal Weapon" conversations; you know them by heart, "You're a loose cannon!" "I have three days to retirement!" "I'm putting in for a transfer!"

And perhaps the biggest killer of the movie is Smith's ego. There is not a single scene of Smith that doesn't involve slow-motion or some bimbo fawning over him. Smith slow-mo's into his bling-bling jacket and silk shirt. He slow-mo's into his car. He slow-mo bites into a sandwich. Everyone is so convinced that he's charismatic that they don't expect the guy to actually show any charisma.

Lawrence doesn't fare much better. He presents us with some tired family comedy (how in the heck does he afford that mansion on a cop's salary anyway?) and recycles his "I'm so mortified and grossed-out" jokes from the first movie. Other than that he seems remarkably tame, as if someone told him not to be funny.

Speaking of gross-out, there's an awful lot of that in this movie. Bay thinks it is high comedy to have heads fall of of decomposed bodies, and there is an intolerable scene in which the heroes chase a truck that hurls coffins and dead bodies at them - we then are treated to more detailed shots of said bodies exploding on the highway.

The movie is just childish and boring. I can't even remember the name of the villain, or what he was doing (something about Ecstasy, which wouldn't even be dangerous if dumbass cops like the ones played Lawrence and Smith didn't force it to be made by criminals with their self-obsessed drug war posturing). The car chases are moderately exciting, if ridiculous (after seeing two cop cars flip 20 times and blow up we hear the captain say "Thank God no cops were killed" - what, did they have ejector seats?). But by the time the gang invade Cuba you will probably be long tired of this crap.

28 Days Later (2002)

Yeah, I Don't Know

[14 November 2003]

Spoilers Man was this a disappointment. I remember when this movie came to theaters I was interested in seeing it, but it was taken out very quickly. So I waited for it to come to DVD, then had to wait for my stuff to arrive from a move so I could watch it in full widescreen glory. After months of hearing people say how great it was, I can't help but feel cheated.

It is strange that nowadays I hear people say "That movie was awesome!", then I'll watch it and disagree, and nine times out of ten their response is "Yeah, well, my expectations were so low ...". So if you lower your expectations enough, modern movies are palatable. How lame.

I think this movie is only "awesome" to someone who has had their standards for zombie movies lowered by such crap as "Resident Evil". As it is, the top zombie movie of all time is still "Dawn of the Dead". Everything since then, including the sequel "Day of the Dead", has been a shoddy rip-off. Some people will split hairs and say "these aren't zombies!" but they really are. They're just zombies that move fast, which was a good idea. In theory it would ratchet up the action. Funny that there is still so little of it in the movie.

The movie starts out okay, if a little predictably. Some guy wakes up in a hospital to find that the world has been taken over by flesh-eating "infected" people. Within the first few minutes the movie makes its first mistake: the man immediately falls in with other survivors, not spending any serious time on his own coping with the problem. His rather fey appearance and wimpish reaction to the situation makes him hard to accept as an action hero later in the movie.

Things quickly start to become a by-the-numbers affair. He meets a coed survivor group, with bulky masculine guy and suspiciously sexy, hardened, "I don't need anybody" female. Since the second guy is a problem he is immediately dispatched in a pretty cool scene (but it makes one wonder how the guy survived for so long, if he's so careless). Then the hero and heroine are free to ... ahem ... explore each other.

Here another mistake is made, as they again manage to find two other survivors immediately - a man and his daughter - and team up with them. I am a big fan of Brendan Gleeson and it's fun watching him work. But again the story begins to suffer from this development. Everyone suddenly decides to go try to find an Army station nearby that they pick up on the radio. On the way the crew stumble across a supermarket, with unlocked doors, whose wares are suspiciously clean and well-organized (you mean to tell me during the panic, chaos, riots, and confusion nobody thought to ransack the store?). They foolishly venture into a dark underground passage where they are bum-rushed by a bunch of infected guys, and manage to escape in a highly implausible manner (Gleeson would have to be pretty strong to lift a car with two people in it, and laden with groceries).

When they reach the Army station, everything falls apart. Gleeson dies in a ridiculous manner. The remaining guy and girls are taken to the army base, where the guy is told that the women will be raped and there is nothing he can do about it. He is taken out to be executed and escapes, then spontaneously turns into Rambo, surviving in the wilderness with no weapons or vehicle, then returning to off an entire squad of elite military personnel. Then he is gutshot, but due to the miracles of a quick fade and snappy editing, he is much better "28 days later ..." and is able to partake in a cheesy happy ending.

So many mistakes are made in this film. Why is our hero not given a chance to develop on his own before meeting others? Why are the others he meets so darn stupid? The film is strangely patterned after perhaps the worst zombie movie of all time, "Day of the Dead", in that it sets aside a perfectly good horror basis - zombies - and instead decides to go the well-trodden route of "man is the ultimate evil". The introduction of the squad of soldiers is the death's knell of the movie. From that point it's as if all logic and reason are discarded and a straightforward action movie ending is all the writer and director can imagine, complete with thudding techno music and neck-snapping rapid editing.

The ending is such an insult. We see our supposed hero gutshot, at close range, by a very powerful handgun. But he supposedly recovers without any experienced medical attention. It is true that alternate endings are included, in both of which the main character dies or is dead. But these are no consolation. The alternate ending thing is a cop-out. The movie should be the artist's statement, not a choose your own adventure book. They are telling the story, so they should decide what they want the story to be. Since they went with the idiotic happy ending, I can only assume that this is the story they decided was the best, which just puts the final crap touch on a crap movie.

While writing this review I happened to look up "Dawn of the Dead" and noticed that there is a remake in the works. So now the best zombie movie will be ruined too. But I'm sure everyone's expectations will be so low that they won't even notice it.

Dragnet (2003–2004)

Good Before the Tinkering

[13 October 2003]

One must really wonder why Hollywood execs are so damn stupid. Okay, Dragnet wasn't a powerhouse, runaway hit. But it was a solid show. So which is better: a show that develops a loyal following who watch it regularly, or a show that is tinkered with to get people interested, but so similar to everything else on the market that it dies a quick death?

Apparently ABC thinks the latter. Which is why we now have numerous tight-shirt-clad model-quality women wandering around the station house, pretending to be cops. Including the always annoying Rosalyn Sanchez, who is neither as attractive nor as good of an actress as she or her handlers seem to think. There's nothing wrong with having female cops on a show, but why are they always so stereotypically "attractive", and always wearing tight rayon shirts to show off their bulging silicone? Sure, breasts are fun. But is it necessary to dump sugar on our every meal? Do these catalog women really belong on a purportedly serious cop show with rumpled old Ed O'Neill?

Dragnet is an ancient franchise, one that was supposedly built on the strength of the stories. Ed O'Neill is a very good actor (and I wish the posters would stop with the lame "Married With Children" jokes, they're not funny). It is possible to have a good show that doesn't rely upon the tired formula of scantily-clad women pretending to be professionals in a professional environment. Look at the X-Files, which although flawed towards its end, started out as the tale of a rather mousy-looking guy and a kind of dumpy girl solving weirdo crimes. It gained acclaim from its stories. Even "ER" started with a lot of less-than-Fabios on its staff. Same goes for "NYPD Blue", which used to have "real" New Yorkers on its stage. Notice a pattern? After each of these shows started to add more and more models to the set, the show quality disintegrated. Sure, one of them is still a powerhouse, and one lasted for a while. But that's because they were spending good will they had built up with the audience. Dragnet wasn't left on its own long enough to build up good will; so now we have a cookie-cutter show that is trying to earn a place. And now it is sure to fail.

Please, for the love of god, stop tinkering with these shows to meet the teenage demographic! There are enough damn shows out there for small-minded, short-attention-span teenage boys. Give us some stories and something to figure out - you know, the things television crime shows used to be about.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

Such an Awful Movie

[30 August 2003]

I would not go so far as to say it is impossible to make an enjoyable movie from a video game. But I will say that it has yet to be accomplished. "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider" is just another miserable failure in a series of such events.

The movie completely fails to connect from its opening "action" scene - a concept itself ripped wholesale from Indiana Jones. Lara is raiding a tomb - or is she - and wrestles a 50,000 ton robot. Yes, wrestles a robot. In one particularly ridiculous scene the robot decks her with a metal hand. Lara grimaces, then wrestles it some more. When I was in Little League I was once hit in the head with an aluminum bat, and I was unconscious for almost fifteen minutes. If a robot decks you full strength and you aren't fazed, why pay any attention to it at all? Particularly, why continue to empty clip after clip of ammo into the thing when bullets just ricochet off of its exterior?

Now one can certainly say that the movie isn't based in reality, and one shouldn't nitpick it, blah blah. The story is obviously targeted at teens: from Lara's ridiculous, cone-shaped breasts to her short-shorts to her collagen-injected lips. But to those of us who have actually had sex in our lifetimes, it really is boring. Angelina Jolie just isn't that hot. I'm sorry. She is a blow-up doll with bulbous lips. The bad English accent is just insult added to injury. She apparently thinks this is real acting.

This movie, like so many other recent movies that have taken an existing action formula and tried to deliver a polished carbon copy, is a miserable experience. Nothing feels compelling. Everything is an injection-molded plastic replica of some idea that used to be fun. It makes me wonder what Indiana Jones would be like were the movies made today. Anyone remember how Indy fought? He was a brawler, and he got messy. He never did showy crap with his guns, he just used them. Here, whenever Lara has to use her guns, she is doing all kinds of twirls and flips with them (always in extreme close up to conceal the hand double). Her fights are that rapid-edit MTV chop-socky crap that pervades all modern cinema. If you want to impress me with a fight, pull the camera back and let me watch it.

There is no reason for this movie to exist except to ogle Angelina Jolie in tight clothing. Are we so afraid of being called gay that we can't reject such a ridiculous notion? I live in Southern California and I see women as attractive as Jolie on a daily basis. Big deal. I wouldn't watch any of them in a movie, so why Jolie? Why do we continue to lie to ourselves that she is a talented actress?

The biggest insult of this movie is watching Arnold Rimmer himself, Chris Barrie, slum it in true "I need a paycheck" style. I seriously hope the Red Dwarf movie makes it to the states so people can see him in a role that utilizes his comic talent, rather than wasting it like this cinematic insult does.

The Mayor of Casterbridge (2003 TV Movie)

Hardy? Har-Har

[23 August 2003]

Perhaps the task of bringing a Thomas Hardy novel to the screen is far too daunting for there to ever be great success. While "The Mayor of Casterbridge" is much less faulty than the popularized, stinkbomb screen version of "Jude", it still isn't a very good film.

I say this as a tremendous fan of the book. "Jude the Obscure" has many elements that make it more attractive to the adolescent reader: namely angst, angst, and more angst. But "The Mayor of Casterbridge" is simply a great novel. The characters are well-realized, the story involved, and there is even a moral to be learned. However, in converting the story to a screenplay, most of the power of the novel is lost.

The most obvious problem is the look of the movie. It is entirely off. Everyone is wearing shiny new clothes, the tents at the fair are brilliant white. People were just really dirty back then. None of this is conveyed in the film - everything looks like a set. I understand they were working with a small budget, but dirt is free.

If one looks at the production as a filmed play, the lack of credible atmosphere can be forgiven. But then there are the chainsaw-quality cuts to the story. Why does Henchard like Farfrae? We see a small scene where it is hinted that Farfrae saves his wheat. But this is no reason for them to become fast friends. Why does Henchard become embittered by Farfrae? In the book there are several instances where Farfrae seems to upstage Henchard. The movie shows only one, and a rather weak one at that. Suddenly Henchard wants to destroy Farfrae, and the character change doesn't seem reasonable.

Many of the scenes are drained of their power by the lackluster and low-quality direction and editing. The camera is mostly static, giving the story little power. I don't need MTV cuts but there is something to be said for moving the camera occasionally. There is no concept of time passing. Even a simple trick like showing a title card that says "one year later" could have helped this. Instead it's all piled together, with all the actors obviously the same age, and great leaps made in the story and relationships.

But most crippling is the way the editor does not allow many powerful scenes to play out. For example, when Henchard has died and his will is being read (in a classy voiceover), after the final word the scene just cuts to black. No slow fade, no pan to the sky, no swell of music. It's just over.

Perhaps this is the result of a longer movie being cut down to fit into a TV timeslot. But I doubt that, because the movie was originally made for television.

While it is certainly not the worst way to spend one's time, much greater satisfaction can be had by reading the book. It is a much better story through that medium.

The Wrong Man (1956)

Dreary, Slow, and Pointless

[8 July 2003]

Amazing that there are people who call this Hitchcock's best movie. This film is so slow and pointless that it is hard to believe it is even a Hitchcock film. There is no suspense, no tension, and no drama.

The basic story: Manny Balestrero is a jazz bass player in a night club. He has a wife and two sons, and they are barely making ends meet. He goes to the bank to see about borrowing money on his wife's insurance policy (to pay for a dental operation for his wife) and is mistakenly identified as a man who robbed the bank days earlier. The rest of the movie is spent, slowly, showing Manny trying to prove his innocence.

But the thing is, it's not suspenseful at all. We know Manny is innocent. We also know it is unlikely he will be jailed for a crime he did not commit. How odd that Hitchcock, the man who practically invented the suspenseful movie, can do nothing with this material. Even when Manny learns that everyone who can confirm his innocence has died, nothing is done with the fact. No intrigue, no development. Manny just looks sad some more.

Most of the scenes drag on intolerably. Perhaps they were shocking to white America at the time - I doubt most white-collar people had seen the inside of a holding cell, or knew what happened when you were brought in for questioning. And it is somewhat funny to see how horribly police could treat suspects back then. Manny is arrested without being told what he did, is not allowed to call his wife, and is put through the most laughably inept investigation process ever organized. The police actually have him write out two copies of the stick-up note for a "handwriting comparison", then use the notes he wrote to indict him. And the lineup is particularly hilarious. The people doing the identification are in plain sight, with the light over their head dimmed. But after identifying the criminal, they walk out where the suspects can see them!

The movie plods along, and there is no resolution. By the end Manny's wife has gone crazy (no real reason why, women went crazy at the drop of a hat in 50's movies) and is institutionalized. Manny's innocence is proven because he prays - an unbelievably insulting notion. There is a bunch of religious nonsense thrown in at the last minute, in an attempt to lend the movie credence. After his devout mother reminds him to pray for strength, the real criminal commits another stickup and is caught. His innocence does not help his wife's condition, but as the movie ends we are treated to a Dragnet-style text summation informing us that his wife regained her sanity two years later. Ridiculous.

There is nothing to recommend this movie. I saw it for free on a movie channel and it wasn't worth the time I invested. I would recommend any other Hitchcock movie before this one.

Die Another Day (2002)

Strangely Uncompelling

[13 June 2003]

Bond is strict action fantasy; this is understood coming in. However, for some reason "Die Another Day" seems to make the fantasy more laughable than exciting, more ho-hum than entertaining. I actually fell asleep watching it on my DVD player.

Problems seem obvious from the opening scene, which has Bond and two cohorts surfing(!) into Northern Korea. Why? Well, the demographics and focus groups told the filmmakers that the kids think surfing is cool. And didn't Vin Diesel ride a snowboard down an avalanche in the dreadful "xXx"? Well, then Bond has to surf!

Nevermind that it makes absolutely no sense, and is the most impractical way he could get where he's going. Nevermind that it is ludicrously implausible - after landing on the beach Bond removes about 100 pounds of gear from his surfboard, which would have made it sink. Nevermind that to become a champion surfer one must spend years and years honing the craft. Nevermind that there are extremely few British surfers. Bond must surf!

I am reminded of the infinitely cooler submarine car used in previous Bond films. It was believable (in an action-fiction sense), and sensible - a car can carry more, requires very little skill to pilot, etc. Even delivery by submarine would be cooler, or just swimming into shore in a frogman outfit. Why surfing?

All plausibility is thrown out the window. Bond is captured and spends 14 months in a North Korean prison, being starved, beaten, and tortured. Upon release he is in perfect health - chest bulging, skin in perfect shape, teeth clean and straight. The only sign of his torture is that he now has a beard and really long hair. Approximately two days after being released he then swims a mile-long channel, gives himself a professional haircut in a hotel room, and is back on the job.

I understand it's fantasy. But shouldn't fantasy be charming? I like Pierce Brosnan - I was a fan of Remington Steele way back in the day - but he has almost zero warmth. His Bond is so plastic, so stiff, that I just can't accept the plot devices.

Throw into the mix a few other regrettable choices: Madonna as a fencing instructor, Halle Berry as an emaciated Bond girl, some guy who spends millions on "DNA replacement" but doesn't remove the diamonds embedded in his face, etc. It's not particularly compelling or interesting. And while there is no joke as cringeworthy as its predecessor's "I thought Christmas only came once a year!", the jokes proferred aren't particularly witty or memorable.

I dozed off as Bond was chasing the villain in Cuba, right after Berry's Nestea plunge. Perhaps I'll watch the rest ... but probably not.

Death to Smoochy (2002)

Loud, Obnoxious, and Not Funny

[12 June 2003]

This movie is like a laundry list of everything that can go wrong with a comedy. It is rife with unfunny situations, stultifying attempts at sincerity, overbearing and obnoxious performances, and ridiculous characters. Worse, it is stocked with actors who routinely do not fit their characters, causing the manufactured sense of this product to waft skyward like the polyurethane stench of a shallow kiddie pool.

While it is certainly possible that the world of kids entertainers is fertile ground for a comedy, this movie just isn't it. For some reason the screenwriter thinks that it is comedy gold to present a situation in which there are a bunch of kids waiting expectantly for something, and then an adult says something naughty. This gag is used numerous times throughout the film, and it is never creative or funny. Most of the other scenes consist of Norton spouting some New Age nonsense that isn't funny because it's meant to be funny, not sincere; or Robin Williams acting manic. Unfortunately after about 20 years of being manic Robin Williams, the routine's a little stale.

There is another adult-oriented movie about childrens' entertainers called "Shakes the Clown" that succeeds where this one fails precisely because that movie has the decency to wallow in its own crassness. Robin Williams appears in both movies; given the general lack of quality of his comedy as his years have progressed, it should not be surprising that "Shakes" is his better performance. Makes one wonder about the wisdom of giving up cocaine. I mean, I'm glad for his health that he's off the pipe, but he used to be funny. Remember Mork?

"Smoochie" never finds its tone, and thus fails as entertainment. I cannot think of a single film that has successfully blended adult situations, juvenile humor, feigned sincerity about the welfare of children, and violence. Possibly because there is no worthwhile story that would require such a recipe. In attempting to appeal to every demographic, every focus group, "Smoochie" succeds admirably in being a thoroughly mediocre and forgettable film in all respects.

Of the movie's many shortcomings, I must admit one in particular bothers me. Henry Rollins should have gotten the role as Spinner. I don't say this because I believe Rollins is a particularly good actor; the point is that the role required someone who was believable as a psychotic, punch-drunk retired boxer. Rollins has the energy and focus to deliver such a character. The guy they got just doesn't. He fails to take over his scenes, which is what a manic character is supposed to do - how can you be manic and be secondary in your scenes? Rollins tells a great story about how he lost this role by being too enthusiastic about it - that story is much funnier than anything in this fiasco.

Through the entire running time of this movie I encountered two jokes that made me chuckle: the stepfather song and a one-liner by a thug about the differences between law enforcement and mob violence. The rest is unbearable. Don't suffer my fate. Rent "Shakes the Clown" instead.

Reign of Fire (2002)

A Colossal Misfire

[8 June 2003]

When this movie was announced, quite a few of us were very excited. I had never seen a good dragon movie before - it seems dragon movies are either maudlin and sentimental, or just silly. Unfortunately after seeing "Reign of Fire", I still haven't seen a good dragon film.

There are numerous problems with the movie, the first of which is the strange decision to skip the destruction of the major cities and instead zoom forward to the future. The curious lack of dragons is probably the biggest problem with the film. We see a poorly-edited and truncated dragon attack in the beginning, then are forced to endure a long stretch with rebels huddling in a dank castle. The dragon attacks throughout the rest of the movie are mostly unsatisfying, as they generally involve one dragon against a few defenseless humans.

Also disturbing is the inability of the dragons to stick to their preordained behavior. We are told repeatedly that they "eat ash", yet several scenes involve them chomping live human beings, or at one point eating each other raw. And at one point the humans flee, saying "They don't care about us ... they just want the ash from the field." So why don't the dragons attack the field?

We are never told how the dragons know when people are out and about. They just magically appear when they need to. For people who have survived as long against the dragons, the humans in the castle are also poorly equipped and show total disregard for safety. After killing one dragon they fire up gigantic spotlights and blast them across the sky; candles blaze in every window. Their early warning system consists of a bird and a spyglass.

Not that they do much better when Van Zan shows up. The entire Van Zan plotline is poorly thought out from the beginning - how this person and his troops managed to survive in the open countryside for so long, how they found ammunition and fuel ... so many questions left unanswered. In the only scene of the group traveling they are attacked, quite sensibly, by a dragon and their ranks utterly destroyed. This never happened before?

Then it is revealed how they attack the dragons - the ludicrous idea of skydiving and attempting to snare them in a net. In the one attempt they lose two men. One burns in (apparently they have no AADs on their chutes, and no altimeter) and the other gets chomped. The skydiving itself is pretty ludicrous - I have 32 freefalls and have never seen 15000 feet of vertical cloud cover - and at one point the dragon shoots a wall of flame from his mouth, while plummeting face first. Impossible.

Okay, so it is a technical misfire. It is a plotting misfire - nothing happens that is particularly compelling. And then there is the resolution, which is absolutely inane. The heroes reveal that there must be one male - one - and if they find him and kill him the race will die out. Yeah, seems sensible ... one male? The finale then becomes a poorly choreographed showdown between three people and the one male dragon. Very unsatisfying.

Most confusing are the characters. McConaughey plays Van Zan as a cigar-chomping, wild-eyed Texas lunatic, spouting nonsense like "Eden isn't burning, it's burnt!" Bale is mostly whiny, and Izabella Scorupco doesn't really register. They fail to work as a unit; the rest are mostly redshirts waiting to get burned in anonymous action sequences.

This was definitely a disappointment. Due to its poor box office returns I doubt they will make another, but it would be much cooler to see the destruction of cities, and actual battle with the dragons, than this low-rent rebel camp nonsense.

We Were Soldiers (2002)

War Movie Making 101

[7 June 2003]

I'm not at all surprised that this generally terrible movie has such high ratings. It succeeds in every respect as a formulaic, jingoistic war movie - pushing all the scripted buttons in order - in a time when a love affair when all things military is in full swing.

That said, it is an objectionably bad movie.

In some ways we have Spielberg to blame. After the technically proficient but rather poorly written "Saving Private Ryan", there was a surge in popularity for "real" war movies. Making a war movie became all about how gruesome one could make the battle scenes. The stories have all been on autopilot, the same ragtag bunch of misfits spouting heroic lines that have been pushed onto the silver screen since WWII.

"We Were Soldiers" is a bad movie because it contains so little imagination, and although the battle scenes are sufficiently traumatic, the movie drags at all other times. It simply feels manipulative. From the "Daddy, what's a war?" moments in Mel Gibson's home to the scene where Randall Wallace speaks for the disenfranchised black man, it's just embarassing.

Unfortunately for Wallace it all falls on him. Sure, Gibson is coasting, doing a bad American accent and his usual hard-swallowing, not-gonna-cry emoting. But the actors can't really be blamed: it is what they are forced to say, and the way they are told to say it, that ruins this movie.

It is also shameful the way Wallace wraps his movie in god-and-country symbolism. Lots of scenes in churches or of flags blowing triumphantly in the breeze. Numerous statements of purpose and valor. Men on their knees in churches asking the Almighty to smite their foe.

Perhaps the most technically inept of Wallace's numerous trip-ups is the repeated use of an annoying Scottish lament, which most viewers have come to know as the "Lay Me Doon" song. It consists of mournful Scottish music and a Scotsman repeating over and over, "Lay Meeee Dooooon ... In the cooold coold grooond ..." It is unintentionally hilarious, mostly because he uses it like ten times.

I'm certain that it is technically and factually accurate, as far as the events go (something they brag about in a separate movie). One thing I can commend Wallace for is showing the folly of going back for a wounded friend - every time someone screams "Frank, noooo!" and goes back to pick up his buddy, you know he's done for. But as far as entertainment goes, it could have been pulled out of a WWII time capsule. It's propaganda, and poorly-written propaganda at that. Good propaganda doesn't let you know when you are being manipulated. Here we feel the strings tugging at all times.

I guess if you really want to be grossed out by some war footage, this is as good a place as any to turn. When I first saw it I rented it and fast-forwarded through all the "war at home" moments, and it was almost bearable.

About a Boy (2002)

Almost Perfect

[2 June 2003]

The movie adaptation of "About a Boy" was a pleasant surprise to me, coming on the heels of the dreadful Americanized version of "High Fidelity". "About a Boy" succeeds in every area where "High Fidelity" failed; it not only faithfully recaptures the tone of the novel, but expands upon it to make a very good movie.

Possibly the largest problem with "High Fidelity" was that it was adapted to an American setting, with American characters. I don't believe either setting is objectively better, but both of Hornby's books are extremely British. The characters, the dialogue, the settings, all work because of their original setting. When making "High Fidelity" the filmmakers seemed to think they could solve this problem with name actors and by cranking up the volume (a typical problem with Americanizations). It just didn't work.

"About a Boy" succeeds because it is low-volume. It is a very low-key study of a small set of characters and their relationships. I've never been a fan of Hugh Grant - the nod and tick, the self-conscious stammering - but he does an excellent job in this role. In fact, all of the actors are quite good. And the director does an admirable job of not allowing the story to become sappy or manipulative.

Perhaps the biggest difference between the two adapations is that in this one there is no talking to the camera, a conceit that has become pervasive and annoying. There are voiceovers (as there is a lot of inner monologue that must be explained) but they do not detract from the experience.

It is odd that one can spend so long talking about the faults of something they dislike, but explaining what one likes is so difficult. This movie simply works; it is a complete, self-contained universe and is very effective. I highly recommend it. Since the book and the movie do have some differences, I would also recommend reading the book.

Takedown (2000)

Decent Hacker Film

[25 May 2003]

This is a decent hacker film, in that the scenes of hacking are somewhat realistic and not the CGI-aided, flashy-screen crap that Hollywood has been foisting upon us for years. Also commendable is the manner in which the screenwriters show Mitnick's abilities to "human engineer" his future victims, cold-calling them and convincing them to give him closely guarded secrets.

The movie has several flaws, because it was meant to be entertainment rather than a true story. It is also cut way too fast, with a lot of jarring editing and unnecessary blaring techno music.

There are many people who feel the movie is unfair to Kevin Mitnick. In the first place, it is fiction. In the second place, Mitnick is a criminal. I lived through the whole "Free Kevin" nonsense push, and was very quickly turned off by the way the pro-hacker movement wanted to whitewash away Mitnick's crimes and portray him as an innocent victim. The man broke into numerous secure systems and stole data, hijacked cell phone lines accruing hundreds of thousands of dollars of stolen air time, infiltrated private data accounts, and electronically harassed those who were pursuing them. He broke the law, and his avoidance of prosecution for breaking the law only stiffened the fine he would pay.

While I am certainly not for the unlawful incarceration of any criminal, nor the denial of their rights, we must be clear that hacking is not a right. Hacking is exactly the same as breaking into someone's house. The defense "I was just looking around" means nothing; the crime is breaking in, not what you do with what you find. That is the law. At one point in the movie the Mitnick character says "I could steal money from all these banks, but I don't!". Well, that certainly doesn't mean he won't if he needs to, or that he won't give the information to others with less scruples. It's rather like saying, "Sure I have all this nitroglycerine, but you don't see me blowing anybody up, do you?"

Mitnick is not a hero, except to the rather sad hacker community who want to believe they can violate the law - because they have the ability - and not face the consequences. I am glad that he is no longer in prison, as I understand he faced some terrible events there that far outweigh what he did as a hacker. But he knew the risks when he undertook his criminal activity, and I cannot feel sorrow for him.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

A Disappointment

[1/10 · 16 May 2003]

People often say that sequels will always disappoint. There are two schools of thought for this: either you loved the first one so much that the second will be disappointing due to high expectations, or sequels just always suck.

That's a rather defeatist way to look at movies. First, there have been numerous successful sequels. "The Empire Strikes Back" was quite good, establishing a large chunk of story and still managing to be involving. Same for "X2", which wasn't perfect but was very enjoyable.

So sequels can be good. This is just a case of one that isn't.

There is a widely-established myth that "The Matrix" was a perfect movie. It definitely wasn't. It was very derivative, ripping most of its technobabble and sci-fi base from Dick and Gibson. Where it excelled was the way the story was told. The world was (mostly) believable and gritty, the characters very involving, the actors perfect.

The sequel fails because the Wachowski brothers seem to have fallen victim to the same trap that befell George Lucas: they believe people loved their movie for the plot (which was shoddy at best) and spend an inordinate amount of time expounding upon said plot. And expounding. And so on.

There are so many lengthy scenes of people debating emptily about the meaning of life. Very little is actually said in these debates and lectures. It's just rambling, and it becomes irritating. Most egregious is the final speech given by "The Architect", where it is obvious that the Wachowski brothers were thinking "If we make it confusing and use big words, people will assume it's deep." The Architect prattles on about fate and choice (for the fiftieth time) while 400 images of Neo do painful emoting exercises on the background screens. It's unbearable.

The problem with the movie is that these scenes make up the majority of the film, along with excruciatingly long and detailed kissing and romantic scenes. This is not an epic, it is sci-fi schlock with very good action scenes. When did the Wachowski's start to believe the fanboi hype?

Another major problem is that the action is amazingly well choreographed, but not in the least bit compelling. Neo is Superman, he cannot be killed and we know this. It is unlikely that Morpheus or Trinity will die (although the possibility of one is presented as a tease). Thus, when they fight you're just admiring the choreography.

Jackie Chan has repeatedly noted that in order for a fight scene to sell, people have to be hit. The viewer has to _feel_ the impact. But it is obvious that the punches aren't landing in this movie. Everyone is fighting so fast and doing so many acrobatic movies that the punches are secondary. In the Burly Brawl (the popular name for the fight against the myriad Agent Smiths) Keanu is just doing kata, dancing and spinning and it never feels like any punches land.

That and the over-reliance on bullet time and wire-fu seriously detract from the battles. In several instances you can clearly see where the wires take over, so Keanu will smack someone and they will jolt up, then back at an incredible speed as the wire pulls them into some obstacle. It's just not compelling. Real fans of kung fu movies want to see real fights, not dancing. Not to mention the way Keanu escapes from danger (flying away in a Superman pose) just begs the question, why doesn't he do it sooner? If he can swoop in and save his friends, why waste time punching and kicking?

I don't hate the film, it had its high points. I expect it would be a better experience at home, with a remote control, to skip past all the pretentious speechifying and cheesy romance scenes.

But in the end I can't help but feel taken. "The Matrix" was not planned as a trilogy (no matter what they tell you now, it was a standalone movie and was "developed" into a trilogy when it became a success, which is why it took four years). Thus the newer movies are plagued by a feeling of padding, of "haven't we already seen and heard this ten times?" that is neither compelling nor interesting.

It has an 8.1 rating here on IMDB, and it is already a financial smash. How ironic that a movie about being enslaved by machines has turned into its own mechanical franchise, where fanbois and yes-men salivate and prostrate themselves before the altar.

Return of the Living Dead III (1993)

Not Bad

[15 May 2003]

I enjoyed this movie. It's definitely cheesy, and by no means the best zombie movie made. But overall it's very sincerely written and acted.

The basic story: Curt and Julie are young lovers. Curt's father is a ranking member of the military, involved in a top-secret project. Curt steals his father's pass key and sneaks into the base, with his girlfriend, where they observe experiments which return the dead to life. Later, when Julie is killed in a rather funny motorcycle accident, Curt has the brilliant idea to bring her back to life using the zombie gas. Things get gory from here on.

The love story is a bit silly, as both of the youths are initially represented as being callow and self-centered, and then must be seen as Romeo and Juliet type star-crossed lovers. But the dialogue is rather good, the characters enjoyable, and the story progresses in a way to keep the scenario threatening but believably contained.

However, there are some general problems I have noticed with the way the "Living Dead" series has developed:

• When did they decide to make the zombies invincible? There is no way to kill them, one can only freeze them and lock them up in barrels (no wonder they're so mad!)

• The concept of zombies as a biological weapon is pretty inane, as the zombies would bite their victims ... who would then turn into zombies!

• In the first Return, there was another couple who were just as in love as the couple in this film. Yet in this film love keeps Julie from eating Curt's brain. Surely all fans remember the ending scenes of the first Return, where the zombie boyfriend attacks his girlfriend ("I love you ... that's why you have to let me EAT YOUR BRAINS!!!").

Overall I wasn't sure how to take Julie as a zombie. She was remarkably coherent and intelligent (the other zombies grunt and groan, Julie was able to carry on conversations long, long after being turned into a zombie). It seemed a bit contrived.

The low budget was very obvious at times. There is a scene where Curt has to wrestle open a "heavy" door - then bumps into it and it is plainly made of paper. There are a few places like this, but I found it more funny than disappointing.

In the end it's a decent zombie film. Not too much gore, not too innovative in the way the zombies attack their victims. The grossest part has to be when Curt kisses the undead Julie - right after she eats some guy's brains! And she didn't even brush!

When all is told, this is just a heartwarming story about a boy who wants to move to Seattle with his zombie girlfriend. Can anyone ask for more?

Jason X (2001)

Why This Type of Movie Isn't Scary

[10 May 2003]

A victim of serialization, Jason just isn't a scary concept anymore. So it shouldn't be surprising that the movie itself isn't scary, or frankly even watchable.

The concept of the omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient bad guy is quite old, dating back to Laurel and Hardy meeting the Mummy. As a basis for true horror it simply lacks power.

This is because horror stories must have rules. A movie can not be compelling or suspenseful if the villain has no defining boundaries, no weaknesses. Zombies can be decapitated. Vampires can be staked, broiled in the sun, sauteed with garlic. Werewolves catch a silver bullet. But what kills Jason?

As ten movies have slavishly documented, apparently nothing. In this film he absorbs thousands of bullets and remains standing. He is a marksman with his machete, capable of piercing your heart at 1000 yards with a tomahawk throw. He has the strength of whatever number of men necessary to complete the superhuman feat being filmed. If decapitated, he becomes a computer virus, then morphs into some Borg creature. This guy's like a frickin' Go-Bot.

The original story was, I believe, about a boy who drowned at summer camp and came back from the dead to exact revenge. It was an effective scary movie, setting very good tone and just being generally creepy. How has this concept morphed into a story about a cybernetic killer on a spaceship?

Adding insult to injury is the slipshod manner in which the story is presented. The sets are fakey, the actors low-rent pretty faces who cannot even keep from smirking. There is little gore, and no innovative or particularly gruesome deaths. The one-liners are just not funny. In fact, the jokes scattered throughout the movie are all unfunny, and do nothing to help the already uninvolving atmosphere.

I'm simply left wondering: what is the point? The movie fails to scare, so it's not a horror film. It fails to generate laughter, so it's not a comedy. It couldn't be drama if that was Glenn Close behind the hockey mask. There is simply no reason for this movie to exist. It has no audience, except people who can be suckered in by the name brand.

Lest I sound too critical, I will state that there is one scene - one - in the film that worked. Do not read ahead if you don't want it spoiled. At the end, one of the characters has the brilliant idea to decoy Jason at a critical moment by projecting a holographic camper in a sleeping bag for him to kill. That made me laugh. He may be a sellout, but Jason sure hates them campers.

The Animatrix (2003)

Goofy

[1/10 · 7 May 2003]

I finally watched this short after months of people telling me it is "amazing", "awesome", etc. Perhaps all the build-up helped ruin it, but this is the goofiest thing I have seen in ages.

First, the film doesn't actually explain anything. It is simply re-telling the hoary old tale of "man makes machines, machines revolt". There is no explanation of the rise of the machines - they just rise. At the beginning of the film the machines are clearly machines. Then for a part they look like humans. Then they look like machines again. Which is it?

There's nothing new here. There's not even an explanation of how the machines become self-aware. One minute they aren't, next minute they are. And mankind is so cruel - he doesn't want to give the machines equal rights! Don't you see, that robot killed those humans because we're EVIL!

For years sci-fi has been attempting to sell us this navel-gazing, "mankind sucks" line of BS. The humans in this story are needlessly cruel - because to sci-fi geeks that's all humans ever are (why can't they accept me _and_ my wizard cape?).

It's thinly-veiled leftist nonsense. Examine the scene at the UN, where the robots come in (without human skin) dressed in a top hat, holding hands, carrying an apple of peace. Mankind will have none of this peace nonsense! Tear them apart!

Maybe that's why I didn't enjoy the film. It's like a hippie propaganda piece.

Fatalism and self-hatred are not automatically art. These shorts are just as weak as "AI". Their only saving grace is that they have some pretty cool animation.

"The Matrix" is an obvious rip-off of Dick and Gibson. What made it cool was the look and feel - there was a grittiness to the movie that made it very intense. Translated to a clean, hard-edged anime world, it doesn't retain its power. "Ghost in the Shell" is a much better handling of similar material. "Animatrix" is just a licensed knock-off.

Identity (2003)

You Must Be Joking

[1 May 2003]

This movie has an average of over 7? You must be joking. Perhaps these people saw a different movie than I did.

This is such a terrible movie that words fail me. It is nothing more than a haphazard mish-mash of elements from several other movies, none of which retain any of their power. The screenwriter is actually ballsy enough to even throw in "it was built on an Indian burial ground!" as a red herring. And he's being serious!

This movie reinforces my belief that there must be a moratorium placed on stories about multiple personality disorder (MPD). It is a notion that Hollywood hacks have fallen in love with, largely because they are unimaginative and uncreative. Whenever a movie is advertised as having a "twist" nowadays, you can rest assured it will either be MPD, or that the main character is in fact a ghost. Give it a rest.

This film again reveals two major problems with Hollywood constructions: falling in love with a result and working backwards from it. Hack screenwriters love the MPD spin, because it lets them do all kinds of "effective" scenes and tricks, like showing one face while another voice is speaking. Spooky! The writer and director don't care how they get to the effect, they just want the result in their movie. It's like a demo reel, or a fisheye effect in a rap video.

The movie is not exciting, scary, or the least bit compelling. The horror is strict fright movie cliche (woman looking over her shoulder while walking forwards and bumping into someone she knows, people grabbing each other's shoulders and jumping, etc). And the MPD story is strictly by-the-numbers. If you've seen a movie before and have half a brain, you'll figure out the ending within 15 minutes. I spent more time counting plot holes and inconsistencies. The psychobabble may get the liberals yakking (although I'm not sure why it's okay to execute a sane murderer but not a crazy one, aren't they more dangerous?) The movie barely hits the 90 minute mark, including previews and credits, yet it still feels overlong.

Please, learn from my mistake and just avoid it. Don't waste your time.

Panic Room (2002)

This is a Terrible Movie

[29 April 2003]

I wrote a rather lengthy previous review of this movie, pointing out the reasons why I find it so objectionable. I'm not surprised it didn't get printed. IMDB has become extremely corporate, and does the best it can to filter good reviews.

That aside, this movie is still terrible. I saw it recently on a movie channel and decided to give it another shot. It makes even less sense on the second viewing.

What pervades this film is an obvious sense of not caring. This can be completely attributed to David Koepp's awful screenplay. As the movie progresses it becomes Pollyanna-esque. It is evident that any plot contrivance which can place the heroines in peril will be used, regardless of its inanity or detriment to the impact of the story.

The setup itself is ridiculous: recently-independent feisty woman with diabetic daughter alone in giant brownstone they obviously cannot afford. I could take that, alone. Really. But things quickly get worse.

The first obvious problems are Koepp's terrible, cringing attempts at humor. Scenes which should be serious are wrapped up with zingers and one-liners which just thud. An example is the pyrotechnic scene with the propane. Immediately after the action, Meg cracks wise with her daughter, "Don't you ever do that!" It just doesn't work. One-liners are a relic from 80's popcorn action films. I remember few in masterful suspense movies.

Detailing the numerous, obvious flaws and plot holes would take pages. But I will list a few of my favorites:

• The door makes a tremendous noise when opened. That is covered early in the film, then is forgotten later, when the plot requires it. - When Meg comes out to get her cell phone, the bed has at least a foot of clearance underneath it. Yet she only just puts her arm under the bed, and struggles to reach it. This is so she will knock over the lamp and alert the criminals. - The cell phone would have worked if she reached all the way out the duct. - Simply dialing 911 would have brought a desired response from the cops. - If the job was supposed to be easy, why were three guys involved ... except to get the requisite crazy gunman into the tale.

This is all very early in the film. This is when Koepp and Fincher should be building the suspense, drawing us in. But it's hard to do that when the setup is so contrived and mechanical.

The payoff at the end is itself fraught with problems, not the least of which is the Van Damme comeback of the guy who gets whacked in the face with a sledgehammer. I've actually seen that once before in a Three Stooges short.

I have never seen a good movie by David Koepp. Some good ideas, but all with lazy and sloppy execution. It seems he works backwards from the results: he sees where he needs to go and hacks out a path to it. That's product development, not writing.

What we had here was a cool concept for a story, some really good actors, and a good director. Koepp just blew it. But it sold pretty well, so expect "Panic Room 2: Panic Harder" any day now.

DEFCON-4 (1985)

Get off your high horse and enjoy it, eh?

[10 March 2003]

Perhaps my enjoyment of this movie largely stems from my not being Canadian. It seems that the Canadian reviewers have a grudge against the film. I can only imagine that they are getting some inside jokes that I am not.

I have liked this film since I was a kid. I rank it up there with "The Day After" as one of the better post-apocalyptic movies made. A lot of people give that honor to "Mad Max", but I found "Mad Max" boring and far too campy.

"Def Con 4" takes a serious tone, which is occasionally undermined by poor acting and special effects. But the overall impression is quite good. Sure it's fun to make fun of, but this is largely because we no longer live with the fear of nuclear war on a daily basis.

I found the writing to be quite good, with an effective and interesting opening drawing the viewer into the life of the astronauts as they waited to return to Earth. The movie is actually quite solid until it is necessary for a new conflict to be introduced - when the surviving astronauts meet the teenage, post-apocalyptic Hitler, the downhill slide begins. But even then it's not terrible. It's actually fun seeing how seriously everyone is treating the subject matter. And how can you not love a movie that begins with "It is the day after tomorrow"? The movie also has quite possibly the best tractor-immobilization sequence ever committed to celluloid.

On the downside, the action sequences are rather ineptly filmed, and the acting can be a bit wooden. But, hey, it's a low-budget sci-fi film. I recommend it for a fun evening.

And Your Mother Too (2001)

Doesn't Live Up To The Hype

[19 February 2003]

I understand that it's common practice to fall all over oneself praising independent film - particularly foreign independent film. Since this is also an erotic film, well, you've got the arties just drooling to talk about how "great" it is.

But look at what the film is. It starts off with about 15 minutes of fart jokes and standard stoner movie chaff. We are introduced to two worthless teenagers, sons of rich families, who basically do nothing but have sex, get high, and drive around. Then we meet the older woman whose husband cheats on her, who decides that sleeping with teenagers and then killing herself is the best solution. They drive and talk and have R-rated sex and that's about it.

People often confuse commentary on nihilism with documentary of nihilism. This movie is the latter. There is no real commentary given. Some have praised the movie for showing the poor side of Mexico - but that's all it does. It shows it. Like it's a sideshow. It's an obvious attempt to lend the movie more credence than it has. Then it rolls on, and the fart jokes and adolescent sex continue.

If you get great kicks out of seeing teenage boy ass, or from seeing two teenage boys make out with each other while an older woman pretends to give them oral sex, well, this is your movie. There's more nude adolescent in this film than five Joel Schumacher movies. And the sex is boooorrring. It's Skinemax standard - covered shots, rapid movement, concealing camera angles.

And the most annoying bit about the movie is the ending. Suicide endings are cop-outs. They are blatant heartstring tuggers, used when the person writing the movie can't think of a logical character arc. It's weak and tiresome.

If you want porn, rent a porn. If you want a good adolescent sexual awakening story, rent "Last Tango" or any of the other 100 movies that have already covered this theme. "Y Tu Mama Tambien" just isn't worth your time.