prezike Reviews

Curb Your Enthusiasm: Insufficient Praise (2020) Season 10, Episode 5

One of the most hilarious, "pretty, pretty good" episodes

[10/10 · 19 February 2020]

Wow. I could barely breathe as I was laughing at one point.

And yet, it wasn't the only time I was laughing hard.

Absolutely brilliant...pretty, pretty good!

Succession: Tern Haven (2019) Season 2, Episode 5

Potential great episode ruined by deux ex machina plot device

[6/10 · 24 September 2019]

I really have come to really enjoy this show, but what happened here is beyond a head scratcher, and perhaps indicates the realities of pressure from a business POV to get the story moving along, because otherwise the key moment makes absolutely no sense.

Not sure how one can rate this episode so highly, even when to the point of Shiv's decision, it stood out, yes. Not quite where the season finale did last year, but was up there.

What she decided to do at the dinner made absolutely no sense for the "chosen one" who has shown impulsive behavior with her decisions, yet mostly pertaining to sex/relationships, but even there she has been calculating and I cannot recall anything remotely close to a decision like this with her career, where she has been highly shrewd.

No sane person would do what she did. Even her brother wouldn't. At a sensitive dinner/meeting you disclose a huge secret that no one else knows? WHAAAAT?

***EMOJIE OF ME SMACKING MY FOREHEAD***

What a terrible shame this moment was to impact a show that has been so good. I doubt the writers really wanted this moment to happen at all. Clearly, we can see that even a TV series on HBO has its limits to depth and growth.

I cannot explain it otherwise.

Designated Survivor (2016–2019)

The epitome of how U.S. network TV has fast become irrelevant

[4/10 · 17 August 2019]

This has all of the potential to be a fantastic show. I was excited about the premise and supposedly I would like it, so claimed a streaming site's algorithm. Within 2-3 episodes I am REALLY struggling to maintain my patience, and almost embarrassed to mention I was curious to see it to friends, not knowing it was an ABC program initially. I figured out quite quickly it was made for network TV based on the breaks for commercial and style wise, and I tried to stick with it. Maybe I will, but it doesn't look good for me or the show's life in mine.

Sure, the show is somewhat admirably attempting to take its queue from Sutherland's former lead role in the massive network TV hit, '24.' It also shares stylistically and content-wise, another hit, 'Scandal.' These shows have "proven" success, so this is how network and pseudo-middle range yet really catering to the lowest common denominator dramas work and are why effectively not a single one of these has been able to maintain a smidgen of supremacy as say compared to HBO and more hard hitting writing, risk taking and programming that they have not merely carved a market out of, but led the entire industry, culturally, except for these left overs.

As much these network TV style shows have their fans (I am not naive) I can say the shallowness and cliched nature embodied in the style of writing, direction, acting and the vastly overlooked way these shows approach cinematography (ugly and generic as ever is putting it mildly), which I gather Hollywood has sought to maintain as it's been shown to be effective, but in the end is its undoing as it is the definition of "formula" and forgettable.

What made '24' was how it was unique in it's own way, but even 24 had better direction, IMHO.

This however, is a devine tragedy of film making that this is still around, and I didn't even get into how ridiculous everything else about this show is writing wise, acting wise (Sutherland seems woefully miscast, strangely enough and when they throw a kevlar vest on him I was like...I see...'24' now?, but not doing it). I am at a loss as to why this was ever liked by anyone. You have to help me understand why Perhaps you liked 'Olympus Has Fallen'? (another I can barely watch) I know you can't argue with most who like something, but it helps me understand what the litmus test for its audience, and a warning for others who might be duped as I was.

If you are even remotely a bit of a "film" (not "movie") person, that asks for certain levels of realness to suspend disbelief you will be struggling to enjoy this. Please also don't assume I can't get into some ridiculous storylines as I am an avid fan of almost every Liam Neeson stupid action film for some reason, but at least they have style and aren't made for network TV, which I am almost certain now is the highest risk for for film.

Save yourself.

Deep State (2018–2019)

British Jason Bourne

[9/10 · 21 July 2018]

Odd to call it as such given that Bourne was a copy of Bond, but this series thus far has more in common with for former than the latter.

Regardless, this is a very well written political/spy thriller (5 episodes in) that is entertaining and intelligent. Each episode (as I recall) ends with a cliffhanger, so will keep you wanting more.

I was curious after seeing Mark Strong cast as the lead as has the acting nous to take on the main theme of the show given his track record in the genre. Thus far (5 episodes in) I have felt far from disappointed as this is turning into a very intriguing spy show that TV has missed since arguably "24."

The perspective of this show, thus far, is less aligned with "24's" early post-September 11 "terrorist" fears than with later American takes on "terrorism" such as the Bourne films, the underrated David Mamet movie, "Trojan" or UK film, "Eye in The Sky," where the impact of systemic issues has on humans - on all sides - is explored. It also has the vibe of some of Liam Neeson's recent action films within it as well. All of that makes this show to have all the potential to be a hit for the slightly more sophisticated straight male crowd looking for good entertainment that asks you to think a bit. That being said, the female characters are decently written and strong as well, so they are not just a side show.

It's on EPIX in the U.S., a cable network that barely registers to most here and has had a series of misses with their original content, so it is going to fly under the radar to most here. I happen to get EPIX due to a subscription to HBO, so I am fortunate.

If you liked the Bourne films and similar shows I listed at least tickle your fancy I'd suggest you check it out. It will unlikely be a waste of your time, as I am already looking forward to the next episode.

Terminator Salvation (2009)

More like 'Terminator Salvage Job'

[6/10 · 22 May 2009]

I came into the theaters on opening night with fairly low expectations after reading some critical reviews - one of which used the term I am borrowing a bit here - calling it 'Terminator Salvage.' I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised, and while the film will surely please some, for many others it may leave you feeling disappointed with this once mighty and critically acclaimed franchise.

The effects and art direction were well done, but that's not saying much for action movies these days, nor is it enough to carry a film if you are interested in more than things blowing up. A strength of the previous Terminator films was that it was a sci-fi series that had a sort of realism that allowed many viewers to buy into the story. Over-the top acting, difficult to fathom plot lines, and things that seem to go against what we learned in previous films make the picture drag. Some actors struggle with the material, and Bale also seems generally as disinterested as he reportedly was before singing on, yelling his way through the film, and doing his an imitation of his voicing of Batman.

Of course, there will be those that will come away enjoying it, but after growing up a huge Terminator fan and seeing it, i was not particularly impressed after the early part of the movie, and i will think for many who once loved this series you may not feel the kind of intense chill and suspense that the machines once portrayed to the audience. Inclusions of the cute, mute child character reminds me of how Jar Jar Binks seemed misplaced in 'The Phantom Menace' and another example of how 'Terminator Salvation' strays from the first two movies, perhaps in pursuit of an even wider audience (which could also explain the PG-13 rating, versus R ratings for the previous 3).

Sadly we get a fairly mediocre and forgettable film that perhaps was not in the right hands, direction wise with McG. 'Terminator Salvation' is not awful, but not worth garnering any kind of significant praise. You know when you are laughing and it's not intentional, unless a film maker wishes to seek cult status for all the wrong reasons (like a movie that people do drugs with in a group to make fun of) this is not a good thing.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Mediocre showing that won't deter its popularity

[6/10 · 16 November 2002]

The Harry Potter book series is clearly a pop culture phenomenon, as Ms. Rawling's novels strike at the heart of every child's dream both young and old. But also a crowning example of popular cultural is Hollywood's effort to bring films to the silver screen, where quality becomes practically irrelevant, due to the powerful force of consumerism in today's society.

'The Chamber of Secrets" isn't a terrible film by an means, but director, Chris Columbus, in classic big budget Hollywood fashion, is catering to the lowest common denomenator far too often. Being a fan of the books, I was more excited about the second film because I thought 'Chamber of Secrets' was a far more thrilling and dark novel compared to the carefree 'Sorcerer's Stone.' But the producers and Mr. Columbus decided to overemphasize everything to the point of ruining the very thrill I recieved from the novel.

The most obvious flaw was several instances of over-acting on the parts of many characters, which seemed forced and unceessary. But, we are all so stupid, I suppose, that the film makers had to outline every single moment where something dramatic was happening so obvious that only completely mind dead individuals would not get what the intended mood was to be.

There were moments, I admit, where the film had some pizzaz and a few of the actors were either defying Mr. Columbus' apparent request to over act, or were the few characters who he wanted to come across as a bit more subtle. The effects were pretty good as well, but sometimes also too over the top. My real problem was that the book was very thrilling and this movie only had moments where you felt that way.

But, as I noted earlier, if you read the book or somehow think you "have to see it" for whatever reason, you will go, and no one can stop you. Go. Try and enjoy it...I wish you much luck. Maybe keeping your expecations lower will help....may be.

K-19: The Widowmaker (2002)

As Powerful as Film Making Gets

[8/10 · 21 July 2002]

When I heard about K-19: The Widowmaker, I wasn't even sure what to think about it. Part of me went, "Oh, another submarine movie...We've seen it all before." I did notice that Harrison Ford had turned down working in Christopher Nolan's version of "Insomnia" and wondered...there must have been something about K-19 to turn down another great acting opportunity.

Then I thought about Harrison Ford doing a Russian accent, and the questions rose again. "Do I really want to spend $10 on this?"

Even after my decision was made, while buying the ticket, I couldn't have been that excited because I wasn't even sure if I said the films' name correctly when at the ticket booth. Then came some of the opening moments where I had to accept Ford and other's not-so-wonderful Russian accents but that was the end to my questioning.

Frankly, I am beside myself over the criticisms I have read from critics who think this is an "average" film. The word misunderstood, is actually an overwhelming understatement, because I took K-19 to be one of the most powerful pieces of film making I have seen in quite some time.

One of the earlier comments I read here by Ignacio Martinez-Ybor ([e-mail]) expressed nearly identical sentiments I felt about the movie.

The comparisons to "The Hunt for Red October," and co. seem to possess little validity, in my view. This is NOT an action based thriller in the same conventional way that these other movies were. It is REAL LIFE DRAMA, that digs deep into the soul of what it is like to be a human being facing choices that we wish we would neve have to make. I do not think I could not possibly commend Kathryn Bigelow's direction enough here. This is a REAL and REFRESHING FEMININE TAKE on war and being human. Her understanding of this transcends nearly all of the submarine and war films (with a few exceptions) that come to mind.

There are some Hollywood movies that have attempted to deal with this subject matter before, not simply one's about war either, but they all somehow seem to cop out and turn real grit into some mushy nonsense (whether it be patriotism, or overly romantic) that isn't believable. K-19 had a few moments here and there, particularly the end, that suffered from this syndrome, but the predominant message was too strong to be lost in (what was likely) some producers' addition to Bigelow's final piece.

I would also be remised to not mention the fact that the characters who we learn to care about are members of the Soviet Navy...THE MORTAL ENEMY, to many Americans barely a decade ago. This was part of "The Hunt For Red October" as well, but the intentions of the Sub in this movie, was MUCH different than that Sean Connery was running. There really is no clear cut over-the-top enemy character here (normally a staple of Hollywood dramas) so we have to think of other potential enemies on our own, although plenty of subtle hints, this I found to be QUITE pleasant.

The acting, outside of the accents, was overall of high quality. Ford and Neeson are magnificent in their emotional depiction and the supporting cast, of mostly unknowns, was also quite good. We really care about these characters and we HAVE TO in this movie. Credit must go to Ms. Bigelow as well here for this.

Overall, K-19 goes as one of my best films of the year and something I hope does not remain overlooked due to critics and film goers expecting something else. I have a feeling this could be a word-of-mouth winner over time. Be warned though, there is some painful material here to deal with but in the end it makes it all the more gratifying.

Highly Recommended.

Bright Lights, Big City (1988)

Better than you might think

[8/10 · 16 July 2002]

I remember the ads for this film on TV when it came out, and it seemed appealing to me then, even though I did not see it until recently on video. I must say this is not a bad film by any means, and has quite a bit to say about the struggles of young adults trying to "find their place" in the world. It seems to me to be sort of the father of "Trainspotting" in several ways (drugs, youth struggling with identity in society, narration, etc.), although not nearly as elaborately produced, there are some pretty decent elements of style incorporated some of which work well, some not so well.

Frankly I was surprised this was a Hollywood picture. The subject matter is not something that one would think people would flock to see, but maybe the producers thought it might be a new kind of "Breakfast Club" type film. Who knows, but it was an interesting risk that didn't pan out, as I do not recall this being a very successful film at the box office, but I admire the attempt at bringing it to a wide audience.

Some of the scenes seem a bit awkward, like the opening of the film at the former, great, NYC club, The Paladium, and the ferrit scene towards the end, and the confrontations with Pheobe Kates. However one has to wonder if this was intentional, because of the film makers' apparent desire to show that in "reality" things are not always so comfortable.

Overall a film worth one's time, if you keep your mind open a little bit. This is not Hollywood fluff, but it isn't a Lions Gate release either. I think Michael J Fox also deserves a lot of credit for doing "Bright Lights, Bit City" because this was the height of his career and to take on such a risk and a challenging as an actor should be commended. The movie is a pretty good attempt at handling a subject that is a reality for many youth. I think this audience is the one who would have most use out of such a film so if you fit in that category, it's worth your time.

Frailty (2001)

Disturbing, possibly confused and a bit predictable

[25 April 2002]

I enjoyed "Frailty." This is not a bad film by any means. Bill Paxton did a pretty decent job of directing for his first time, and his performance as an actor in the film is actually quite good.

However, although it was disturbing in some entertaining ways, I couldn't help but feel that there was some ambiguous messages with regards to the actions of the the "baddies."

***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***

Someone here was defending the film as being more morally ambiguous than some have been arguing. This poster felt that the camera was not a "distant observer" but coming from the McConaughey's characters view of past events, etc. I was thinking that very thing for much of the film, however, that can't also apply to the scenes shot in the present because they were not being narrated by anyone. So, just before the last person died, they admitted "how did you know?" to McConaughey's character about their own supposed wrongdoing.

Since this had to be coming from only the camera's point of view, and not McConaughey's , that his ability's must have been "given by God" to him then. And if that is the case, then the film is taking a much different position, morally. But, this still doesn't have to imply that God is right to send someone to "destroy demons," it also could be a questioning of God all together, or maybe God isn't good...I really don't know.

Anyway, to some this may be nitpicking, but this bothered me quite a bit.

I also thought it was far too predictable. I didn't think the twist was surprising at all. I mean WHO else could have been the murderer? The other characters were not introduced enough, especially in the present, to really be the killer. And McConaughey was too eerie and creepy to be innocent. It was just too perfect.

Anyway, despite these flaws I still enjoyed the film. It was definitely disturbing, and Bill Paxton's character, in particular, was very real. I have encountered similar people (not killers, fortunately) but people who are under grand dellusions and really believe it to be true (Beautiful Mind also did a pretty good job of that).

***END SPOILERS***

FYI to those who haven't seen it -

There was also more gore than some have stated here. You didn't see the actual killings, but there was definitely enough blood and plenty of violence off-camera. Don't be fooled, this is not a film for the faint of heart, or the kiddies.

Otherwise, not a bad effort, and overall pretty decent adult entertainment.

The Gift (2000)

Scary, stylish and predictable

[11 April 2002]

Sam Raimi's prior picture, "A Simple Plan" was a major disappointment, in my view, for it's annoying characters (particularly, Bridget Fonda), anachronisms (Bill Paxton and Billy Bob Thorton speaking with their southern accents, when their characters were to be natives of Minnesota) and being far too predictable, but was interestingly hailed by many critics.

These flaws were the reason I had stayed away from "The Gift" originally. But recently, I decided to give the DVD a shot, because of it's intriguing cast, and I am still a sucker for thrillers.

"The Gift" was definitely a big improvement over "A Simple Plan." Raimi did a very good job of creating a really scary film here. (Watch it at night, in the dark, by yourself) You are in constant fear for Cate Blanchett's life as you wonder what is going on.

Unfortunately, Raimi also runs into the same problem he had with "A Simple Plan" in that he has a habit of making things a bit too predictable. Of course, this is a Hollywood picture, but there aren't enough possibilities as to who the "bad guy" could be by the time you get towards the end.

In fact, it was also frustrating why Ms. Blanchett's character was so stupid so often, even though it was intended to create fear, it was done at times in the all too typical Hollywood fashion of doing something stupid to get a jot...which hurts the credibility of a films' characters, especially since hers seemed to be so intelligent.

Anyway, I still enjoyed it and was entertained throughout, but when you find out "whodunit" it ended up being anti-climactic. It was his toying with our fears and emotions, which Raimi was good at, and what I hope carries over into "Spider Man" when it is released. Hopefully he leaves out the predictability aspect.

Panic Room (2002)

Fincher misunderstood once again

[8/10 · 4 April 2002]

When I heard about "Panic Room" I was quite intrigued as to how this movie was going to include one of the most important, and consistently overlooked, aspects of David Fincher films. What I am referring to is his devotion to sending a strong message, which is usually a societal critique, within almost every film he has created.

Maybe it's because I generally agree with his critiques, but I am surprised to see so few reviewers, both amateur and professional, overlooking the message of this film, and even some of his others. The NY Times seems to have completely missed it, as have several other critics who have argued "Panic Room" "lacks substance."

This is also funny because the complaints some had of "Fight Club" was that it was pretentious, over the top, and intent on sending a message to the audience. So what does Fincher do? Actually panders to the critics (whether it was intentional or not is almost irrelevant) by creating a subtle psychological thriller that also sends a clear message about American society and values. But then it seems that these same critics completely miss it, thinking that this is more of a classic "what you see is what you get" thiller.

Based upon Fincher's history, I found this VERY hard to believe, when I read some reviews. Then I saw it with my own eyes and once I thought about what he might be saying for one moment after leaving the theater it hit me.

I don't think it is anyone's place to tell anyone what that message is, but I suggest to all those who have seen it, or even haven't, to examine the primary themes of the film, the character relationships, and their values, which were all played out in some key scenes. One being, in particular, the last camera shot in the grand finale, which I read someone here argue meant nothing. Well, in my opinion, if you saw that and believed it to posses no meaning, then I think you missed David Fincher's message. Unfortunately, a lot of us will likely miss it because Fincher's style and entertainment value is what they are seeing the movie for. The problem is he has consistently gone beyond that, but it usually falls upon deaf ears with the audience he attracts.

Hopefully one day he will be remembered for his attempt in bringing social criticism and thought provocating scripts covered by conventional and pop appearing Hollywood film making. Until then most will likely think of him as a Hitchock disciple who incorperates a lot of style and tricky camerawork (all of which are evident here, like his patented camera movement through walls and other solid objects) to gain his audience. There is more there...just look a little harder.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

A quality film that was a bit too "Hollywoodized"

[10/10 · 21 January 2002]

To lay it out simply here are the pros and cons, IMHO:

Pros:

1) Peter Jackson has done a very good job of creating an entertaining film. Even when dealing with high expectations of fans of the novel who have been DYING to see it he has come through. Also translating a novel so rich and large into a film can be a difficult task so obviously he is not going to satisfy all fans of Tolkein's book.

2) A large part of the entertainment value was the beautifully shot New Zealand scenery (is it possible to make that look bad?) combined with extremely well designed sets and costumes. This film is about as close as one can get on film to making real life scenes look like a "fantasy land."

3) But some of this was clearly use of CGI, and I think that the use of this technology was maybe the best use I've seen of it to date in a movie. Many film makers seem to fall in love with this technology, not understanding when to use it and when not to. I thought Speilberg (who has commented on the overuse of CGI) in "A.I." made good use of it this summer, and Jackson and his crew also used it properly. One of the other problems of misusing is that some things just don't look REAL enough when they are CGI. I knew that some creatures and effects were clearly CGI, but it never appeared unrealistic enough to not enjoy it.

4) The acting was strong from many of the characters especially from the central ones, Ian McKellen, Elijah Wood, and a surprisingly good Sean Austin.

5) The film really kicks in when the Fellowship is officially formed, and it leads to the best sequence, IMHO, the mines scene.

Cons:

1) This film had a lot of potential to be even better. One of the keys to its weakening was the overuse of the dramatic score combined with long drawn out scenes, to get the audience to react emotionally. Personally I think it is an insult to the intelligence of the audience when EVERY SINGLE TIME we are supposed to feel some kind of emotion sad, dramatic music combined with slow motion has to be used. I think near the end, especially, when a particularly emotional scene happens, the use of music and slow motion was excessively to the point of ruining it. And it's not that music and slow motion can not be used effectively, but again it is overuse, and timing that are key.

2) One of the reviews mentioned a "roller coaster" feeling, where sometimes it was slow and then BOOM the pace suddenly changed. Of course, this is not necessarily bad, but sometimes the flow of the film was not so great. However, in defense, some of this "slowness" was developing the characters, so that is understandable.

3) Some of the actor choices I feel were not so solid. There is just something about Liv Tyler, where I cannot take her seriously. I think she is just a poor actress. Also the choice of Hugo Weaving (of The Matrix fame) for the roll of Lord Elrond. He seemed to overact a bit, and did not command the kind of status that his character should have. There were also times, in general, that the dialogue was a bit overdone (like Kate Blanchett's lines), but I have not read the book, so I don't know how true to the novel it was.

Summary:

Overall this was a strong and entertaining film, that is worth your money time (and you need a bit of it, at nearly 3 hours). I did find it funny that some people I was in the theater with, based on their reactions, did not seem to realize that this was part 1 of a trilogy. I am definitely looking foward to the sequals.

Training Day (2001)

"The realness" indeed

[8/10 · 11 November 2001]

We've all seen the corrupt cop flick done before, and done well. But it is not so often that we get much more than the standard good cop/bad cop affair. Training Day often goes beyond the limits of Hollywood with its careful dissection of the moral and ethical dilemma cops face when dealing with "the streets" while still remaining a Hollywood flick.

What works so well is the combination of faced paced drama that we and our Rookie cop, Ethan Hawke, are thrown into and the intellectual debate that rages today over "the streets" and "what to do about it." Hawke's ethics relate closely to that of MLK while Washington takes more of Malcom X's position (fittingly so).

Denzel's character may be corrupt now, but the film hints at a change from earlier views, almost as if "the streets" showed him that there was no other way of functioning as an effective Narc. Understanding the value of being "real," he believes to be most important in getting things done. A "naive, wanna save the world" rookie cop, in his mind, ain't gonna cut it out there. And he tries to get Hawke's character to understand his views. But while this is happening we are then shown how by being so closely related to "the streets," and even living there, what it has done to him.

Who is more right in dealing with "the streets," Hawke or Washington?

There we have the foundation for the story.

We are pretty much thrown into Ethan Hawke's position of constant wonderment of Washington's character. And for the most part it works. Is this how things get done? Can one be a "good" cop and be effective? Is there no hope for the victims of the situation?

And the dilemma plays on to a fast beat. Very good stuff.

The only surprise was where was all of the hip-hop music from the soundtrack? the moody score was effective, but they could have added more than one or two tracks from the soundtrack.

The Closet (2001)

Good fun

[23 September 2001]

A very good foreign comedy that should appeal to a wide audience. At times it appeared the humor was a bit forced, but on a number of occasions it was laugh-out-loud funny. The writer's and director's ability to balance humor with serious issues like, office politics, humanity and family issues was well executed. It would not be much of a surprise to see Le Placard (The Closet) converted into a Hollywood picture sometime soon. Definitely good fun. Recommended.

Lumumba (2000)

A most important and powerful film

[9/10 · 15 August 2001]

First of all, it is interesting to note that one of the users here who commented on this film (from Belgium) had to add that Lumumba was "communist." If this user indeed watched the film, the message was that he was not communist but pigeonholed (by none other than Belgium, the U.S., the UN, etc.) as a "communist" leader for other individuals', corporations', and country's political and economic gains. Even if one decides to accept that the film partakes in "revisionist history" it would be naive to assume that Lumumba was communist, especially coming from the country which "granted" the Congo independence, and since Lumumba was elected DEMOCRATICALLY to his seat as Prime Minister.

Onto the film...

This is one of the most important and powerful films I have seen in quite some time. Depicting the struggles of the African freedom fighter, and ELECTED Prime Minister's struggles as its first leader, Mr. Peck, does a quite commendable job of putting together all of the pieces into one work. And this must have been quite some task. Due to the fact that most people outside of the Congo and Belgium likely do not know the history of Lumumba and the Congo, outside of some light coverage of African Imperialism (hopefully) in one of their high school/secondary school (or maybe university/college level) history classes, he had his work cut out for him.

And to to think that Oliver Stone's "JFK" took over 3 hours, "Lumumba" runs under 2 hours. And a most engaging 115 minutes it was, as we find that his desire to not compromise with Western powers (whom he holds responsible for the atrocities to his people, particularly Belgium), while trying to deal with power struggles within his own borders, apparently even with some of his friends, it is amazing that the man lived as long as he did.

This is a MUST see for anyone interested in equality, justice, humanity, history, politics, and true freedom. You will not be disappointed.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

Will A.I. be forever misunderstood?

[9/10 · 2 July 2001]

A.I. will clearly be a film that evokes strong emotional reactions, either for or against it.

First off, this movie...once again, like Eyes Wide Shut, was mis-marketed, all in hopes of making a lot of money, even though the classic "summer" audience is likely to not enjoy it that much (especially due to most people's assumption of what a Sci-Fi movie is). Some will like it, of course, particularly the more sensitive, and aware of what kind of film it was likely going to be.

It's very interesting that Kubrick and Speilberg collaborated on this project and it ends up showing, I believe, that although Kubrick is a cold, analytical film maker, he has his soft HUMAN side.

Speilberg does an excellent job of mimicking Kubrick's direction style, when he chooses to, but one can also see plenty of his own influence throughout. Some critics have said, "this is a Speilberg film, no doubt." But I think they are mistaken...it was a collaboration...a project that Kubrick had started, and ASKED SPECIFICALLY for Speilberg to take over.

I think this is an important aspect of Artificial Intelligence.

WHY did Kubrick do such a thing?

I think if one understands the PRIMARY message of the picture, one can see why he chose Speilberg to direct it.

Kubrick, it appears, would have had difficulty in sending the message he wanted of this film, if he had directed it.

It is not completely "hoakie" as many Speilberg films can be, nor is it completely "cold" as Kubrick's. It had a little of both. It was balanced. It was not always effective in what it wanted to do, but overall it worked, because it couldn't get away from being "cheesy" and still send its message.

THIS WAS A CLASSIC SCI-FI GENRE FILM.

Many people think that Sci-Fi somehow translates into a lot of cool explosions and action...(the New York Times gave a good description of this understanding as...an Old Western done up with cool special effects), but this has not usually been the case. Oh, and don't get me wrong, the visual effects in A.I. are marvelous. But they compliment the story, rather than dominate it. This Kubrick understood when shooting 2001, Cameron with Alien and the Terminator (and tried with the Abyss), and now Speilberg with A.I. (as well as other films, i.e. the Star Trek series).

This is something that over time will probably be appreciated more. It is both a fairy tale, and an examination of human beings and their attributes.

The end sequence, which has been much criticized, although seemed a bit forced at times, was a prime example of this, and fits within the context of the films' message.

Once you think about that, I think it is easier to digest. People looking for a fast paced story, sorry, you aren't going to get what you were looking for. I wonder if this was really a children's story, (as some have labeled it) or a fairy tale for adults. Most young kids are not going to understand it, and older kids, looking for the next Star Wars are probably going to get the wrong impression due to the movie's marketing campaign. And, of course, hardcore cynics will probably say how horrified they were with the effort...but REALLY...why is that so?

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

Zzzzzzzzz....

[4/10 · 17 June 2001]

Well, I was most definitely disappointed with this film. I know Hollywood is entrenched in "formula" film making but this was a big time snoozer outside of watching a quite beautiful looking Angelina Jolie look cool and mean the entire picture. The plot, which had a great deal of potential, and the characters, were all not developed enough.

The other actors were boring as well, and there seemed to be little dialogue between anyone either. The effects were ok, (even Jolie's fake breasts looked odd at times) but nothing to write home about. I'm sure they will turn this into a series of films...here's hoping they VASTLY improve upon the next adventure.

Amores Perros (2000)

Not a bad effort...but not up to expectations

[7/10 · 3 June 2001]

"Amores perros" is not a bad film by any means. There were moments where I was genuinely interested in the plot and its message, and direction wise there was a good number of times where the director's and actor's abilities shined brightly. But there were also flaws that stuck out too strongly for me to strongly recommend this film.

One of the first things that came to mind was that I have seen and heard the message and format of this film over and over again, in numerous pictures. I think those who compared it to Pulp Fiction, in terms of structure, are correct in pointing this out. But when one is concerned about seeing the same thing done again, usually, this means to me that the originality level on certain levels leaves something to be desired. Film makers "borrow" ideas all of the time, from other film makers it is more of what the "newblood" add to the mold created by past directors/writers, etc. that allows those who have seen the older films to enjoy the efforts of younger directors. This the director of "Amorres perros'" first film, so I think the potential is there.

This relates to one of the other problems that I had, which was the length. Sometimes it is necessary or enjoyable to watch the in between scenes, when there is some level of suspense, etc. that builds. But when it is used, in what seems to be more of a..."look how cool this shot is" it comes off as a bit pretentious at times. This was the notion I got occasionally...when the music levels were raised and the camera followed a character. At over 3hrs running time, Mr. Gonzalez could have been a bit more merciful towards the audience, especially when over 30 minutes seemed devoted to this in between scenes. The first and last stories were the strongest but by that point I was waiting for the picture to end.

Other issues I had were flaws with the plot. There were characters who we were completely left in the dark about (the man shot in the restaurant early on...was that a hired hit or just he eliminating the step-father?). Other characters who we were somehow supposed to care about (the dogfighting owner's brother) just didn't fly. The logic of leaving the dog under the floorboards for days!? There just wasn't enough background of how some characters came to be who they were. We were just thrown into their tragic events and strong emotions which came out of them, and supposed to understand everything. What I mean by that is that there are many REASONS, other than one tragic accident as an adult that causes one to break down. Maybe this is too strong of a demand, but I believe the director could have done a better job of developing them.

There were some very strong performances, some scenes were excellent and the connection to how other animals behave is on point. I just think that there were still too many problems to really enjoy the film, and I was disappointed because many believe this to be better than "Crouching Tiger," which I did not think it was. I suspect, though, that the director's next film will be an improvement...there is too much potential.

Timecode (2000)

Pretentious, but then again...not really

[9/10 · 5 February 2001]

When this film first started I was VERY worried that I would have a lot of trouble dealing with 4 cameras at the same time, although I did not when I went to rent it. I think this is clearly an example of Figgis' skill as a director. Whether you think it is a "look what I can do film" or not, one cannot take away from the accomplishment that it is.

This is not an easy task to take upon as a director, and I think the continuity of the film, and its "everydayness" is what makes it so intriguing. By filming in the course of only one day, and allowing the actors to improvise, the "realness" of Timecode is quite evident, for the majority of the film. One could argue that the end is cliched, but it is a film, and in it's own context it works.

Definitely not something for the "mainstream" film goer, and one that might be looked upon as "pretentious" by overly cynical and critical avant-garde film buffs. But I think that there is NO WAY that anyone could undertake a project like this without receiving this label from critics (which is why I suspect they address it in the movie), and if you really think about it, would that be a fair assessment?

Frequency (2000)

How desperate are you for sentimentality, "Chicken Soup for the Soul" and slow motion?

[5/10 · 5 September 2000]

I must have missed something when watching this film, because I am a bit surprised by the number of people that seem to have outright enjoyed much of this film. I must admit, that there were some enjoyable aspects of "Frequency" but overall the film makers were so desperate to get the audience to cry (or have the sensation of sentimentality) that they submitted to some bad cliche's of film making.

There are many who like to separate the film as art from film as entertainment, but I believe that is difficult in this case, because there were too many parts where the director used "artsy" film making tactics to get his message across. The OVERuse of slow motion and repeated shots from different angles was an example of pretentiousness at it's worst. I couldn't help but roll my eyes on several occasions, especially during some of the dialog between the father and the son. The writing, at times, was very poor. It just seemed as though the film makers were trying too hard.

I have even enjoyed some "sentimental" type films of the past few years ("Shawshank Redemption," "Good Will Hunting," "Life is Beautiful") but this movie was lacking the skill that those film makers possess. There was also the problem of once you lose the audience here, that we start to notice other intricacies, such as the problems with "time travel."

I think "Back to the Future" handled the genre much better because normal logic allowed those films to work. In those movies Michael J. Fox's character was himself traveling through time, so the audience could accept when he changed events, and arrived back in time that they would change. (They also provided an explanation) In "Frequency" the logic was terribly flawed. Most of the time when an event in the past changed everything surrounding it changed. But sometimes when something in the past changed, only some things in the future changed. It just didn't make sense, especially the "climactic end" scene, which was ridiculous.

Again, I did think at times the suspense was done well, and I was interested, but overall there were too many flaws for me to recommend it. If you are a "sucker" for movies that are like "Chicken Soup For the Soul" then you might like it, but if you are knowledgeable in film and a cynic....beware.

The General's Daughter (1999)

A practice in film hypocrisy

[5/10 · 29 February 2000]

"The General's Daughter" is not a bad film by any means, nor it is great or even good, but this is not even the issue that bothers me with films that try to send a message. By using the very issue that they criticize (woman in society are objects, and deal) as part of the attraction of the movie, I have a hard time believing them. I had a similar problem with Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers" where he is clearly condemning violence in society, but he also uses it liberally (not in a political sense) throughout the film. The same tactics were used in "The General's Daughter" regarding the unnecessarily graphic and exploitive rape scenes that were in the film. Now this is not to say that the use of violence and and rape scene cannot be made to send a message about the inhumanity of these acts, but it must be done in a manner where it is clear. I feel that the message was made too ambiguous, and hurt the film.

I believe that the screenplay also had much to do with this, and could have done a much better job of making the viewer feel what one should feel, when seeing a rape scene. This was an average to below average film that did not have any where near as much thrill as a thriller should have.

When We Were Kings (1996)

Ignore the anti-"liberal" criticisms of this film

[10/10 · 2 February 2000]

This is one of the most inspirational films I have seen in quite some time. I remember when this film was given the Academy award for best documentary, and hearing criticisms from some in the so-called "liberal" press (a reason to knock down this straw-man theory) that the film as undeserving of this title. Well after just seeing the film on video and reading some other comments from IMDb users claiming the same thing, I will have to outright disagree.

The point of this film was not about the fight itself or George Forman, (yes he played a role) as some have argued it should have. It was about the symbolism that this fight possessed, especially revolving around Muhammad Ali' and the causes he fought for. Recently ESPN selected the top 100 Athletes of all time (well they should have said American Athletes, but that's our American arrogance for you) and Ali was picked third behind Babe Ruth and Michael Jordan. The definition of "greatest athlete" is ambiguous, but in my mind Ali, through this film and my recent is truly, "The greatest" as he so claimed.

The film did an excellent job of getting as much footage as possible of all that occurred during the preparation that led to the fight and how it symbolized the joining of black people in America and Africa for a common cause in defeating their oppressors (US - white supremacy, and in Africa - European Colonialism). (which was clearly the main focus of the film) Yes, their were flaws in the film, and it was carried by the narration, Ali's unbelievably charismatic personality, and the numerous intelligent quotes that were made by him.

But those that wish to criticize the "music" as they call it, clearly have NO UNDERSTANDING OF BLACK CULTURE. This film was a celebration of it, focusing on GREAT MUSICIANS such as James Brown and B.B. King. These artists represent a significant part of black American culture, and knowing how important it probably was to all of those black Americans to go to Africa to spite the white American culture (which wanted the fight there), which they felt used them, was something that was revolutionary.

Before seeing this film I knew little about the "Rumble in the Jungle," and little about Ali, but after seeing this film, I have come to realize that he really was "the greatest."

10/10

Mad City (1997)

An excellent take on the mass media's impact on society

[9/10 · 15 December 1999]

I remember when this film came out in the theaters, received mixed reviews, and minimal coverage by the press. I, of course, "believed the hype," (pun intended, as the main song of the movie is performed by Chuck D of Public Enemy) and let the film pass me by, as it did for many others it seems. (note the low number of votes that this film has received on this site) But I should not have been surprised that this film received such minimal coverage, and support by the mainstream media, since that is the direct target of criticism that the film focuses on.

Ethics in the Media, (or lack of them) is essentially the main theme of the film. For anyone who's interested in the Mass Media, and their impact on "shaping and molding" public opinion, and even its impact on public policy, etc. I highly recommend this film. I also thought that both Dustin Hoffman, and John Travolta acted brilliantly, in the deliverance of their characters, and think overall it was an enjoyable, and thought provoking movie, which is worth your while.