castansfield Reviews

Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)

Amazed by the negativity

[9/10 · 15 December 2017]

I walked out of this movie with six friends at 3 am, and all of us were WIRED from adrenaline and amazement. And then I checked IMDB and saw nothing but angry fans, proving that there really is no pleasing organized fandom. Everyone complained mightily at how unoriginal and "safe" The Force Awakens was, and then a movie comes along with an actual point of view, with incredible style unlike anything that has come before it in the series, that is daring, fresh, and original...and now it's just too different for everyone.

Though some of the complaints are fair (namely that one major subplot turns out to be largely a digression), this was so surprising and thoughtful and fresh that it frankly makes The Force Awakens better by recontextualizing it. This movie has something to say if people will take a moment to listen to it rather than getting pissy that it wasn't what they were expecting.

The Name's the Same (1951–1955)

Justly forgotten...

[30 March 2005]

As a fan of old-style panel shows and GSN's "Black and White Overnight," I was interested in seeing examples of "The Name's The Same," a panel show I'd never heard of. Having watched it evolve from its Robert Q. Lewis-hosted incarnation into the Bob and Ray version, I can say, frankly, that this forgettable show deserved to be forgotten.

There is nothing seriously objectionable about the show, but the game concepts are lame even for this genre. In the main segments, a panel of three (later four) tries to guess the name of "a regular person" who shares his name with a familiar object, action, or person (real or fictional). Examples included such names as "Marilyn Monroe," "Tom Sawyer," "A. Hog" and "I. Kick." In the original "special guest" segment (an obligatory panel show staple), the panel tried to guess whom the guest would LIKE to be. Later, the segment was altered: now the panel had to guess what the guest's special wish was. Often the wish involved the host or members of the panel ("I'd like to dance the rhumba with Audrey Meadows," and "I'd like to sing a duet with Robert Q." were two), and generally the wish was fulfilled on stage. As the show aged, the wishes became progressively sillier and it became very obvious that the wishes were "provided" for the guests.

The panel shows of the fifties and sixties were not known for their intellectual concepts, and "The Name's The Same" shouldn't be discounted strictly because of the inherent thin-ness of its focus. However, the members of the panel over the years, the hosts (with the possible exception of Lewis), and the special guests, failed to rise to the level of the great line-ups enjoyed by "What's My Line" and "I've Got A Secret." Panelists like Joan Alexander, Walter Slezak, and Meredith Willson were affable enough, but there rarely seemed to be anyone with the sparkle of an Arlene Francis, the cuteness of a Betsy Palmer, the wit of a Fred Allen or Henry Morgan, the intellect/pretension of a Louis Untermeyer or Bennett Cerf, or even the "love-her/hate-her" passion inspired by Dorothy Kilgallen. Even during those periods when a genuinely funny or interesting panelist like Gene Rayburn or Hal Block joined the show, the panel never enjoyed an interesting balance of types. The long runs of genuinely UNfunny panelists like Roger Price further doomed the show to oblivion.

When Bob and Ray took over hosting duties the show became even more insufferable. Long segments were devoted to "comedy" bits that bore only a tangential relationship to the game portions; Bob and Ray, so brilliant and subversive on the radio, became tedious, unfunny, and frankly, painful to watch.

"The Name's The Same" is worth watching for much the same reason other old panel shows are worth watching- it often gives one a chance to see familiar and beloved stars in a more down-to-earth mode, and it offers a window into the tastes and comedic mores of its time. It is not, however, a comedic gem, nor is it an example of exciting game-play. If offered a choice, I believe most viewers would prefer a bad episode of "I've Got a Secret" or "To Tell The Truth," to even the best episode of a show like "The Name's The Same."

The 77th Annual Academy Awards (2005 TV Special)

Boring, Disrespectful, and Disgraceful....

[1/10 · 28 February 2005]

I'm not usually given to hyperbole, but after seeing over two decades worth of Academy Awards, I can honestly say that this year's awards show was the most disgraceful example of poor direction, total cruelty, and sheer stupidity that I've ever had the misfortune to witness. I'm not talking about the awards themselves- as usual, there is plenty to argue about when you tally up who won, who lost, and who never even got nominated, but the process is as it's always been and is as fair as it's liable to be. What is terribly UNfair is the treatment both the "stars" and "non-stars" received at the hands of Cates and Horvitz, in the name of "reducing boredom."

It is bad enough that for the last several years anyone who isn't Al Pacino has been "played off" at 45 seconds without any regard for what he was saying, how he was saying it, and what the emotion was behind the statement. It demonstrates nothing more than a total lack of respect, however, to herd nominees on the stage like cattle without paying them the honor of showing their faces while their names are read, to make them slink away quietly when they lose, to deny them the thrill of a walk to the podium, and to force them to read their statements with their backs to the audience. All of those things were done to the "non-stars" -never mind that the movies wouldn't exist at all without those artists and that most of them only ever get one chance to face their peers and their audience.

The stars didn't fare much better. It's becoming more sad than funny when winners of the caliber of Hilary Swank and Clint Eastwood have to beg for a few extra seconds for their speeches. Chris Rock, as host, was neither as inflammatory and controversial as the Academy had hoped, nor nearly as funny as he could be. His opening remarks were almost (but not quite) as offensive as Sean Penn made them out to be, and his comments during the show were more innocuous than interesting. Of course, he could hardly be blamed when it was clear that was being kept on as short a leash as any host has. In the end, Chris Rock was something he's almost never been before: a non-entity.

Even the musical numbers were handled poorly. Beyonce sang well, but there was simply no reason why she should have been featured in three out of the five songs. Another example of utter disrespect for an artist was giving Jorge Drexler's nominated song to Antonio Banderas- even though Drexler was present and clearly wouldn't have minded singing his own song, based on his winning "speech."

The efforts of Cates and Horvitz to make the show shorter and faster may have worked to a degree, but what resulted was a show devoid of life. We've all whined about the overlong speeches given by people we don't know, about the overblown production, about the self-congratulatory quality. But this is THEIR night- not ours. What is meant to be a celebration has become an insult to the people being celebrated. Cates and Horvitz should, frankly, be ashamed.

Troy (2004)

Not particularly Greek, not particularly good...

[5/10 · 2 June 2004]

Troy is the sort of movie that tries to be many different things and fails at most of them. It tries to make a very Greek story more appealing to modern American audiences by condensing its time line, eliminating its gods, and focusing on the big "heroes" of the piece, but it retains the (mostly) simple-minded motivations and the (mostly) appalling behavior of the protagonists. It tries to be an "epic" but forgets that epic movies have to have high-minded goals. It tries to be dramatic, but badly miscasts the lead actors and badly directs them.

Unfortunately, the makers of this film did not realize that, while Ancient Greek can, for the most part, be translated into English, Ancient Greek values can not be translated into American ones. The Ancient Greek concepts of heroism and honor are such a far cry from modern notions of them that it is simply foolish to shoehorn the Illiad into a pat American action-adventure format.

In general, there is no one to root for in this film, because it is clear from the start that everyone in the film is motivated by base emotions, from the greed and power-hunger of the "villains" Menelaus and Agamemnon, to Achilles' sheer ego and misplaced machismo, to Odysseus' unquestioning sense of "duty" to fools, to Paris and Helen's immature, teenybopper love. In some films, this lack of true "good guys" and "bad guys" could be an asset, leading the audience to meditate on genuine issues of war and patriotism. However, the film at no time allows that sort of reflection, concentrating instead on the "heroic" biceps and glutes of Brad Pitt and the rest of the beefcake on display. "Troy" wants to be a rah-rah action film with no one to rah-rah for, and that is its biggest curse.

Its second biggest curse is Brad Pitt, who is one of the most startlingly uneven actors of his time. Pitt's career has featured both stand-out, star-making performances, as in "Seven" and "Fight Club," and also appallingly empty-headed and flat ones, as in "Meet Joe Black" and "Legends of the Fall." "Troy" firmly falls into the latter category, featuring Pitt at his most Keanu Reeves-esque. At no time does Pitt rise above the mostly pedantic dialogue or show any of the charisma he has demonstrated in other films. Pitt's Achilles is all muscular surface and no thoughtful introspection. Meanwhile, Pitt chooses to adopt a semi-British accent which is both utterly unconvincing and utterly unnecessary for an Ancient Greek. The entire blame should not fall to Pitt, however, for the character he is given to work with is an enigma- he is thoroughly unlikeable (doing such "honorable" things as desecrating the dead body of his foe and choking his recent lover), and yet the movie never actually admits it, treating him as a blonde demi-God through and through.

Though Pitt, as star of the film, stands out among mediocre actors, others share the blame. Orlando Bloom is neither convincing as a lover nor as a coward, and at no time is it ever clear why Helen would choose him, of all men, to run off with. On the other hand, Diane Kruger as Helen is such a non-entity in her role that you can't understand Paris' attraction to her, so perhaps they are the perfect couple. Meanwhile, the usually-solid Brian Cox is lucky he didn't choke on all the scenery he chewed during his performance.

Luckily, the combined talents of Peter O'Toole and the underrated Eric Bana and Sean Bean balance the scales a little bit- all bring gravity and conviction to their roles, making them believable, noble, and sympathetic characters. I would actually welcome "The Odyssey" if Bean could reprise his role.

As for the battle scenes and special effects (which, admittedly, people are going to see the film for, anyway), they are spectacular and well-done. However, they are also redundant- if the filmmakers had to eliminate important characters like Cassandra and the Gods, couldn't they have made the movie a lot shorter? By the time the Trojan Horse is finally wheeled in, there have been several "climactic" battles between the Greeks and the Trojans- mercifully, the final funeral scenes are brief. Of course, by then you might be so tired that Josh Groban's lifeless singing puts you to sleep even faster than it's intended to.

In the final analysis, Troy is neither rollicking enough to work as escapist entertainment nor deep enough to work as a dramatic film. The hapless actors are given hokey dialogue and nearly-absent direction, and most of them don't rise above those limitations. And, call me a nit-picker, but is it too much to ask that the actors learn how the Greek names are actually pronounced? Every time I heard Helen's ex referred to as "Men-el-OW-us," I cringed.

But oh, those biceps and glutes!

Cecil B. Demented (2000)

It's just a film, and it's a funny one!

[1 May 2004]

Last night, I saw Cecil B. DeMented at a special screening hosted by John Waters, who took questions after the fact. After taking into account my own impressions of the movie, John Waters' apparent impressions, and the comments on this site, I really have to conclude that most of the commentors don't quite get the point. This movie was not in any sense meant to be taken seriously, and yet the detractors label it a hypocritical satire while the fans read it as an honest indictment of Hollywood- in both cases, the commentors are barking up the wrong tree, in my opinion. If Cecil B. Demented is to be taken as a genuine satire, it is clearly meant as a satire of both sides of the argument. Waters does not take sides in this movie- he portrays Cecil and his Sprocket Holes as pretentious loons and cultists, and the "Hollywood (actually Baltimore) Filmmaking Establishment" as tasteless middlebrow panderers. It is obvious in these portrayals that Waters thinks they're ALL pains in the ass- after all, Pauline Kael-ite auteur-lovers ARE pretentious, and Hollywood DOES turn out a lot of lousy shlock. The critic who points out that the Sprockets' tattoos "read like a list of directors kids SHOULD be watching" and who compares the love of Preminger with the dislike of Lean clearly doesn't realize that Waters is in on the contradiction. The Sprockets celebrate "art movies" as they celebrate pornography and Kung Fu flicks. It should be apparent to almost anyone that the Sprockets are no more meant to be role models for the moviegoing public than the makers of "Forrest Gump II" are. First and foremost, the movie is meant to be funny, and it succeeds admirably on that count. True, the humor is sometimes overly crude and often falls flat, but any movie with memorable dialogue such as "Before I was a drug addict, I had all KINDS of problems- now I just have one!" can't be considered bad. Waters seems to consider this film, like most of his others, a lark- a reflection of his own sense of humor. When asked his inspiration, Waters pretty much admits that he just thought it would be fun to suppose what would happen if the readers of Film Threat magazine really took their anger to the next level. When asked if Cecil is a reflection of himself, Waters is quick to discredit the notion, pointing out that Cecil has utterly no sense of humor. In fact, the main target Waters skewers in this film are people who take things too seriously. Judging from the other comments on this page, those humorless people have trouble recognizing themselves in the film.

It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie (2002 TV Movie)

A return to form for the Muppets

[8/10 · 29 November 2002]

After a run of disappointing movies that seemed to prove that the Muppets were just empty felt without the guiding hands of Jim Henson, "It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie" has finally brought back the Muppets' trademark wit and irreverence.

The plot of "Merry Muppet Christmas" is one that will be familiar to anyone who's seen "It's a Wonderful Life" (and who hasn't?). After losing the Muppet Theater to a greedy banker (played by a scenery-chewing Joan Cusack), Kermit the Frog decides the Muppets would have been better off if he'd never been born. It takes a bumbling angel (an atypically restrained David Arquette) to show Kermit just how wrong he is.

"IAVMMCM" takes a back-to-basics approach that will thrill nostalgic fans. We see the old Muppet Theater (from the original Muppet Show) for the first time in decades, and the surviving Muppeteers have finally shed their reluctance to re-cast the many Muppets originally played by Henson and the late Richard Hunt. As a result, classic characters like Scooter, Sam the Eagle, and Janice have a greater presence in this film than they've had in any of the post-Henson theatrical releases. Though the vocal change in the recast characters is jarring at first, it takes only a moment to get used to the characterizations. On the other hand, the near silence of Rowlf the Dog is bittersweet, and serves as a reminder of the Muppets' loss. The Muppeteers clearly realize that Rowlf just isn't Rowlf without Henson's gruff growl.

The Muppets' performances in this film were uniformly excellent- the characters show they can be used in a modern context, but they still retain their essential personalities. Steve Whitmire's performance as Kermit has definitely improved over the years, and he brings a touching sincerity to the role. Eric Jacobson's performances as Miss Piggy and Fozzie Bear do not quite match the level of Frank Oz's classic performances, but he is a good enough vocal match that one hardly notices: Despite the slight vocal difference, Fozzie's expanded role in the story is also extremely welcome after years of the character being misused and mis-characterized. Dave Goelz, as usual, brings humor and pathos to the role of misunderstood Gonzo, and there are tons of other Muppets to be seen here, in roles both large and small. Classic characters like Lew Zealand, Dr. Teeth, Bunsen Honeydew and Beaker, Animal, Robin, Statler and Waldorf, Rizzo the Rat, and the Swedish Chef, as well as newer ones like Johnny Fiama and Bean Bunny, all have their moments to shine.

The movie manages to recapture the old-fashioned Muppet magic by playing to adults as much as it does to the kids- references to "Moulin Rouge," "Cirque De Soleil," "The Empire Strikes Back," hair-restoration drugs and 21st century-style corporate synergy all provoke laugh-out-loud moments, as does the sight of cage-dancing Muppets and a pumped-up Beaker during the lengthy alternate-reality scenes.

Only two things keep "IAVMMCM" from being a total success: the overly large role played by B-list celebs in the film, and the expanded role given to Bill Barretta's Pepe the Prawn (a recent character introduced in the mediocre "Muppets Tonight" series). Goldberg and Arquette as God and angel are enjoyable enough, but take up valuable screen time that could have gone to the Muppets. Even worse, despite the aforementioned "corporate synergy" jabs, the appearances by NBC stars like Carson Daly and the cast of "Scrubs" bring the movie to a screeching halt. The backstabbing (and mildly politically incorrect) character of Pepe also plays too large a role in the film, though that could simply be a matter of personal taste- I admit that I just don't find the character very amusing.

Despite those flaws, "It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie" is funny and heartwarming, and manages to bring the Muppets up-to-date without sacrificing any of their inherent charm and goodness. Hopefully the film will become a Christmas tradition along the lines of the "Wonderful" film it pays homage to- at the very least, it could be the shot in the arm the franchise needs.