Girl is amazing, dispensing justice and takking no prisoners!
Reviews
5 Reviews
The Family Man
(2000)
A "what-if" movie that says, "oh, well."
23 November 2001
The "what if" movie has been done many many times before, but never quite like this, if I recall. It's a "what-if" that says, basically, "well, no great loss, really--nothing that can't be done today." And maybe that's the reality for most of us, which is probably why a lot of people are unimpressed by this movie.
But I was unimpressed because I can't accept some of the assumptions made. Circumstances may have pushed the characters to a less-than-romantic life of suburban living, but does that mean they automatically join a bowling league and do all their clothes shopping at K-Mart? The Nick Cage character isn't a blue-collar man, period, regardless of where he lives or who he's working for. Maybe it's a niggling point, but since nearly half the "comedy" and conflict comes from this "Manhattan snob thrust into New Jersey lifestyle" shtick, it's a hard point to ignore.
The movie redeemed itself for me in its minor ending. It was a good ending, I thought, that recognized that the "glimpse" life had to be built, not invented just by grabbing the "one that got away."
Because I like movies that dwell in the "gray areas" and make no definitive conclusions, and because I liked the somewhat romantic yet practical ending, I wound up liking the movie. But because of some of the bad comedy, and a story that runs a little too long with a few too many details, and because most people LIKE a more "Hollywood" ending, I can't really recommend it.
But I was unimpressed because I can't accept some of the assumptions made. Circumstances may have pushed the characters to a less-than-romantic life of suburban living, but does that mean they automatically join a bowling league and do all their clothes shopping at K-Mart? The Nick Cage character isn't a blue-collar man, period, regardless of where he lives or who he's working for. Maybe it's a niggling point, but since nearly half the "comedy" and conflict comes from this "Manhattan snob thrust into New Jersey lifestyle" shtick, it's a hard point to ignore.
The movie redeemed itself for me in its minor ending. It was a good ending, I thought, that recognized that the "glimpse" life had to be built, not invented just by grabbing the "one that got away."
Because I like movies that dwell in the "gray areas" and make no definitive conclusions, and because I liked the somewhat romantic yet practical ending, I wound up liking the movie. But because of some of the bad comedy, and a story that runs a little too long with a few too many details, and because most people LIKE a more "Hollywood" ending, I can't really recommend it.
Bicentennial Man
(1999)
If only this had been made during the Bicentennial
16 December 2000
If you're even just an occasional view of science fiction, you might find as I did that all the "issues" this "cerebral" movie raised have been dealt with elsewhere. Namely, the character of Data from Star Trek: Next Generation has played to death the Asmovian dilemmas which this movie uses to drive its plot.
Consider each of these topics dealt with in Bicentennial Man: What are the Morality of Treating Robots as Slaves? Heard that before. What Is It Like To Experience The Things Humans Do For The First Time, Especially Love? Yeah, we've seen whole episodes of Star Trek about that (not to mention a certain Brad Pitt/Anthony Hopkins movie). How about, the Robot as Kinless Soul in Search of His Own Kind? Uh, yeah, think that's been explored. And then there's the question: When Does A Machine Really a Human, and Visa-Versa? Hmm, that's a familiar topic, also.
But there was one idea that wasn't as familiar to me: the Robot as Immortal Man. This was where the movie worked best for me. What a curse it would really be to be immortal! How many of us really want to live forever? We would watch our friends and family get old, then die, and another generation take their place, and over and over and over, while we staid the same, and saw our own place in time become just an ancient glimmer--yet we would still be here to remember it, as if it was yesterday. The thought is absolutely chilling. That part of the movie is the one that will haunt me.
As for the other "thinking themes," well, it's not this movie's fault that Star Trek needed to fill seven years of episodes, and relied on exploring the Robot Dilemma for half of them. After all, the original story is decades older than Data's yellow-eyed portrayal of the Robot's Philosopher's Corner. But in our post-industrial, Palm-toting cyber-world, I think most of the ideas have moved from beyond seemingly important pabulum, to ho-hum done-that retreads. I wish this movie had focused most exclusively on the theme of the incredible burden of the soul made by the passing time. Had it done so, it could have truly been a piece of deep, disturbing art, instead of a mostly forgettable and uneven moment of fluff.
Consider each of these topics dealt with in Bicentennial Man: What are the Morality of Treating Robots as Slaves? Heard that before. What Is It Like To Experience The Things Humans Do For The First Time, Especially Love? Yeah, we've seen whole episodes of Star Trek about that (not to mention a certain Brad Pitt/Anthony Hopkins movie). How about, the Robot as Kinless Soul in Search of His Own Kind? Uh, yeah, think that's been explored. And then there's the question: When Does A Machine Really a Human, and Visa-Versa? Hmm, that's a familiar topic, also.
But there was one idea that wasn't as familiar to me: the Robot as Immortal Man. This was where the movie worked best for me. What a curse it would really be to be immortal! How many of us really want to live forever? We would watch our friends and family get old, then die, and another generation take their place, and over and over and over, while we staid the same, and saw our own place in time become just an ancient glimmer--yet we would still be here to remember it, as if it was yesterday. The thought is absolutely chilling. That part of the movie is the one that will haunt me.
As for the other "thinking themes," well, it's not this movie's fault that Star Trek needed to fill seven years of episodes, and relied on exploring the Robot Dilemma for half of them. After all, the original story is decades older than Data's yellow-eyed portrayal of the Robot's Philosopher's Corner. But in our post-industrial, Palm-toting cyber-world, I think most of the ideas have moved from beyond seemingly important pabulum, to ho-hum done-that retreads. I wish this movie had focused most exclusively on the theme of the incredible burden of the soul made by the passing time. Had it done so, it could have truly been a piece of deep, disturbing art, instead of a mostly forgettable and uneven moment of fluff.
Arlington Road
(1999)
Paranoia at its finest
24 August 2000
Maybe I'm very easily amused, but I thought this was one of the best movies I've ever seen about the sinking abyss of paranoia. I think it's very difficult to make a believable movie about paranoia, and 'Arlington Road' is very believable--as least, while you're watching it.
Admittedly, after you've seen it, you'll see the holes, and how you've been manipulated--but while you're watching it, you'll be just as confused as Bridges' character, wondering, "is he right? Or just a nutcase?"
This movie operates entirely on the psychological plane. There aren't lots of cool explosions (well, OK, a few) and there isn't an expensive car being smashed every five minutes or someone's head being blown open with a handgun. Yet it leaves you breathless, panicked, scared, and disturbed. How easy is *that* to do without endless special effects?
Some have complained that the timing of Robbins' character catching Bridges red-handed over and over was lame and unbelievable. I think they've missed the point--it adds to the confusion, the paranoia, and the madness of Bridges' character, and to ours also.
In fact, the entire movie is structured this way. Just when the plot seems predictable and we think we can settle back and watch it follow a familiar formula, the rug is yanked away and we don't know what to believe. This happens not once, but constantly.
If you have to categorize it, think of it as 'The Sting', with a dastardly political agend--in other words, the gentile crime of that 1920's piece fast-forwarded into the dismal world of moral-less America, circa 1999.
The ending was extremely un-Hollywood, and left me angry, disturbed, and unsettled. And this, friends, is why Hollywood doesn't make movies like this. All anyone has complained about is how unsettling it is. Well, the next time you watch a movie end in a boring, predictable way, remember that it's probably making more money and wooing more critics and fans than 'Arlington Road'. (Reminds one of what they kept saying in 'The Player': "because *that's* reality!")
As an aside, the opening credits were the spookiest I've ever seen. They set the tone perfectly for a movie that reflects the existential, empty, lonely, scary, frightening world that may or may not be right out our very door.
If you enjoy watching a movie that will cause you to slam your fist on the arm of your chair, put you in a bad mood for the next day, make you yell at the news "YEAH RIGHT!" and wonder if you'll ever know "The Truth" about ANYTHING, this is your flick. I recommend it to anyone who wants some vinegar to balance the sugar of everything else made by Hollywood, and a reminder that things are rarely what they seem.
Admittedly, after you've seen it, you'll see the holes, and how you've been manipulated--but while you're watching it, you'll be just as confused as Bridges' character, wondering, "is he right? Or just a nutcase?"
This movie operates entirely on the psychological plane. There aren't lots of cool explosions (well, OK, a few) and there isn't an expensive car being smashed every five minutes or someone's head being blown open with a handgun. Yet it leaves you breathless, panicked, scared, and disturbed. How easy is *that* to do without endless special effects?
Some have complained that the timing of Robbins' character catching Bridges red-handed over and over was lame and unbelievable. I think they've missed the point--it adds to the confusion, the paranoia, and the madness of Bridges' character, and to ours also.
In fact, the entire movie is structured this way. Just when the plot seems predictable and we think we can settle back and watch it follow a familiar formula, the rug is yanked away and we don't know what to believe. This happens not once, but constantly.
If you have to categorize it, think of it as 'The Sting', with a dastardly political agend--in other words, the gentile crime of that 1920's piece fast-forwarded into the dismal world of moral-less America, circa 1999.
The ending was extremely un-Hollywood, and left me angry, disturbed, and unsettled. And this, friends, is why Hollywood doesn't make movies like this. All anyone has complained about is how unsettling it is. Well, the next time you watch a movie end in a boring, predictable way, remember that it's probably making more money and wooing more critics and fans than 'Arlington Road'. (Reminds one of what they kept saying in 'The Player': "because *that's* reality!")
As an aside, the opening credits were the spookiest I've ever seen. They set the tone perfectly for a movie that reflects the existential, empty, lonely, scary, frightening world that may or may not be right out our very door.
If you enjoy watching a movie that will cause you to slam your fist on the arm of your chair, put you in a bad mood for the next day, make you yell at the news "YEAH RIGHT!" and wonder if you'll ever know "The Truth" about ANYTHING, this is your flick. I recommend it to anyone who wants some vinegar to balance the sugar of everything else made by Hollywood, and a reminder that things are rarely what they seem.
Being John Malkovich
(1999)
Post-post-everything filmmaking--but is it good?
7 May 2000
It's fitting that this movie was done by the same person who directed Fatboy Slim videos; the idea of this movie seems the same as Fatboy's music: to sample a broad swath of pop detritus, and use it to create something new. Such seems to be the post-post-everything school of art, and _Being John Malkovich_ is a good, but hardly perfect, study of that school.
The first thirty minutes of this movie delivered an hilarious absurdist set-up, that reminded me of Terry Gilliam (complete with Brazil-like improbable office space) directing a David Letterman skit.
But, unfortunately, one slowly realizes the rest of the movie is more like The Rocky Horror Picture Show starring the characters from Ally McBeal. Entering Malkovich's brain and observing his extraordinarily boring life seems almost inevitable when put in the context of the incredibly over-the-top characters that populate this movie. Worse, their obsession to become John Malcovich becomes a heavy-handed attempt to explore tired existential philosophies, with the effect being a bit like watching MTV discuss social issues. There were times when I thought I should be laughing, but I worried that maybe by doing so I was actually not "getting it."
Despite my disappointment at the film to leave me feeling satisfied, I still recommend it; it is very inventive and creative, and has some very well-done moments. (I especially like the gawd-awful "orientation" video scene, complete with bad actors dressed in late '70's attire.)
This sort of creativity should be encouraged--not necessarily rewarded at this stage, but encouraged, in hopes it will mature. I think it's possible to take a bizarre idea and make it into a satisfying full-length movie--but it will take some practice. _Being John Malkovich_ is a good first attempt.
The first thirty minutes of this movie delivered an hilarious absurdist set-up, that reminded me of Terry Gilliam (complete with Brazil-like improbable office space) directing a David Letterman skit.
But, unfortunately, one slowly realizes the rest of the movie is more like The Rocky Horror Picture Show starring the characters from Ally McBeal. Entering Malkovich's brain and observing his extraordinarily boring life seems almost inevitable when put in the context of the incredibly over-the-top characters that populate this movie. Worse, their obsession to become John Malcovich becomes a heavy-handed attempt to explore tired existential philosophies, with the effect being a bit like watching MTV discuss social issues. There were times when I thought I should be laughing, but I worried that maybe by doing so I was actually not "getting it."
Despite my disappointment at the film to leave me feeling satisfied, I still recommend it; it is very inventive and creative, and has some very well-done moments. (I especially like the gawd-awful "orientation" video scene, complete with bad actors dressed in late '70's attire.)
This sort of creativity should be encouraged--not necessarily rewarded at this stage, but encouraged, in hopes it will mature. I think it's possible to take a bizarre idea and make it into a satisfying full-length movie--but it will take some practice. _Being John Malkovich_ is a good first attempt.
Tell Your Friends