Dirtroadie Reviews

Happiness (1998)

It's the Eraserhead of movies that aren't Eraserhead

[4/10 · 19 June 2021]

Forget about navel-gazing on the vicissitudes of modern life, this movie boils down to one misshapen little nugget, and it is this: if you are going to go THERE, then you better have something timeless and profound to say on the matter, and this movie doesn't even try. This can't come as much of a surprise, as it is hard to imagine a subject further removed from profundity than THAT. As for the rest of the movie, it is tempting to make the argument that THAT subject is so distracting and cancerous it is hard to remember any of the other goings-on, but upon further reflection, the sober reality is that the other vignettes are pretty forgettable anyway.

Four out of ten stars for having pretensions to art, despite failing to achieve any actual artistic merit. Like Eraserhead, it can't be the worst movie as it does succeed in being a spectacle gruesome enough to make any other horror seem ordinary by comparison. And like Eraerhead, this movie could be seen as a sort of rite of passage for movie buffs--a tool that could be used to kill whatever brain cells one might have left pertaining to hope, good-cheer or innocence. All glibness aside, I felt sorry for the children in this movie and I question the thought process of their parents for putting them through it.

Leaving Neverland (2019)

A detailed and graphic description of how pedophiles operate

[10/10 · 11 January 2020]

How many times do these stories have to be told before they are believed? We've had more than 25 years of child exploitation stories concerning Michael Jackson and still I see review after review here and elsewhere saying this documentary is one-sided and unproven. Why would all of these men and boys be telling basically the same story if it wasn't true? Because he is rich and famous? Because he is black? Trump is rich and famous and there have been no child exploitation stories circulating about him. Michael Jordan and Barack Obama are rich, famous and black and I haven't heard any accusations of the kind against them. Even Bill Cosby is generally supposed to have exploited only adult women. Really, anyone who says there is any lingering doubt that Michael Jackson did these things is just being an argumentative contrarian at this point. Sexual assaults have always been notoriously difficult to prove. Unless the victim immediately goes to a hospital to get a battery of state of the art tests, there is typically no physical evidence that the assault happened. It almost always comes down to the testimony of the victim, circumstantial evidence, and the reputations of the accused and the accuser. This is why so many sexual assaults go unreported, unprosecuted or result in an acquittal.

These two men are basically giving a seminar on how pedophiles operate and it should be required viewing for psychologists and law enforcement officers who work these kinds of cases. The amount of detail spanning years of time is just too much for it all to be fiction. It would have taken months of work and detailed schooling on how pedophiles manipulate their victims to come up with a false story so elaborate. They would also need to be great actors, because their telling of the story is so heartfelt and compelling. This isn't a lurid tale of bondage and force. They both concede that they eventually became willing participants in the abuse and that they still cared for Michael Jackson. Again, their actions and feelings for their abuser are so typical of abuse victims.

No, it would be nearly an impossibility for their stories not to be true. I can't prove that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, but as a rational person who needs a functioning perception of reality, I must concede that it happened. It is time to close the book on the argument of how Michael Jackson expressed his sexuality. The evidence is in, and we know what he did. Michael Jackson's music was never my cup of tea, but nobody has ever denied his talent. I wish he hadn't given in to his worst instincts, but that is what he did, and we should all try to learn something from it.

The Irishman (2019)

Add it to the pantheon of great crime dramas

[9/10 · 10 January 2020]

On the Waterfront. The Godfather. Once Upon a Time in America. Heat. The Departed. Some of the best movies ever made are set in the seedy criminal underworld. It's a great vehicle for drama and Martin Scorsese is the undisputed master of the genre. Having said all that, I was a little skeptical of The Irishman before I watched it. Its run time of 3 1/2 hours is intimidating and there was a lot of publicity about the de-aging CGI used for De Niro, Pesci, and Pacino, all of whom were more than 74 years old at the time of filming.

The run time turned out not to be an issue for me and that is saying a lot. I have to exercise discipline to sit through most 90 minute movies now that I have become so jaded from endless repetition of tropes like jump scares, time travel, toothy monsters, choreographed fights and gratuitous sex scenes. The Irishman is long, but it doesn't wear on your patience, and we should be glad such movies are still being made.

The results of the de-aging CGI were mixed. On the positive side, it looked realistic enough and there were no uncanny valley moments. The downside is that it only goes so far. De Niro, Pesci and Pacino always looked considerably older than the ages of the men they were portraying, and the look didn't change much over the course of the main part of the story arc, which spanned 15 - 20 years.

One could also quibble about casting choices. The very Italian Pacino looks nothing like the German/Irish Hoffa who was actually born in rural Indiana. It is also hard to see how young Peggy (Lucy Gallina) became older Peggy (Anna Paquin) and the mid-30's Anna Paquin looked too old to be playing the early 1970's Peggy, who would have only been in her 20's. It would be a fair criticism to say that the casting was all over the place and was at its roots a love letter from Scorsese to his old friends and not dictated by what the real-life characters would suggest. Nevertheless, the old pros gave their usual great performances and you will just have to suspend your disbelief a little bit more than usual when it comes to casting.

There isn't a lot for women to do in The Irishman, and while it is true that career criminal is mostly a male gig, it is easy to see how women might be annoyed at the overwhelmingly male presence in the movie. One can't help but think that more could have been done, and that is coming from a guy who won't be bingeing the Watchmen series anytime soon.

Now that the criticisms are done, it is worth repeating that The Irishman is just a great movie. The performances are great. The writing and directing are great. The criminal underworld setting is a field day for high drama and themes of family, loyalty and morality. The 3 1/2 hour run time makes it a slow burn for sure, but that just means there is more to love. Yet it isn't simply another mafia movie. All of the characters and events that I bothered to research seemed to be accurately portrayed in the movie. I don't know how much artistic license was taken, but I didn't find any obvious discrepancies. And while the words of a psychopath like Frank Sheeran certainly need to be taken with a boulder of rock salt, his confessions haven't been disproved from what I read on the subject.

In summary, if you like the genera, then The Irishman really is a must-see. It really is that good.

Edge of Tomorrow (2014)

A pastiche of familiar Hollywood tropes

[6/10 · 22 March 2015]

Like the repeating time travel story device this movie uses, we have seen this before in Star Trek episodes, Groundhog Day, etc, etc. Sure, Tom Cruise gives us another charismatic performance, and there is a flavor-of-the-month hot blonde half his age to fuel our naughtier fantasies. There are explosions and special effects and technologically advanced yet mindless space aliens.

But does any of that make it a good movie? Not to my admittedly limited capacity brain. I suppose I could go into listing plot holes and asking other rhetorical questions about how and why what happened, but things like that don't really interest me that much. What does interest me is dramatic impact and thought provoking situations and dialog. Sadly, there is little of that present in Edge of Tomorrow.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)

The better half of the two Bill movies

[8/10 · 8 January 2005]

After almost writing Tarantino off after the first Bill movie, the second one was a pleasant surprise. There is more movie and less manic Kung Fu nonsense. David Carradine is great as the sly Bill and there are lots of great character bits. There were fewer long fight scenes, and there was actually a wealth of that depraved dialog that makes Tarantino films great. The epilogue scene was weak and useless, but what the heck, lots of good films have less than stellar moments. I still wish I could have watched a more compact 2.5 hour Bill movie, but wish in one hand...and, well, you know the rest. I see the second Bill movie ranks lower than the first in the top 250. Popularity is not the same as quality, kids. Learn that, Grasshoppa, and you will stand one step higher on the great mountain of truth.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

I liked it, but I don't know why

[8/10 · 8 January 2005]

The main thing I heard about this movie before I saw it was that it was the most violent movie ever made. Not surprising for a Tarantino movie, but once I saw it the violence turned out to be rather cartoonish, which was, I suppose, the point. Evidently the movie was inspired by, pays homage to, or spoofs Japanese anime cartoons. I really don't care about the connection other than to say that I intensely dislike anime, martial arts movies, and the people who go ape over either. Its all very childish and quite emblematic of the Ritalin generation. Nevertheless, it is a Tarantino film, and it does have oodles of that sophisticated yet disgusting humor that make us Tarantino watchers keep coming back for more. Tarantino could have cut out two hours of tiresome Kung Fu fight scenes and just made one movie, but which would make everyone more money? Hmm? Well, we know the answer. Currently this movie is at #58 in the top 250--a distinction it doesn't deserve, but it does deserve it more than some others on the list.

Gattaca (1997)

Science fiction at its best

[9/10 · 7 December 2003]

Gattaca is one of the best science fiction movies I have seen. I cared about the characters and the premise touched on real science and real social issues that we may someday have to face. If you like science fiction, see it. If you like drama, see it. Few movies do both genres well and Gattaca is one of them.

Foxfire (1987 TV Movie)

The best movie about Appalachia I have seen.

[10/10 · 6 September 2001]

It would be hard to imagine how a movie could better capture the essence of Appalachia. Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy simply nail their parts, and no doubt the fact that they were married in real life helped. Hume Cronyn also wrote the script, and a nearly perfect script it is. All in all, it couldn't be more realistic, heartwarming and sad. And I should know, because I have strong ties with Appalachia and I lived there for a while as a kid. I knew real life equivalents to every character in this movie. Maybe those without my background won't see it, but I consider this movie to be a masterpiece of American culture.