Change Your Image
timmyj3
Reviews
Pink Ribbons, Inc. (2011)
The truth as always is in the middle
I was very eager to see this movie. I am a skeptic by nature and the barrage of pink the last few years has had me wondering. This movie has an agenda. The film wants to be the black in the pink parade. That is OK.
A valid point the film makes is that corporate America is making money on the "pink". Solid points are KFC making profits off selling dubious food under the "pink" banner. Estee Lauder selling cosmetics that may contain cancer causing ingredients under the "pink" logos. The NFL trying to refurbish their image with "pink" everything in October. Clearly most businesses involved have self serving motivations. I was happy to see that brought out.
They had some stage 4 cancer patients express their displeasure with the happy joyful pink parade. I sure respect the opinion of the ladies but I suspect their are an equal number of cancer patients that appreciate the attention of the pink awareness. We were not shown many differing opinions.
The film makes some great points about working on prevention instead of the phantom cure which may or may not come. This was a solid idea that should have been more fleshed out.
Where the film fails is making the environmental connection. It ventures into kooky junk science territory a bit here. They implied Ford should not be involved with breast cancer awareness because they make cars and cars pollute. OK.
We get to the end of the film and we are off the rails a bit now. We have to blame President Bush for "using" breast cancer awareness for his mid east policies advancement. (They must have missed Obama's use of breast cancer awareness 2009-2011) The movie was made in 2011.
Overall it is a bit of a mess in a cinematic sense. It is sort of hard to watch. It doesn't flow well. The people in the film all seemed a touch angry or just professional activists.
The film also seemed angry at the many and mostly good people trying to help other people and fight this horrible disease. I find it hard to fault people trying to raise money to help others in our communities even if the "pink" charities may have jumped the shark so to speak.
A great subject that is not popular to talk about. Too bad it wasn't done by competent people.
Casino Jack (2010)
Hollywood and politics, always a bad mix.
I viewed Casino Jack recently. The story centers around Jack Abramoff who is a registered lobbyist. It is kind of an odd movie subject. Jack rises and then falls in a dramatic fashion even though the true story is pretty dull. Lets look at the different areas of this film. After reviewing the specifics I want to talk about Hollywood and politics.
The acting: Kevin Spacey was the only reason this film is watchable. He delivers a solid smooth performance. Barry Pepper is becoming a first rate supporting actor. Spencer Garrett was strong as Tom Delay. Kelly Preston is a weak link. Not sure how she got this role ( I have an idea though). Her looks are gone and her mediocre acting ability is getting even worse. Poor choice. The rest of the cast is OK. GRADE B-.
The story/screenplay: This film was written by Norman Snider. This is as bad as it gets. He gets most of it wrong. Making some stuff up out of the blue. He tries to tie the life long criminal activities and ultimate death of the SunCruz owner to Jack with no proof or even allegations. This was the only interesting part of the film and its mostly false at least in tying it to Abramoff. The dialog is more of "evil Rupublican" theme than anything. Of note, the director's brother is a Democratic Governor in Colorado. We make Tom Delay a focal point here. He had some ethics issues but none seemed linked to Jack. As time as gone on Delay has actually been vindicated in most common sense circles. The real story of Abramoff is that he got greedy at the end with shaking down Indian tribes and trying to get into the offshore casino business. One point the movie harps on is that the Bush administration didn't help Jack when it went bad. Well doesn't that say something for integrity that the Bush administration would go after this guy in the first place? If Abramoff could be so damaging to the Republicans, wouldn't they have left him alone? If this would have been a factual story it would have been quote boring and complicated. GRADE D
The directing and technical aspects: The director was George Hickenlooper. He is awful. This film had a LMN feel to it. It seemed to have a decent budget but showed like a TV movie. This film was disjointed and not smooth. It seemed as the actors had very little to work with here. Again, Hollywood seems more interested in showing how bad the Republicans are than making a decent film that sticks to the facts. GRADE: D
Overall film GRADE: C- (only because of Spacey)
Now my big picture thoughts. Hollywood recently seems to be heavily invested in making mainstream films depicting the right as bad, evil, stupid, criminal, etc.. The logic seems to be lets use legitimate actors and films to twist facts and make some odd leftie political statements. Films such as this one, Too Big to Fail, Inside Job, No end in sight, Recount, etcc.. There seems to be a shift from the outright kooky Michael Moore stuff to a more "normal" looking films to further the nutty left look at things. I believe everyone one of these films has been a financial flop. Hollywood isn't good at listening to their customers. I suspect we will see more films like this depicting the right as evil and left as saintly.
This got me to thinking. We must have had 10 medium to big budget films ripping President Bush over the last 10 years. Most downright silly and clearly financial losers. But.. what about some "leftie" films that could/should be made? Here is a list of films we could make showing the left in not so flattering terms. Most would be pretty entertaining as well. Here goes:
1) "House of male Congessional review" Starring Rep. Barney Frank. Remember he and his partner ran a male prostitution ring out of their town home. You cant even make this up!!!
2) "I am not a drunk, no matter how many girls I kill" starring Sen. Ted Kennedy. This fool actually killed an innocent girl either by just being drunk or something more sinister. Oyy.
3) "Governor and mama need a new pair of shoes" Starring Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. This character actually tried to sell Obama's Senate seat!! This is gold!!
4) "I invented the Internet and baseball" Starring Vice President Al Gore. How come this fruit loop doesn't have more media dinging him? He is a liar and a profiteer. He has made more money on the global warming scam than there are carbon foot prints in Europe!
I think you get my points. While my suggestions may seem silly they are true and can be documented. Wouldn't a film on Blago be way more entertaining than Jack Abramoff?? I think it would. What about Barney Frank? This idiot not only broke the law with his house of ill repute, but it was his sponsored legislation that really enabled the housing collapse (forcing banks to give low income, no background check loans, Too Big to Fail must have missed this). Funny we never have seen Hollywood disparage any of these people.
While clearly few if any Americans actually look to Hollywood for political guidance they sure seem to want to give it to us. I mean do you want to be told how to vote or think by most Hollywood types? Of course not. Many of these people have no education, never had a real job, are surrounded by butt kissers. (Did you ever see that video of Matt Damon prattling on about dinosaurs and voting for Obama?? It was quite enlightening. Lets just say you wouldn't hire Matt to work at the local Wal-Mart). Gimme a break.
Hollywood, stick to entertaining us. You really should be better at it.
Love Shack (2010)
Should have been better. Decent effort nonetheless.
I have to admit that this may have been a clunker. It shouldn't have been. Anyone that saw a porno in the 80's (basically anyone over 40) should have been interested.
I thought the premise was sound and should have produced a better finished product. The premise is a legendary porn director has passed away. One of his old cronies wants to fulfill his dead friends last wish of one more porno with the old stars. The best part of the movie was showing the old fictitious movie clips the fake porn star made.
Once we have the cast all set, the movie seems to stall. The petty bickering among the old friends takes over. The director loses control of the assorted cast of fake faded porn stars but all works out in the end. It just kind of clunks along.
Mockumentaries are a pretty dicey road to travel. Spinal Tap is the only one that I have ever really thought was a cut above. This movie is more in the realm of "A Mighty Wind". A similar mock about old folk singers. I think this genre only goes so far and this film was limited by that.
The cast was OK. Too large and I think that was part of the problem. I especially liked Molly Hagen and Pete Gardner. They played a late 40's married couple that were the hot porn couple of the 80's. Christopher Boyer probably had the largest part as the director that is doing this film for his late friend and mentor (not really, he made it up!) and he is very good. I thought the acting was fine. It was a cast without major stars and I am OK with that. I just believe that this type of film (mockumentary) can only go so far. But, thanks for the honest effort.
Gimme Shelter (1970)
Brilliant. This film actually captures the death of the 60's.
First, this film is not a concert. It is a true life story and saga. The significance of this film is that you catch the rise of the greatest rock and roll band in the world, and the absolute end of the 60's spirit.
The film centers around the free concert that the Rolling Stones want to put on at the end of their 1969 US tour. They want to do a mini Woodstock and include other acts such as Jefferson Airplane, Grateful Dead, Flying Burrito Brothers, etc...
But, putting on a free concert isn't that easy. The crowd estimate is starting to get out of hand. The Stones are in New York finishing up their historic Madison Square Garden Concerts which would become the famous album Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out. We flash back and forth between the concert footage and the troops on the ground in San Francisco trying to get this free concert set.
The drama tightens as time is running out for securing a venue for the free show. Golden Gate Park backs out, Laguna Seca Speedway wants no part of it. Finally the Stones lawyer, Melvin Belli secures a spot. The Altamont Speedway. West of San Francisco. The Maysles Brothers capture the drama very well with the hand held cameras. This movie was years ahead of its time. You know there is going to be trouble when the promoter has really no clue what to do with 200,000 cars that are expected.
We are treated to the Stones stopping off in Muscle Shoals, Alabama to work on future album "Sticky Fingers". We hear a raw version of Wild Horses some 2 years before it was released. But, the Stones are coming to Frisco and what is ahead is not good.
We are finally set for the big free show. December 6th, 1969. Altamont Speedway. The violence starts right away. The crowd is dotted with Hell's Angels. Motorcycles plow through the massive crowd. Marty Balin of the Jefferson Airplane gets punched out. Mick Jagger walking away from the helicopter is attacked and hit. The mood is bad. The film feels the darkness.
Finally, as darkness is set the Rolling Stones take the stage. The stage is cramped with mean looking Hell's Angels and just totally stoned out people. It is literally a sea of humanity. 250,000+. The Stones can hardly make it through one song without trouble. Finally the worst happens. Meredith Hunter, a black man in the crowd pulls a gun. He is stabbed to death in front of the stage by Hell's Angels. It is a dark frightening scene. The Rolling Stones finish up the show and are shown taking off in over crowded helicopters. A surreal scene. There were 4 deaths and 4 births at Altamont. Rock and Roll is forever changed.
That the Maysles caught all this is truly amazing. The construction of the film is very good. Jagger is in the studio watching the film being put together. You aren't shaken by the past/present thing though.
The free love, we love everybody 60's has ended on a dark note. The happy love-ins, bubble gum pop, no consequence drug use is over. The mistake everyone made here is that the Rolling Stones were a very dark band at this point and unwittingly cultivated this dark mood and nasty people. The Rolling Stones were bad ass as they came at that point in time. They are also at their creative zenith and were inventing the large stage act (it is only in its infancy here). The Stones would survive this and lighten up as the 70's went along.
December 6th, 1969 was the days of sympathy for the devil and the midnight rambler. RIP 1960's.
The Company Men (2010)
Good movie. Caught the emotion of a corporate downturn.
I caught this film on Showtime this week. The description looked interesting, so I gave it a look. I am glad that I did. I found the film to be entertaining, poignant, and topical. It was made with a pretty even hand and the result was better than I had imagined.
The main character in the movie is Bobby Walker (Ben Affleck). Bobby is a hot shot sales executive looking to rise up the corporate ladder. Very quick into the film Bobby is let go. GTX is downsizing.
The secondary figure in the movie is Gene McClary (Tommy Lee Jones). Gene is a grizzled old pro that is far up the food chain here. Seems to be a division head or senior VP type. Gene is anguished over the fall of his ship building company. Not too dismayed though to be having an affair with Sally Wilcox (Maria Bella)the ax wielding HR executive that is doing the firing. This is the weakest area of the film. Maria Bell is always underwhelming and she continues that trait here. The relationship doesn't really make any sense.
Back to the main core of the film. The job loss is life altering for Bobby Walker. His slide is shown in detail but it isn't over acted, it is just real. Porsche, gone. Glof Club Membership, gone. Big house, gone. His wife and children seem to keep Bobby on track. He finally relents after months of unemployment and takes a carpenter job with his gruff brother in-law played by Kevin Costner. Bobby has come to grips with his situation as he now lives with his wife's parents. He has been humbled. He can now move forward.
We are shown several people fired from GTX and how they are dealing with it or not. Phil Woodword (Chris Cooper)is Gene McClary's right hand man and is let go and to his surprise so is Gene the boss. Phil doesn't deal with being unemployed well. He ends up committing suicide in a pretty well telegraphed sequence. Phil's suicide sort of galvanizes Gene McClary to start over. In the end Gene starts a new ship building company and Bobby is hired on. They end the film showing the old gang in a run down back to basics office, just happy to be at it again.
The acting. Mostly good. I am not a Ben Affleck fan but he did a nice job. He was sincere and believable. He seems to be maturing as an actor. Chris Cooper and Tommy Lee were spot on. Two of the best veteran character actors going right now. Craig T Nelson had a small role and turned in a decent performance. Maria Bella, not so good. The gal just cant act. Suzanne Rico played Gail Walker and was good. She was believable.
The story. Mostly good. I was sucked in from the start. The story is told in a very matter of fact way. They didn't try too hard to place villains (maybe Sally was a villain)and hero's. It gave the characters a personal feel to them. I felt the movie succeeded at getting us to be invested with the characters. I was actually impressed that the film didn't go "Hollywood" and turn this into a two hour rant about corporate America and the evil Republicans. It was a film about people and the resilient American spirit. Good Job!
Hot Coffee (2011)
Too one sided to be taken seriously
I watched "Hot Coffee" today and was looking forward to it. I enjoy documentaries a great deal. It started off on solid note by giving the full back ground on the famous McDondalds hot coffee case. Unfortunately it goes downhill from there.
We are shown a family in Nebraska that had twins. One is born with severe brain injury due to a lack of oxygen because of one umbilical cord instead of two. The family is awarded 5.6 million but Nebraska's cap law limits the award to 1.25 million dollars. While a sad story I think many people would argue that it was a birth defect medical condition that caused the injury not malpractice by the doctor and hospital. The movie makes a point about the doctor having been involved in two previous law suits. OK, but tell us how many case the doctor has been involved with in total. Is this doctor 3 for 3 or 3 for 13,289?? It makes a difference in the overall credibility of the movie.
The next case up is a Democratic Mississippi lawyer/politician named Mr. Diaz that ran for the state supreme court in 2000. He won the race but was out spent by outside political groups according to the movie. Mr. Diaz then obtained personal loans guaranteed by a lawyer friend that practiced cases in front of the state supreme court. Mr. Diaz was then indicted on Federal charges of bribery and tax evasion. He was found not guilty. Does this film maker really think a judge should be taking personal loan guarantees from a law firm that does business in front of him?? He then lost his 2008 re-election bid. We are now told that Karl Rove scary right wing groups are behind the money against Mr. Diaz. I am still not sure what the problem was here other than a Democrat lost a race. Oohh.
We are pretty much off the tracks by now. We are treated to Presidents Bush and Reagan talking about frivolous lawsuits. Of course, they are portrayed in a condescending manner. We are then, shown a brave President Obama standing up to the American Medical Association group. We keep getting shown edited snippets of President Bush saying bad things about tort reform over and over. At this point the movie has really become a little unhinged. But, lets continue..
The last case involves every lefties favorite boogeyman "Haliburton" A woman named Jamie Leigh Jones claims that she was brutally raped while housed at a Haliburton housing area in Iraq. I had not heard of this case until I was watching the film. Lets say it didn't really pass the smell test. The gist is that she signed an employment contract the limited her legal recourse to binding arbitration. Of, course this didn't work out well. Ms. Jones also has a history of untruthfulness. Her case has since been lost at two different court levels. But, her case is taken up by Minnesota Senator Al Franken. Enough said.
The film also harps on the right wing "outside" money spent to promote tort reform. The gist that this money is bad, wrong, and evil (show Karl Rove again). No mention of any "outside" left wing groups supporting non tort reform. Even though just about every person interviewed that supports the films view is from "outside" groups with names like "Judicial Justice for all" (I made that up) but you get the point.
After the film, I decided to find out who Susan Saladoff is and was. She practiced as a trial lawyer on the behalf of injury victims, medical malpractice, and product liability. No bias here. Wow. How can this film be even called a documentary? It is an info-mercial for left wing trial lawyer groups.
One parting thing I would love to know, who funded this one sided mess of a movie. Wanna bet it is outside left wing groups pouring money into non tort reform??? Ya think. Remember the cornerstone of the film is the outside money being spent on tort reform is bad, really bad, really really bad.
One other side note. Instead of capping the victims awards, how about capping the lawyers cut to maybe 3%. Just a thought.
The Departed (2006)
overrated and below Scorsese standards
I rented this film to watch on Oscar night. Anticipating a classic Scorses film I was let down. While my opinion of Martin Scorses is and remains high I found too many issues to enjoy this film.
Casting: I found the cast to be odd. Matt Damon is a perennial stiff and lived up to that rap again. Baldwin and Sheen are C list celebs and seemed more of a favor to someone that anything. I thought Nicholson was excellent along with Decaprio and Wahlberg. I didn't get the point of Vera Farmiga at all. I still cant believe that Scorsese cast this movie. It seems like this cast was put upon him.
Screenplay: What a mess. What was all the cop killing at the end. Yeah that was pretty believable. What should have been a tightrope was more like a loose fishing line. I didn't buy the story almost from the start. While the movie should have focused on the gangsters we are treated to Matt and Vera playing house much of the time. This may be one of the worst screenplays of the last ten years in a highly acclaimed film. It was truly a mess.
Acting: The problems started with the casting and continued with some poor performances. Matt is the new Harrison Ford. A one trick pony with almost no acting range. Vera should go back to TV bits. Sheen, Bladwin overact constantly. Jack was well Jack. I think the biggest problem for me was not concentrating on the gangsters more. I just don't find Damon, Sheen, Farmigo, Baldwin very interesting.
As you can tell I wasn't impressed with the movie and I really wanted to be. I was concerned when I saw that Matt Damon was in the lead role. I really felt that Scorsese was looking for cash/fame/Oscar and took the bait. One of the old sayings is the masses are asses and I think this films popularity and awards confirm this.
Wait for this clunker to show up on HBO or Showtime.