Change Your Image
pzilliox
Reviews
Australia (2008)
A really, really great trilogy...crammed into one movie.
Australia proves that you can have too much of a good thing. I liked every scene in Australia, and yet the resulting whole is less than the sum of it's many, many parts. Imagine if George Lucas hadn't trimmed his original story idea before attempting to make the first Star Wars film, and you've got Australia.
Australia should have been what it is on it's most elemental level: a trilogy. There's a western, then a love story, followed by a war movie. If they'd had enough guts to bet on the success of an initial, trimmed down, fleshed-out film, this could have been one hell of a movie franchise, a la Back to the Future, Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings. As it is, it's a beautiful, well-acted, imaginative, overly-long epic, too long on run time and too short on critical story details and subtext.
Don't get me wrong, I like Australia. But a smaller portion would have been more satisfying, and would have had me clamoring for more.
Space Riders (1984)
Amateurish waste of a racing hero's talents.
As a film buff who watches obscure B-movies, hoping to discover a forgotten masterpiece, and a big motorcycle fan, I was excited to find a bargain VHS copy of Space Riders, featuring Barry Sheene, motorcycle racing World Champion in '76 and '77.
The movie opens with ultra-dramatic, super-slow-motion shots of racing motorcycles, leaned over hard in a turn, two and three abreast. Obviously, this is real racing footage, and it's downright breathtaking. But then we switch to staged footage of Barry's motorcycle, obviously strapped bolt upright to the bed of a camera truck. My hope of uncovering a hidden film treasure quickly fades. What follows, unsurprisingly, is the most unconvincingly faked motorcycle crash stunt ever filmed ("unsurprisingly" because, for those not familiar with motorcycle racing history, the former champ actually did suffer a horrific and widely-publicized crash a year or so before the filming of Space Riders.) From there, the film quickly becomes confusingly jumbled. It jumps between grainy stock footage of real Grand Prix races, "movie of the week"-caliber scenes featuring Barry, and subtitled scenes of unknown Japanese businessmen, always talking about having the best and fastest motorcycle in the world. In one such scene we discover that they are assured racing victories by seemingly having just invented the clutch lever. Later, after teammate Yamashta crashes while hallucinating that a Samurai is chasing him on another bike, his wife expresses her grief by sobbing uncontrollably...while repeatedly doing wheelies up and down pit row.
The real racing footage is, well, realistic, but also really confusing, because the audience never knows which bike is supposed to be whose. Also, the producers must not have purchased the rights to ENOUGH footage; the same shots get used over and over.
The story is tied together through minutes-long voice-overs of an unseen "track announcer" who captures the realism of an excruciatingly boring announcer by mumbling and stumbling. But listen close; he's telling you the entire plot. Much easier than actually acting it out, don't you think? Thankfully, the film eventually uses the clearly understandable Spinning Newspapers Device to let us know the race results. Yes, really; it's THAT cliché.
The biggest disappointment of this movie is the fact that there is so little of Barry in it. Of the 93 minutes this movie lasts, Barry is on-screen for only 18 minutes; all the rest is racing footage and other actors. On camera, Sheene displays the sincere yet breezy confidence that endeared him to the public. In a better movie, he could have been a very enjoyable dramatic actor. The only scene in which Sheene seemed awkward and ill-at-ease was the final "championship" podium interview. Barry seemed uncomfortable pretending he'd won a contest that he really hadn't. Or perhaps I just felt uncomfortable for him. A documentary of Barry Sheene's struggle to race competitively in 1983 would be a much more interesting film, and a much more fitting legacy.
Lost in Translation (2003)
Just because it's effective doesn't mean it's a good experience.
What this movie intends to do -- to create a troubling dissonance in the viewer through subtle and realistic scenes of claustrophobic alienation -- it does remarkably well. The acting, the script, the camera-work is all spot-on.
Unfortunately, its deft touch left me feeling deeply depressed. This film's manifesto seems to be that none of us can ever truly connect to anybody else. No attempt at love (friendship, devotion, or romance) can ever successfully overcome the barriers between people because of our different lives and circumstances, regardless of whether we share the same culture or not.
It's like an entire film of watching people cling to a life raft, only to discover that no rescue is possible regardless of what they do, or where they go.
How completely depressing a lesson.
Little Murders (1971)
Watch it all the way through before judging.
Some movies are a journey you must commit to, no matter what. And Little Murders is this sort of film. Halfway through it, I was thinking, why am I watching this junk? But the quirky, engrossing performances by the uniformly skillful cast kept me in the story, as bizarre as it was. I wasn't sure I liked where the film was taking me, but I kept agreeing to keep watching, sometimes scene by scene. But as Elizabeth Wilson utters (or actually thinks) the film's final line, I finally "got it." It was a trip worth taking, and the destination made it worthwhile, even though it covered some pretty rough territory along the way.
Drumline (2002)
Implausible and corny, but stylish.
What this movie delivers - namely flashy uniforms, swaggering braggadocio, BCKWAs (black college kids with attitude), and rhythmic drumming - it delivers in spades. What it lacks is a believable storyline. The movie starts out well enough, and kept my interest during the initial set-up. But it became clear by the middle of the film that every character was going to remain strictly one-dimensional, and every interpersonal relationship was, too. Every major pair of characters has a single conflict or issue to work out, and they don't interact except on that level. Characters make telegraphed choices and react in a vacuum; there is little character development or nuance to the story. The circumstances that develop and consequences that result are quite implausible. This movie takes the age-old storyline of "boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl again," and adds "boy gets drum, boy loses drum, boy gets drum again" to the mix. It doesn't freshen the formula much.
Focus (2001)
It's not just about the glasses.
Others' main criticism of this film--namely that Macy suddenly looks Jewish upon donning his glasses--is misplaced. The glasses are just the little bit of change needed to CONVINCE others he's a Jew. The scene in which he says to his boss, (paraphrasing) "but you KNOW what my background is," along with another discussion with his mother, suggests that he's had to fight this same assumption in the past. The glasses now make him look just Jewish enough to "confirm" his neighbors' and co-workers' existing suspicions. Then there is his new wife's large nose and taste for loud clothes, which OF COURSE means she's Jewish. The whole point of the film is how those little stereotypical nothings become the entire basis for judging others.
If he has a lisp, he must be gay. If he has long hair, he smokes dope. If he's Hispanic, he's got a knife...and if he has round black glasses and he's slight of build, he must be Jewish. Those statements all sound equally (im)plausible to me. If the conclusion people were jumping to in Focus was reasonable, the whole point of the story would be lost.
Of Unknown Origin (1983)
Hey Bart, it's just a RAT!
(Slight, generalized spoilers)
This film can't decide if it's going for psychodrama or boogie-man horror.
The script and Weller's performance are a cut above the usual B-movie fare, and do a surprisingly nice job of conveying Bart's increasing compulsion. Watching Weller's character tilt more and more toward obsession was memorable and unexpected. This film actually reminds me a bit of the Twilight Zone episode, "Nightmare At 20,000 Feet," in which an airplane passenger's behavior goes from normal to extreme. At the end of the film, I was subtly and cleverly left pondering whether Bart had gone permanently over the top or, with his ordeal over, was now free to resume his previously normal behavior.
That side of the man/rat equation is the good part. On the other side, The film tries too hard to make us scared of the rat. I really couldn't go along with Bart on his wild ride because of that one one fatal flaw: it's a rat. It's not a dragon; it's not a worldwide plague; it's not even some sort of space gremlin ripping apart an airplane wing: it's a rat. Sure, it's a big rat. It's a mean rat. It's a very uncharacteristically smart and resourceful rat. But it's still just a rodent. I was a bit skeptical whether his obsessive fears were justified. Unlike with the Twilight Zone script, I'm not confident that this was intentional.
Napoleon Dynamite (2004)
Too Uncomfortably Surreal
Most of the time I enjoy surrealism as a source of humor in film, but this one made me very uncomfortable. I finally figured out why: Napoleon, Pedro and Deb live in a subtly eerie, perpetually awkward world which is all they know, but they clearly don't really belong in it. They're geeky and socially inept, but they, themselves, are not that different than any normal young teenager. Many of their actions are just honest attempts to best deal with the weirdness around them (with limited success). There were a few potentially funny scenes, but I couldn't enjoy them. I was too disturbed by the knowledge that these reasonably realistic teens were trapped forever in a surreal world of bizarre adults, mean classmates and unpleasant situations, and that the sole purpose in putting them there was so the we, the audience, could laugh at their clumsy inability to deal with it all. Surrealism can be funny, but the characters in this film aren't in on the joke.
Several close friends were sure I would LOVE this movie. They were amazed when I reported back to them that my wife and I greatly disliked this movie--then we discovered that they were popular, confident cheerleader types in school, and I was an awkward, geeky outsider. I remember the pain of getting laughed at for just trying to fit in clearly enough that I can't laugh at somebody else in the same situation, even if they're fictional.
This has become my "litmus test" movie. Before anybody gives me a film recommendation, I ask them, "Did you like Napolean Dynamite?" If they say yes, I discount their opinion.
Hollywood Shuffle (1987)
Frustratingly Uneven
When this film first came out, I saw it and loved it. For years, I've quoted (and, as it turns out, misquoted) a few of its lines--some of the funniest I've ever heard. I recently watched the DVD version with my wife, who'd never seen it. She wasn't impressed, and I can't say that I blame her. I was surprised how tedious and un-funny some stretches of the film are, and how disconnected the various skits were. The funny parts are still riotously funny (Nearly every second of "Sneakin' In The Movies with Tyrone and Speed" is laugh-out-loud funny), but other parts are boring and flat. The film-noir parody is especially poor, with unfocused, stale gags delivered slowly and without zest. A final note: those easily offended by four-letter words should skip this film. In keeping with its urban "street" vibe, rough language is pervasive--especially in the funniest scenes.
Autumn in New York (2000)
Who cares, just DIE already.
Let me sum up what I learned from this movie: If you're an aging, philandering jerk, you can restore your relationship with the daughter you abandoned by seducing a terminally-ill girl half your age, cheating on her, then grieving over her unavoidable death. If that sounds like "real life" to you, you're gonna LOVE this movie.
Ryder plays an early-20-something girl who falls for a 48-year-old restaurant owner. The lead characters "fall in love," but their relationship is strictly 2-dimensional. We're never given any clue about what is actually attracting these two people to each other. Her terminal illness is also totally unbelievable; Ryder's character has quite normal capabilities for the most part, until she suddenly gasps or unexpectedly falls over unconscious at crucial moments. The plot is totally disjointed, with very little understandable cause and effect established between various actions and reactions.
Gere is a decent actor, at least when he plays his usual stock character (the rich, self-centered playboy). He has some stupid lines to deliver, but he manages to be the only believable thing in the movie. But that only allowed me to hate his character with a passion. He's not just a womanizer, he's a big enough jerk to --now, try to get all this-- have quickie sex with an old girlfriend at his best friend's house, during a children's Halloween party, which he is attending with his current, dying girlfriend, whom he says he loves more deeply than anyone else he has ever known. After lying about the tryst, Gere finally tells Ryder that he HAD to have sex with another woman because he was "scared." Oh please! The screenwriter must be equally a jerk, because he obviously thinks we will actually LIKE this creep. After that kind of behavior, not only do I fail to like him, I can't care at all what happens to him.
Of course, Ryder's poor little sick girl quickly melts and forgives him, and believes him when he whispers to her he loves her. Frankly, at that point in the film I was thinking, "She deserves whatever she gets. Neither one of these people have a clue what love is." For some reason, by the end of the film, Ryder's sickness and death makes things okay between the restaurateur and his estranged daughter. Why? How? Who knows! Who CARES; I was just grateful the film was over!
Field of Dreams (1989)
It's not a movie, it's a daydream captured on film.
I didn't find Field of Dreams to be the profound statement about "life, the universe and everything" that many others found it to be. But I like it anyway, just because it's such a creative, boldly odd alternative to the typical Hollywood formula. Remember being a kid, dreaming up things with your friends that you all knew were totally out of the realm of logic or reality? Someone would inevitably say, "but wouldn't it be cool if it really happened?" And you'd all nod in agreement. That's what this movie feels like, and I applaud the grownups in and behind this film for being unabashedly transparent in their affection for a silly but likable daydream. If you go into this movie eager to rip it apart, you'll hate it. Maintaining the "suspension of disbelief" at the nearly ridiculous level Field of Dreams demands is a talent many people lack. But if you can manage to buy into it, you'll find that your willingness to follow along in the face of so much unreal pipe-dreaming will turn you into a participant, not just a viewer. At the end, you might find yourself nodding, "yea, that'd be sooo cool."
At First Sight (1999)
A really fascinating subject that deserves better treatment than this.
I have conflicting feelings about different elements of this movie.
Great premise. It's uniqueness was what kept me "in the film." -- Val Kilmer: A workmanlike effort to look and act the part, both as a blind man and as recently-sighted person. Forced storyline doesn't give him much time to develop believable reactions to plot elements. -- Mira Sorvino: As beautiful and likable as ever. Nice subtlety to her expressions and inflections helps us suspend our disbelief now and again during the film. -- Supporting cast: Kelly McGillis chews the scenery. Nathan Lane always does a good job, but isn't on screen much. Steven Weber is a bit wooden (again, mostly the script's fault) but manages to be a suitably smarmy ex-husband. -- Camera-work: Most of the scenes are visually rather pretty. Given the challenges of showing the POV of a disoriented, newly-sighted person, not a bad effort -- Plot: Sloppy, with forced emotions, mismatched scenes, unnecessary subplots, and loose ends. -- Dialogue: Horribly contrived and stilted. Lots of unrealistic monologuing. -- Storyline: prior to his operation, most of the plot elements seem lifted from old Longstreet episodes. The small town is completely cardboard. In New York after operation, things are less cliché, more inventive, but still a struggle.
OVERALL AVERAGE: 5. Not great. May be worth seeing because of the unique premise, but if you skip it, you're not missing much.
Devil's Angels (1967)
Fun, but not for the reasons the filmmakers intended
This is not a great movie, and it never was. But today, the period foolishness in telling the story of poor, misunderstood counterculture bikers is a hoot! The bikers flaunt their bad-boys image and behavior, but then bemoan the harsh treatment they get from the "citizens" they despise. They--and this film--want it both ways. If this was a new film, I would be more critical of it, but as it is, it's a wonderful time capsule of '60s film-making and ideology. The acting and dialog continually swing from wooden and contrived to endearing and dramatically believable. Cassavetes was truly a talented actor, and this otherwise low-grade movie proves it. I am much more fond his gang leader character than the script or production warrant.
Tucker: The Man and His Dream (1988)
Good story, great film-making.
If I were to make a film about the power of dreams, I doubt I would start with a real-life story of a dreamer who ultimately failed because he had nothing BUT dreams. But as a film, Tucker: The Man and His Dream works very well. It works neither because of nor in spite of whom Preston Tucker really was, but because he has been remade in the film to represent something larger--the postwar optimism that buoyed the nation for nearly two decades after the end of WWII. Lucas and Coppola were smart enough to realize that the factual story would resonate poorly with a late-20th-century audience if presented in a documentary style. So they skillfully crafted a tale that effectively communicates the real story, but does so behind the veil of fable.
How this was done is a triumph of film-making technique. Rather than monkey around too much with the relevant (and ultimately disheartening) facts of the Tucker Motor Company's short existence, Lucas and Coppola took all the incidentals of the filmthe characters, the subplots, the sets, the costumesand skewed, streamlined, generalized and idealized them to the point of subtly but clearly communicating the filmmakers' intent that this be viewed as a morality play, not an historical account.
The resulting film is visually and aurally gorgeous. The lush sets, rich, saturated colors and dramatic cinematography would border on hackneyed and cliché if they depicted any other era, but here they lovingly reinterpret the feel of '40s Hollywood dramas, meshing the film's message perfectly with the historical setting. A fantastic score by former-punk-rocker-turned-orchestral-arranger Joe Jackson artfully gives '40's swing a punchy, forceful modern makeover that helps keep the whole retro package accessible and enjoyable for modern viewers.
Looking back, it may seem odd that unbridled enthusiasm such as Tucker's was so pervasive as the nation reeled from the horrible reality of World War II and came to grips with its cold war legacy. Perhaps America HAD to be optimistic; the fragile ability to hope and dream was indispensable therapy. Like Tucker's, everyone else's dreams of a forever-improving world would crash by the end of the disillusioned, turbulent '60s. Tucker: The Man and His Dream is a very agreeable way to forget the past we KNOW and discover a more visceral history we can FEEL.
My Chauffeur (1986)
Horrible Low Point in 80's Film-making.
I, like everyone else in the world, let the gut-wrenchingly-cute Foreman melt my heart in 1983's Valley Girl. After that classic performance, why did her career go nowhere? This movie answers that question. Foreman is as beautiful and likable as ever, and her character has so much charm you really, really WANT to like this movie. But it's just not possible. The soul-less script was seemingly written in a day by randomly pulling gags, plot elements and scenes from a dozen other exploitative, formulaic b-movies with no consideration of whether or not they added up to a meaningful story. What I thought was a fresh, authentic performance by Foreman in Valley Girl has mutated in My Chauffeur into stilted, ham-fisted overacting. In her defense, she has very little material here to add any authenticity to. The bored, lifeless actors around her in every scene (such as the unalterable, dreary Howard Hessman) and the totally cardboard dialog she has to recite are insufferable. The film is tastelessly exploitative. Various scenes showcasing incongruent nudity, foul language, and other unseemly story elements are unskillfully layered over a basically boring plot in an attempt to transform the story into a wacky, unpredictable adventure. Such crude attempts rarely succeed. At one point, when Foreman's character is informed of her apparent unwitting incest, she simply cocks a wry grin and giggles a coy, "We've been BAAAD!"
That's right, little lady. You've been "BAAAD" all through this movie.
Quadrophenia (1979)
1 film, 1 viewer, 2 opinions!
Note: Quadrophenia is loosely based on one of guitarist Pete Townshend's ego-trip "rock operas" for The Who. Other than the soundtrack, the Who album has little to do with the movie. If you're expecting a "Tommy"-like musical revue on film, forget it.
The film tells the cautionary tale of an insecure, working-class London teen in the mid-sixties. We watch him slowly slide into despair as he realizes that his idealized view of gang life is false and ultimately self-destructive. The movie is very violent, but the violence has consequences and is presented in a realistic, jarring, purposely disturbing way. It is more acceptable to me than the sort of desensitized killing seen in so many action-adventure hero films, and yet much tougher on the audience. There is also some crass sexuality and lots of rough language.
I saw this film at age 17 and had never seen something that affected me so completely. It floored me with its imagery. I have it on videotape and have watched it many times. So I recommend it, right? Well...maybe and maybe not. Come to think of it, if I saw the film for the first time today, it would probably offend me greatly. But it's a film that has a great, walloping impact on exactly the sort of young people whom I'd discourage from seeing films like this. Is Quadrophenia a force for good or a force for evil? Gosh, I just can't decide. But it is a very forceful film, nonetheless.