soymaid327 Reviews

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia: Old Lady House: A Situation Comedy (2017) Season 12, Episode 3

Parody done well

[9/10 · 21 January 2017]

Meta, parody and fourth-wall jokes are a tough line to walk. Community did it well many times, and poorly sometimes too. Supernatural took it too far and all subtlety was lost. IASIP generally sticks to background jokes and undercurrents (like Mac's weight gain), although there has certainly been some loss of subtlety as the character traits become more extreme (Mac's homosexuality and Dennis' neurotic narcissism being the biggest examples... other characters like Frank and Charlie have always had extreme traits, so it's hard to read any changes). This process is sometimes called Flanderization, just as an aside.

Recent seasons of IASIP, like the revival seasons of Futurama, contain some recycling but also still quite a lot of originality, cleverness and inventive humor. This episode had some recycling in it, too -- a lot of the jokes were well-tread material, like Mac's desperate need to be loved by his mom and Dee's obsession with making it in comedy. But it also deftly executed fourth-wall jokes in rapid succession in a way that did not have to be understood to be enjoyed. That's key: whether you see it as fourth-wall humor or not, the show works equally well. It's basically two shows for the price of one. Three, if you count Old Lady House.

If you enjoyed the concepts behind Cabin in the Woods, Community or EdTV/ The Truman Show, I think you will enjoy this. I did.

American Horror Story: Magical Thinking (2015) Season 4, Episode 11

Contains the only real shock of the season

[8/10 · 3 September 2016]

American Horror Story: Freakshow is less horror than simple drama. I have only seen one previous season (Murder House), but although I found it very entertaining it wasn't exactly a statement. Freakshow, on the other hand, is really quite lacking in scares after the first few episodes, but it's also much more thoughtful. The season explores not only "what makes a freak?" (a rather well-trod path at this point) but also the nature of killing and questions of morality. Is this murder more justified than this other one? More understandable? What can I condemn someone for, and would I feel differently if they weren't a sympathetic character? We see murders out of desperation, jealousy, vindictive enjoyment, blackmail, even plain old sociopathic insanity, and it's hard to know what lines to even draw, let alone where to draw them. Murder House showed a bit of moral complexity, but this season is 150 shades of grey (so to speak).

The plot is seriously lacking in tension and focus, but it gives the characters a reason to interact. Performances are great as always (I especially loved Denis O'Hare). The setting is richly developed and eerie, although I wasn't quite as chilled as I was by HBO's Carnivale (though that might just be because the soundtrack to Carnivale was dynamite). Twisty the Clown might be the scariest clown I've seen since Tim Curry in IT, but Dandy, the aforementioned sociopath and ultimate mama's boy, is less exciting. Mostly because, if you've seen one Sadistic Amoral Excitable Manboy (see: Ramsay Bolton) you've seen them all. It's hard to take a character like that in new directions. I was also surprised to see so much love for Bette and Dot by the critics. I never found the character very compelling. More of a nominal protagonist who gets lost in a sea of way-more-interesting side-characters. Evan Peters does his normal cherubic hero thing, which is much more fun than it has any right to be. Kathy Bates is a goddess.

Okay. This episode. Maybe I should have posted this review on the season finale, but I wanted to write it here because this episode had the only gasp-out-loud moment of the season when Jimmy wakes up and sees his right hand missing. I think I may have had that exact nightmare because it was an incredibly visceral moment. I like eerie, but the best horror is disturbing and that was some disturbing business. A highlight for sure. Other than that, the episode blended with the rest of the season rather than standing out. NPH acted the crap outta his part (as usual) and Jamie Brewer dropped by for some gleeful cackling murder, which I enjoyed. The episode has a lot of focus on Dot and Bette, which is good for people who enjoy that character but a bit tiresome for me. Overall, very consistent with the rest of the season.

Porkin' Across America (2012– )

Great for vicarious sadists

[1/10 · 1 February 2016]

The Onion likes to put out shocking content. They did so with Sex House, and although the characters go through awful things, I kept watching because they were decent people and I wanted them to be okay.

Porkin' Across America denies us even that. It's a great show if you like to watch bad things happen to bad people... and that's the joke. That's the entire joke. This guy is reprehensible, and awful things keep happening to him and all those close to him. Haha? The example that sticks in my head (here is the spoiler, but only for ep2) is when the animal shelter calls to tell him his dog attacked another dog and will now have to be destroyed. "Well... can you put him on the phone?" the protagonist asks, distraught. I guess that was the joke. We get to sit through the final whimpers of this unknown dog and see the protagonist's face as he loses someone close to him. Haha? Then the shelter worker gets back on the phone and obviously doesn't give two craps that she just watched an animal die (fyi, this is extremely inaccurate).

...Haha?

I hate to review something I did not finish watching, but I think it says a lot about it that I couldn't finish watching it. If you like the Office AND Meet the Parents AND Arrested Development AND It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, your sense of humor MIGHT be dark enough to enjoy this. Personally I'd rather poke my eyeball with a stick for two hours. At least I wouldn't be upset afterward.

This Is the End (2013)

Well-written mix of highbrow, lowbrow, meta and absurdist comedy

[6/10 · 10 July 2013]

I found Superbad to be very uneven, and its characters irritatingly unsympathetic. Which is why I was so pleasantly surprised to see in this movie a consistent level of self-aware comedy and believable (comedic) emotional development which naturally advanced with the plot. The movie features a slew of actors playing against type, with many tongue-in-cheek nods to their real-life personas and their conceptions in pop culture -- James Franco is pretentious, Danny McBride abrasive and self-centered, Jonah Hill meek and accommodating, Emma Watson reimagined as a fierce survivalist, and of course Michael Cera in a brief but memorable performance that hearkens back to Neil Patrick Harris's cameo in Harold & Kumar. Craig Robinson seems to have also finally hit on a dynamic character who is interesting to watch on screen, and he is one of the best parts of the movie. Indeed, though I felt little love for the bickering idiots in Superbad, the bickering idiots of This Is The End are ultimately sympathetic, which is essential to the tone of the movie.

There are jokes that didn't work for me, including far too many genitalia jokes and a tasteless men-being-raped-is-funny moment. The movie also goes at least fifteen minutes too long, lingering in the second act when I was restless for the third. But the topical references seem only more hilarious given how badly they will age (Gangnam Style and Backstreet Boys being notable examples) and quotable lines are nearly endless; I feel destined to rewatch this movie and enjoy new jokes each time.

Carnivàle (2003–2005)

Bring back Carnivale. Bring it back!

[9/10 · 22 May 2006]

If you want to criticize Carnivale, you can say it meanders, tends to assign too much importance to sex and romantic love, and seems... kinda Christian.

Honestly, though, why would you want to do that?

Let me begin with boldness: Carnivale is nothing if not courageous. Considering it was all mapped out ahead of time, I spent a lot of time wondering, worrying, and having no clue what was going to happen. You can tell right from the get-go that this show does not aspire to be just-another anything: where most shows might introduce the main character and have him or her do something likable to start you off, Carnivale opens to a bewildering message regarding good, evil, prophets, princes -- and pretty much lets you know it aspires to be the most significant show you've ever seen. As a die-hard atheist, I haven't found anything offensive yet. Really, I'm just impressed.

Carnivale introduces you to a whole bunch of well-drawn characters and dares you to take sides. People I liked turned out to have faults (sometimes ugly ones) and people who rubbed me the wrong way at first ended up being the guys I was rooting for at the end. It's hard to dismiss anybody because, considering this show is about "two houses, one of light and one of darkness," there's quite a bit of moral ambiguity.

The best reason to watch this show, though, is not the pacing, the plot, or even the characters -- really, it's the moods. When Carnivale wanted me to be scared, my hands shook. When Carnivale wanted me to be happy, I nearly wept. When Carnivale wanted me to be appalled, or disbelieving, or in mourning, or breathless... it happened. Much of this, I feel compelled to note, is due to the show's single greatest strength: its soundtrack. Carnivale without its soundtrack is still fascinating, but the complex, often hair-raising and sometimes heart-stopping themes elevate the material like no other music I can remember in any series or film.

Watch this show. Watch it, read about it, praise it, and even criticize it. Let's hope when you do that you aren't speaking ill of the dead.

Chasing Liberty (2004)

Wait, I'm supposed to empathize with Anna?

[2/10 · 13 January 2006]

This could've been one of those fun-and-fancy-free movies, with a likable heroine, a lighthearted escape, and fun roaming the countryside with a cute guy in tow. Whoops. Stop at item number one.

Was it Moore's acting? She has done far better in b*tchier roles (see Saved!) than protagonist-ic ones. Here, her regrettable gift at whining is combined with what the writers must have assumed is a normal teenage demeanor of spoiled, petulant adolescent who supposedly yearns for freedom but has no conception of what the real world is like without the protection of her father's name and money, nor does she seem to sincerely want one. Her complaints are so clichés and insincere that we sense she would be appeased if daddy let her have a shopping spree instead. She longs for some romanticized version of freedom, seen perhaps in movies, but it obviously emotionally unequipped to handle it. This, and Ben's obvious perception of this (I liked him more at the beginning when he was only annoyed by her, and don't see why he stopped) totally derail the movie.

I don't like to go on so about a single aspect of a film when others -- the extras, the adventures they have together through a beautiful countryside, and so on -- are so appealing. But there you have it. This movie was almost charming. Too bad.

Serenity (2005)

Slightly flawed, intensely scary, dramatic, clever, and wonderful

[8/10 · 6 September 2005]

For those who don't know, Serenity is a ship. It is also, however, a crucial battle during which the character Capt. Mal Reynolds' side, the rebels, lost their independence to the Alliance, a huge Sino-American power that rules the solar system (a new one) and is responsible for making the planets of that solar system inhabitable... to varying degrees. Got that? Well, it's okay if you don't quite yet.

Pretty much the important people are a ragtag group of outsiders who live their lives finding work, honest or dishonest (don't much care which) on the untamed frontier of the Outer Planets. (Think Tatooine.) Things are always hectic and frequently dangerous, but become much more so when two passengers find their way on board: Simon Tam, a young man once on his way to the top who sacrificed everything to rescue his younger sister; and River Tam, his sister whose profound genius made her a victim of cruel experimentation by the Alliance government. Alright, that's the premise, and that's all the time I want to spend on the facts. Now, onto subjectivity!

Much as I wanted this movie to amaze me, I was very worried that it would not. Joss Whedon is one of my idols, but he has never before created a motion picture (laymen might know him from the TV show Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and he has until now been a TV guy). Both of my feelings were correct: it was indeed amazing, and I would say it did also have problems. Let me explain.

First (because it's less fun), the bad. The pacing was less of a problem than I had feared, but the movie still did not have the rhythm of most movies you are likely to see. Partially, of course, this is a positive thing: the cliché arc of a plot is not entirely desirable. However, events happened in such a way that even a seasoned fan like myself could not incorporate things quickly enough, and spent much of the movie slightly disoriented. By far a bigger problem for me, however, were the story lines. EVERYTHING is concluded, and that made me very sad. Let me emphasize that, had this been a movie like any other, the conclusions would have been perfectly acceptable. But one of the things that made all of Joss Whedon's work and especially Firefly unique was simply how MUCH each episode contained -- there were enough subplots, which advanced at a naturally slow pace, that a single movie could not do them justice and bring them to conclusion. As a result, character and plot arcs simply *end*, at the right place of course but far before the right time. It is such a letdown to see everything you wanted to happen on the show over whole seasons happen in a single three-minute scene, and there's no way to alleviate that no matter how wonderful that scene is.

Oooh! Okay, now good stuff. First of all, the writing was as excellent as I had hoped, the occasional clichés always parodying themselves or ending with a wonderful surprise (in particular, one exchange late in the movie right before a big-scary-death-showdown almost lost me, but then ended with a wonderful and surprising line that only made me love the characters involved that much more -- you'll know it when you see it. People clapped). Something that will strike Firefly fans is how intense this entire movie is. I jumped in my seat a few times, one of which happened in the very first scene. The final battle, and the raggedly emotional moments, are what you would expect from an action movie only ten times more involving -- there is more darkness in the characters, and the climax will have you wondering how they'll make it through, not in an interested but eternally optimistic way, but kind of in a hopeless way. If you always wanted to be one of the characters in the series, you might see this movie and be glad that you aren't, because they really go through a hell of a lot.

I laughed, I gasped, I put my hand on my heart near then end and it stayed there for nigh half an hour, I (almost) cried, and when the Firefly theme song began to play during the end credits I sang along because I felt a compulsion to do so. If that doesn't make sense to you now, see the movie. Afterwards I felt raw, I felt shocked, I felt amazed, I felt happy, and I felt entertained. I did not feel let down. And let me tell you, I did NOT feel ready to leave.

Note: I am a fan of Whedon and Firefly, and write from that viewpoint. I saw an advance screening hosted by Joss himself at Wesleyan University, Joss' and my college of choice, but this was definitely the final product. I did my best, but this movie was difficult to review just because of how DIFFERENT it is than most movies you see at the theatre.

Another Note: The fights scenes ruled.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)

If you liked The Mummy, this will be more guilty fun

[5/10 · 1 July 2005]

There are advantages to being ignorant, as film noir likes to point out. I read the Lord of the Rings only after seeing the movies -- while my friends moaned to each other about Tom Bombadil, I saw the movie by itself before adding the context later on. I'm glad I did, and I think it worked well here, too.

This movie has serious flaws. Its hopes for consistent internal logic, not to mention the insane idea that it is possible in real-world history, are both to be discarded. None of that. When it does something so implausible it hurts (a car racing through the streets in... Venice?), the story is hurt is as well. It is proficient at using the characters' individual strengths, but when in a scene Dr Jekyll's character is supposed to experience actual emotional development, it really, really, really doesn't work. Somebody in writing forgot that in order to make peace from conflict and have it mean anything, this conflict must be visible to the audience, not just a few mutterings inaudible under the tense music.

This said, the movie's main flaw seems to be that it is incurably silly, and that is something I (for one) always forgive. I know the concepts each character is based around, but haven't read the novels containing them in so long that other details escape me. As I said before, this is just as well: consistency, if you're going to make Dorian invulnerable to bullets, is neither desirable nor attainable.

If you're able to laugh at the ridiculousness of it all (and maybe cringe your way through some of the dialogue), you'll get a passable flick. Not sure why all the hatred -- personally, I like a bit of lunacy with my action, and the clichés (the young buck and old tiger, the woman who sits through the insults and then impresses everyone at a more dramatic time, the betrayal that is pretty obviously not what everyone thinks) are time-honored and very satisfying. Plus, fun to watch just to see Sean Connery finally give up all hope of ever mastering an English accent. Good old Sean.

La dialectique peut-elle casser des briques? (1973)

An experience

[8/10 · 8 February 2005]

Whether or not you like this movie will basically boil down to how you enjoy movies -- specifically, whether you're able to stomach cheesy movies in order to share a knowing chuckle with your friends. Oh yeah... also whether you're knowledgeable about sectionalism and Marxist theory.

You don't need a ton of knowledge; a passing familiarity with Marx and a vague awareness of world events (which is all I have) will do. It also helps to have seen at least one movie from this genre (classic over-the-top martial arts). But nevermind you. let's talk about the movie.

Can Dialectics Break Bricks? is a hokey Japanese karate movie dubbed over with a sly smile by a group of French sectionalists (I believe that's what they called themselves) and transmogrified into an epic tale of the struggle of the proletariat against the evil bureaucratic bourgeoisie. This is every bit as quirky and strange as it sounds. The randomness and slight surrealism of the B-movie are exaggerated by the bizarre and totally inappropriate narrative about dialectical materialism and references to Castro. It's, simply put, outrageous.

The movie was only dubbed, so during stretches without dialogue you will become (read: I got) very bored very quickly. I also felt it went on a little long. These objections aside, the movie has a dashing hero, a spirited heroine, and an inspiring crusade against evil. If you're willing to put on your silly hats and go with the joke, this movie can be a lot of fun.

Phone Booth (2002)

Wow

[10/10 · 15 August 2004]

I first saw a preview for this movie on TV. My sister, in the room at the time, said the plot looked ridiculous. I thought of the hero-villain interaction in Speed that, in my opinion, really made that movie great, and wondered.

Both of us found what we were expecting.

My sister saw a segment of it and disliked it -- she didn't like watching something like that happen to a person, she said; and of course, she still thought the plot was ridiculous. I watched the whole thing. Many times. In fact, I taped it (an honor rarely accorded). I got exactly what I was hoping for.

Farrell's acting in this was exceptionally good. He has a way of presenting a reaction so authentic that it is startling to watch. ****SPOILERS An example of this is when he first sees the gun near the light in the booth, he has this moment of surreal terror that was so effective, it gave me and my brother chills. And the way in his climactic scene he goes for broke, and you can hear the pain when his voice cracks and he tries not to start sobbing. Also, when he reaches for the gun the first time, he has an expression of please-don't-let-what-I-think-is-gonna-happen-happen that increases the audience' sympathy almost suddenly. END SPOILERS**** Sutherland's performance reminded me of Anthony Hopkins' in Silence of the Lambs... smooth, and evil. Even Whitaker gives us a realistic police chief, even with those irrelevant, unnecessary and really quite irritating lines about his marital difficulties.

But what a film that takes place entirely in a phone booth boils down to is dialogue. This was a good script -- as I mentioned before, the most interesting part of any action movie is the hero/ villain interaction (tragic, considering that most movies now are reduced to horrible pre-fight cliches). This movie took on not only themes of morality and sin, but also had an interesting subtext with isolation in such a connected/ wired society. of course, I pondered the "issues" on my third and fourth viewing -- the first and second were all about the conversation itself, not the meaning. the first time there's suspense, but even after that there is the joy of Sutherland's lines, the way the Caller toys with Stu... there is a streak of wicked humor, and Stu's clever (increasingly desperate) attempts to worm his way out. "I know just the spin to put on this!" he says of publicity he has frantically offered his captor; the Caller replies drily "How your terror inspires your creativity?"

9/10, demerits for the sub-plot involving Ramey and the extraneous attempt at irony with a negotiator with a grating personality.

FernGully: The Last Rainforest (1992)

Spellbinding

[10/10 · 13 August 2004]

One of my least favorite experiences is to find a movie I loved in my single-digits, rewatch it in wonder, then wait half an hour (at most) and finally concede that it was a real stinker. I may sentimentalize movies from my youth, but not the ones that really don't deserve my affection.

This one does.

Crysta, a simple, innocent, and at times flippant fairy, is an imperfect but funny heroine, and as genuine as they come. Batty gives Robin Williams another character perfectly suited to his talent -- I watched this movie at a party with highschoolers and he went down great (everyone liked the movie overall, but Batty stole my friends' hearts). He has the genie sassy-but-kind vibe going, and it's hard not to think of him as just as much a main character as Crysta (or more). Zach... well, okay, Zach was unforgivably dumb for awhile, but it was gratifying to see him finally get it. Magi Lune's character was fascinating, a powerful sorceress with just a hint of weakness and sadness (as when she admits of the coming darkness that she "cannot heal it" and "cannot stop it"). She delivers sappy lines and instead of losing the audience emotionally, they resonate deeply. I think this is because the usual sentimentality and condescension you see in kids' movie whenever there's a "message" is totally absent -- Magi speaks her lines with total respect and love for Crysta. It is a deeply spiritual moment.

The animation is beautiful, visual joy; the script is full of entertaining flourishes, and Crysta's father is the most humorous roly-poly befuddled dad since the Sultan in Aladdin. I'm a huge Tim Curry fan, and he doesn't disappoint. But what makes this film stand out for me is how it handles its message.

The entire film is built around it, but it doesn't seem heavy-handed at all. As a kid, I was inspired by Crysta's comeback, and the idea of there being "magic" in all of us. As a teenager, it reached me even more: Crysta learns that, despite her youthful curiosity, real understanding and real power can come when she applies herself, and takes responsibility. In the beginning of the film, Crysta takes Magi for granted (and not too seriously), and there is a hint of rowdy teenager in the way she sneaks off to hang with a boy she likes. But she comes to understand that Magi is not infallible, and will not always be there to take care of her. She realizes that she loves Magi even though the woman can't always make everything alright, and eventually, Crysta learns that she, too, can take care of others. In short, Crysta matures, and it is insightfully handled and beautiful and affecting for me to watch. this, even more than the idea of conservation, is its message: the inspiration to learn that others cannot always help you, and that sometimes other people even *need* you -- the rainforest is really just another charge, desperately in need of help.

The Lizzie McGuire Movie (2003)

Just... dumb

[31 July 2004]

I am very forgiving towards non-intellectual movies. Usually, I just like to have fun; brainless fun if need be. Fridays night will probably see me watching Wayne's World and skipping Capturing the Friedmans.

But this movie was simply unforgivable.

I well understand the need of an implausible plot. If only there had been a single plausible moment! The brother says he misses his sister, so the parents decide they will all go to Rome instead of explaining to him that his sister will come back, and in the meantime he should realize that there are ways of dealing with his feelings. Lizzie and Paulo frolic enough to fill a brochure, but it consists entirely of Lizzie grinning like she's dumb as dirt and saying things that add absolutely nothing. Paulo has about twelve "dazzling smiles" for every line of dialogue. It's hard to feel one way or the other about him, since we never get to know him as a character... except that he takes a liking to Lizzie to a preposterous degree. The ending "twist" barely registers as significant.

The only two characters who make an impression are 1) Gordo, Lizzie's (VERY obviously) crushing just-friend who goes to depressing lengths to help Lizzie, considering all he ever gets in return is "Omigod! I felt so guilty! But I can't talk now!" and 2) Miss Ungermeyer, the allegedly daunting teacher who is actually much more a sympathetic character than bird-brained Lizzie. Alex Borstein and Adam Lamberg carry the film, providing its only truly funny and (relatively) authentic moments. Borstein is a delight to watch, and Lamberg is the one "good" character the viewer could actually root for.

Overall, 2/10 for the actors mentioned (and because I loved the bit about the Roman Forum).

28 Days Later (2002)

the one thing

[16 July 2004]

The one thing that made this movie effective... well, let me back up. Ever have a nightmare where you're being stalked, or otherwise threatened, and you could die, and it's scary as hell? I mean, the absolute worst? Now, think: have you ever had a nightmare where someone you love was already dead, and you knew it, you saw it?

It's infinitely worse.

This movie recognizes that. There is some action, yes, mostly towards the end, but what makes this movie one of the scariest I've seen is its method of accessing the deepest fears in all of us -- not fear for ourselves, of our own deaths, but for others, our families and loved ones, and the utter, complete loneliness if they were to simply be gone forever. This is a post-apocalyptic movie that really drives in the impact of the idea, to devastating effect. It makes everything more engaging: the characters feel more real (though this is also due to the excellent script), the danger more immediate. But this is not a things-pop-out-and-scare-you horror movie. It's a film that will haunt you.

The Air Up There (1994)

oh c'mon, it's fun

[15 July 2004]

I just watched this movie again, and I still love it from when I was a kid. (I know everyone loves some stinkers when they're kids, but bear with me.) This movie was as entertaining now as it was back then.

I know the plot can be predicted almost to the detail, but if that doesn't immediately and absolutely put you off it, it's a real treat. The acting and script are sincere, but even more so, the whole movie just has an innocent sincerity to it that's actually a rare find (even in a kids' movie). If this movie were a romance, it wouldn't hold up at all with this kind of sentimentality, but in a fun movie that's (technically) a sports drama, it really lends something to the whole affair that can put you in a good mood every time you watch it.

I'm sure part of this is Maina's performance, which is so sweet you can't help but like it -- this is coming from a usually-cynical moviegoer who dislikes "sappy" movies.

All in all, it's a charmer.

The Recruit (2003)

So smart, it's dumb (spoilers)

[8 July 2004]

...by which I mean, this movie tries so hard to be intricate that, when you actually bother to take stock of the facts, what you come away with is embarrassingly simple. And that's not all that's wrong with this movie, although it is the foundation of everything else.

I spent a lot of time trying to keep track of the plot of this movie. The characters speak cryptically (well.... mostly Burke, I guess) and the script likes to not-quite say what it means, so you have to take things to the obvious conclusion yourself, and keep track of all the assumptions you're making. This is a way of making the movie seem like an engaging thriller when really it's just a way to disavow any plot holes later with the judicious application of the response, "...or *was* it?"

This seems to be the point of the movie: after having to keep track of what the filmmakers *almost* say for so long, they get to turn the tables as many times as they like with the cinematic equivalent of "I'll bet you didn't see *that* coming!" Trouble is, we did. By now, they've asked us to remember so much that it's pretty clear there will be at least one double-cross (even plainer because of the film's mantra -- nothing is as it seems). In fact, most of what sustains us from the second act up until the climax is the promise of a double-cross -- we know it's going to happen if for no other reason than that the romantic leads are never bad, and... let's see... which other main character does that leave us?

A movie like this could've been saved by its characters. Oh, well. Farrell does a bang-up job, but he's not given much to work with... his character, for example, is implausibly easily enthralled during his first meeting with Pacino's character. Likewise, Pacino is fun, as always (although with his same performance as always), but his character's personality drops off after the beginning to a man who speaks very enigmatically and yells and not much else. These problems, however, are the less important -- the real flaw of this movie is that the intricacy here has all been done before. Even while we're trying to keep up, we can see everything coming a mile away.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

I won't review the whole film

[27 June 2004]

...because I'd rather just say my piece about what this stands for. At a time when you can turn on four radio stations all repeating the exact same news, when there simply *isn't* an effective way of spreading non-partisan information, and when the two major political parties are merging more and more over time into the prophesied Republicrats, radical commies like Moore are the only way of getting reliable opposition-party information.

After seeing some segments (such as the part about his "election"), one wonders how those in power could possibly have gotten away with doing the things they have done. The answer, of course, is that both-sides-of-the-issue coverage is getting harder and harder to access. We need Moore, even if you think he's a obnoxious nutcase, and even more importantly we need the government to respond to every single accusation Moore throws. We need to hold our government accountable -- we need clear responses as to where Moore went overboard, and we need public acknowledgment of where Moore was completely right. Unfortunately, neither of these is forthcoming... so for now, at least we have our lone liberal voice speaking against an entire culture of conformist, cooperative media and equivocating politicians.

Don Juan DeMarco (1994)

mostly harmless

[26 May 2004]

Don Juan DeMarco does several things in a rather unfocused way. It is a vehicle for Depp, a man known for making women everywhere swoon; it gives simple scenes Brando and Dunaway; it tells fantastic stories, through Depp's character, in boldly-colored scenes of romance and humor.

I have a few complaints with this movie. First, Brando: both the man and his character. In this part, I really feel he was miscast. Dunaway was convincing where Brando felt flat. This is a shame since, because of the slightly slow-moving directing style, a dynamic performance really could have given the movie another focal point.

His scenes with Depp also show this. I could tell by the way my attention kept shifting to Depp's character (and *not* visually, but mentally!) Depp has lines that seem bizarre on paper but somehow make sense when he says them.

By far the best scenes are the flashbacks. Besides their bold color and style that make the rest of the film seem to drag, these scenes are where Depp really seems to be enjoying himself. (Spoiler) Depp's face as he first lays eyes on the sultan's harem is priceless. He conveys a sincerity that seems to come more easily to this adventuresome alter ego than to his confined real-world self. The genuine feeling which is hinted at with Depp's sensual real-world dialogue is given a lot more screen time.

The message is at once frustratingly cliché (sometimes mental patients have it right; a little imagination spices up reality) and refreshing. I enjoyed how the movie ended with ambiguity; most movies are not willing to do that, which is a shame.

Altogether, I'd say 6 or 7 out of 10.

Comic Book Villains (2002 Video)

What?

[26 March 2004]

Was this supposed to be comedy? It could hardly be called funny. A serious movie? Let's not even ask.

This movie transitions from lighthearted, mediocre but sweet/harmless farce to some sort of dark thriller in a way that is simply bizarre. The characters went from benign to murderous without any evolution... they just went from good to evil, plain and simple (I apologize for using that phrase). Both halves of the movie were vaguely interesting, and watchable. Neither was amazing. If the writers had chosen one tone to stick with throughout the movie, it would've been a regular old two-star, maybe two-and-a-half. But this... this was like if halfway through You've Got Mail, Meg Ryan went insane for some reason and started murdering people. It just fundamentally doesn't make any sense.

As for the acting, Logue was actually fun to watch, Cary Elwes (of whom I'm a fan) made me cringe, Eileen Brennan was actually quite likable, and DJ Qualls was hardly ever on screen despite being the narrator. He went through the first half of the movie mildly, and the second half with a sense of unease. Just like me.