eadaoin7 Reviews

No Man of God (2021)

Ted's Last Laugh

[8/10 · 22 November 2021]

I have to say that Luke Kirby certainly did his homework. I recognized the mannerisms and cadence in his voice from the televised interview Ted gave to the reverend Dobson the night before his execution (more on that later). But as the film progressed, he'd taken that and truly turned it into a very personal and quite stunning performance. His portrayal has to be the best-acted Bundy I've seen to this date, and I've seen just about every one of them. Bravo, Mr Kirby!

Equally impressive is Elijah Wood in his portrayal as the undupable Special Agent Hagemeier, a man of faith with a keen gut for criminality. He turns in a stern and touching performance.

As one reviewer said, the performances of these two are the best reason to watch this film. The second-best reason would be the exchange between these figures and how they tried to understand each other. Hagemeier's faith and position are two things that eluded Ted, in that he believed that he could have done the agent's job better than anyone - he envied Hagemeier, and lashed out at him periodically out of jealousy. His faith in God was another elusive thing about life that Ted just never got. Ultimately because, as a sociopath, he could never grasp the intangible in life. But he was aware of how some people used religion in order to justify their actions, and how those in the religious circles rallied around causes that threatened their own carefully constructed visage. (Again, more on that later.)

The director certainly knows how to get the best performances from her actors, as this was superbly performed by everyone. My only qualm was with most of the jump-cut transitions that denoted the passage of time and fancied internal images. They may be stylish, but they don't work here. They only distract from what we came here to see--the acting! That and the story are interesting enough. There was no need to resort to such visual trickery.

I also came aways from this film thinking that this would make a stellar stage play! I wonder if C Robert Cargill thought of this before altering the script into a screenplay...?

For those wishing to learn more about the Bundy case, this is not the film for you: the premise of this film is for those who have quite an extensive understanding of the case from start to finish, as there are no insights into specific cases or victims (if you know, you'll be relieved he's not on this earth anymore, and I say this as a staunch disbeliever in the death penalty). Rather, this is a tale of one investigator and arguably the most notorious serial killer in modern history, the one who continues to fascinate, and mislead, to this day.

Bundy played everyone. He prided himself on being able to read anyone who walked into his path - it was how he was so successful as a killer for so many years. He knew who would be appropriate victims, and whom he could snow in his other existence to vouch for his character. His rate of success was not 100%, obviously. But enough were taken in by him based on both his carefully crafted persona and the unwillingness of many to believe that he, or anyone, could be capable of the truly horrific things he did to girls.

This was how he fooled James Dobson. He didn't believe one word of his videotaped "repentance" naming pronography as the culprit for his deeds. But, in Ted's mind, he thought that he could corral the religious right into speaking to the governor about sparing his life. This, of course, came to nothing, but there are still some folks who believe that Ted was confessing and was speaking their language of righteousness.

Ted took total advantage of the most gullible people, and he continues to fool others even to this day. As much as he victimizes many, many people who are still tortured, both as the survivors of all of those poor women and as acquaintances and friends who still ask themselves how they didn't see, how they couldn't recognize. Nobody could. Not even Ted himself, no matter how hard he tried.

I believe there were two reasons Ted gave so many interviews to investigators and journalists: The first being so he could relive his vile 'legacy' over and over; and the second being that Ted was ultimately fascinated by, and entranced by..Ted. He understood his own constructed ego, but not why he had to do that when others didn't. He fumed that he wasn't as mentally advanced as others he tried to acquire into his life. He seethed that he was not rich or privileged, as he thought he deserved to be. He was offended that society wouldn't let him kill as he saw fit to. And, he was finally outraged that anyone would want to kill him when he was so 'charming', so 'fascinating', so 'intelligent', so 'knowledgeable'.

In the end, Ted charmed himself.

Midsommar (2019)

'Midsommar' translates to 'Missing Some Air' - some fresh air, that is.

[3/10 · 24 February 2020]

Too much time, too little everything else.

This is 'Wicker Man', down to the maypole. There is a small difference in that the main character is broken into 4 stereotypes, but beyond that it is a script already written, several times over.

I can see in several instances how this writer/director was trying for the horror genre, though, with three distinctive horror cliches. But, the fact that an audience can recognize these attempts says something in and of itself. Add to this, that each attempt made in this film failed.

Dig, if you will, mes amis:

First; the filmmakers gave us the aforementioned teen stereotypes that have become trope. However, the original concept behind having a group of characters in peril, that this horror trope has butchered for the last 40 years, is that one has to have LIKABLE characters. Whereas, too many modern horror films (this one included) are filled with people you're sick of after an hour and wish would either die or suffer. Sometimes, within the first 5 minutes, but I digress...

Second; to the filmmakers' credit, they didn't pile on the jump-scares but opted for the long, drawn out scenes leading to something "horrible". This is refreshing. In theory. However, for these long scenes to be suspenseful, you have to not be able to tell what's coming. Such as in "The Exorcist" - what was going to be behind Regan's door after that long dolly down the hallway? In this film, we knew what was going to happen EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. So, the drawing out of such scenes bordered on either excruciation, nappy time, or a chance to show off your riffing skills, depending on your nature. Without spoiling anything, one famous scene prompted my audience to begin a chant of "Go 'SPLAT'!!"

(OK, I hear some people saying, 'Oh yea? Well, there were long pans in 'Halloween', but we knew there'd be a killing. So there!' True. But, did you know when? Or how? Or who would be first, or next? Not the first time you saw it, and this proves the point. Suspense needs mystery. And again, in this film, there was 0% mystery to anything that occurred. Just loooooooooooooong build-ups to the predictable.)

And third; the damned last-minute-twist moment. Which is by now so old hat that we've almost stopped noticing. It's just accepted. There was absolutely no reason for it, nothing to hint at this, nor was it in the character's nature whatsoever - the opposite would have been true to her character. As it was in the film, it was just a desperate tack-on.

(OK, I hear you again - yes, the unexpected can be jarring and effective. But, only if you can believe it. With this last shot, I didn't buy it one bit. She had been acting the polar opposite for almost 3 hours, up to 2 minutes prior to the last shot. What happened in those two minutes - did the elderberries & oat straw finally kick in or something??)

The Directors Cut of this film is three hours.

The theatrical cut is 2 1/2 hours.

The original content is 35 seconds.

See the original 'Wicker Man' instead.

The Lobster (2015)

Critics & snobs love films like this--audiences don't.

[2/10 · 8 July 2016]

That pretty well sums up my overall impression of this film, that I admittedly had high curiosity and hopes for.

This is a film, like Pi, filled with many non-absorbent instances and images that culminates into nothing but stagnation, ultimately.

Now, granted, one man's pretension is another man's secret identity. And I get what they were going for: They were hoping to make a dark comedy about the societal pressure to be mated, and the scarlet letter on anyone's back who is alone. That's clear in the first several short scenes. So, the film accomplished its goal before the 10 minute mark. From there, it limps to a black screen - no ending, no resolution, or even a hint at continuation. Just a feeling that they ran out of either film or ideas.

This is a 'piece' about a man who checks into a resort for people who have come to their last hopes of finding a person to live their existences with. Sort of Howard's End-cum-Hotel California, in that no one can leave, and everyone only speaks once an hour in a monotone. The gist is that if they don't find a mate, they turn into a member of the animal kingdom. 'OK, not a bad idea, they could go somewhere with this...' I so naively think to myself after the first 4 minutes. And from there, we have the parade of statues: Characters introduced as fellow residents and meant to bring some humanity in the form of interaction. They forgot, however, to give them any substance. A nosebleed isn't a 'quirk', I'm sorry. If the actors had been directed to speak in more than one timbre, and had been written dialogue that didn't amount to a "minutes of the meeting" memo, then maybe they could have had something.

So, after some milling, the main 'character' tried to cuckold another 'character' and fails. So he leaves and finds himself embraced by another group with a separate set of standards and clothing that the group he just fled. And that about all as far as differences. The group has the same hollow, banal intonations as the people we were just tired of. And the same prattle happens all over again.

This has the label of Dark Comedy. But, 'dark' does not mean colorless; and, sudden gasps at horrific snap-cut deaths & mutilations do not constitute laughter, which one expects from a comedy.

As I said in the title, snobs will flock to this film because it gives them a perfect chance to say their favorite line: "Well, you just didn't get it." I just love hearing people say this. Why? Because it is usually said right after someone asks for their overall impression or opinion or reflections of what they just saw. I will never forget the time I saw a movie with some friend of a friend that was ... I think it might have been 'Pi'. I asked what he thought of that ending. He literally snapped his jaw up in the air and said, "Well, if you didn't get it, I certainly won't be able to explain it to you." I looked at him & said, "You don't get it either, do you?" He laughed, but he didn't deny what I said. 'The Lobster' is going to be THAT kind of film, you just watch. So many people have already said the 7-paragraph equivalent of 'You just didn't get it' already on here. I may get some in reply.

Well, you know what, my gentle 'parvenu-bies'? I got it. Everyone got it, and people who see it after this will get it.

Art means something different to everyone who views it; that's why film is art. And I will not dismiss this as art simply because I'm of the opinion that 'The Lobster' is the cinematic equivalent of waiting for the nurse to guide you back into the waiting room after a routine checkup.

Personally, if I wanted to watch an hour and a half of culminated silence peppered with 10 minutes of flaccid dialogue, I certainly wouldn't pay for that - I'd go to an empty theater before a movie starts. It would have been a more meaningful experience.

Dogs in Space (1986)

Long Days Gone--Don't Miss Them, Don't Regret Them.

[8/10 · 22 May 2013]

After donkeys years of buzz, I finally got a copied-copy of this film that I was told was the Aussie Sid & Nancy. Well, aside from the problems with the copy of the movie I have (several scenes skipped out - I had to go to YouTube to see them!!), I have to agree and disagree.

I can see how some people could make that comparison, as they both deal with the punk era and the fact that both movies end with a white limo scene. But in truth, I find Dogs In Space a more enjoyable trip down memory lane than S&N, and with a few nods to Breaking Glass thrown in for good measure.

The loose story is about trying to make it through the late 70's via the musical medium. The central characters are Anna and Sammy, not exactly icon or groupie, who live in a house with about 7000 other people, or so it seems some days. Some are studious, some are lost. Some desperately want to be musically inclined but can't seem to be much good at anything, and some hang around just to judge. Some want to score. Some want to fade away. Some want to change the world but can't even succeed in changing a light bulb. In short, your usual gang of punks. And just like in those party days, you're taken along room to room, conversation to conversation, sex to drug trip, ducking puke, furniture and arguments over nothing. These were the scenes that brought it all back for me - it's as if I were wandering through a party I'd gone to back in the day.

Anna is tolerant of her house mates and of her boyfriend, and seems to be the only one with a job. She is gracious and giving to a fault, and it is because of this that things go sadly wrong for her. Sammy is the lead singer of the band, content to be a kept boy by family and everyone else. He flops around with the cocksure swagger that only comes from oblivion, whether youth or chemically inspired. Or both. They have moments in which they create their own world together in the midst of all the chaos, and it's in those moments where we can see who they really could be. Those moments are quite touching on the 2nd viewing. Saskia Post gave a very sweet performance as Anna. And I have to say that Michael Hutchence was damn good in his role. His having known the guy he was portraying, and his coming from the punk scene, certainly helped.

Someone mentioned that it can be chancy to cast a musician in an acting role, but I've always thought it was a good bet. Musicians have to put on a persona of "rock star" every time they step on stage. They're used to playing a role almost every night. Many musicians are pretty good actors, but not many are given the chance. However, Michael Hutchence showed great promise. He was aspiring to do further work before his tragic and very sad demise. He is missed by millions to this day.

I'm not sure that this is a movie for everyone (understatement). It will, however, be incredibly nostalgic for those who were part of the punk scene, either as a band or a "poseur" (hanger-on). There was something very special about that time, and punks. They were pi**ed off, but on the whole good people who felt that they couldn't be good...if that makes sense. If you were friends, you stuck together and helped each other out the best you knew how. It may seem as if they treated everyone like the enemy, but they were just embroiled and united against whatever they perceived to be authority. Because, authority had let them down. They had been told that those of power would take care of their concerns, but in the same breath many were subject to poverty, mental/physical/sexual abuse, neglect - they saw the hypocrisy, and it angered them (as it would anyone). Many tried to escape these conflicts and problems, and bonded together in music, drugs, scrounging, sex - whatever they could grasp. It didn't feel so desperate, though, when you're in a house with 20 other people in a shanty or a "felony flat", and maybe that's why the memories are not all terrible. The only thing that ends it is someone dying. Someone always dies in everyone's group of friends. Which forces the group to no longer be a group and go it alone, shocked into reality, sadder, and hopefully a little bit more wise...or at least cautious.

If you made it through those days, this will be a tremendous flashback, complete with chainsaw and sheep but without the smell. What more could you ask from a punk film?

Grizzly Man (2005)

Brings Up More Than I Thought It Would

[7/10 · 16 February 2010]

"Grizzly Man" is a slick and stylized documentary about the life and death of Timothy Dexter/Treadwell, and his companion Amy/Amie, both of whom fell victim to the very element Timothy proclaimed to love and want to preserve. I won't say how, in case you haven't seen this film yet. However, I will have to say that this ranks up as an important film for most people to see, not for it's subject but for the issues it raises.

I would encourage the viewer to try and focus on Tim's voice alone, and draw opinions about him from his own narration of his life. Personally, I found it to be more telling than he may have intended. He often vacillates between hysteria and despair, cursing many things in his own life and the life that surrounds him that he claimed to be escaping. But if you listen carefully, there is almost a manic fatalism. He seemed to me to want to be swallowed by the natural world. If you notice, in almost every clip of him he eludes to his own death in the wilderness, always reminding us the he could die by all measure of means. I began to wonder if he actually wanted this, and perhaps was seeking it on some level...However, for all of his claims to be there for the wildlife, he definitely had a narcissistic streak in him that colored his self-effacing statements. True martyrs rarely seek the limelight as much as he did. He was compelled to talk about himself more than his 'precious bears', spoke about his life and himself in the third person, and attempted to mock and ridicule those he perceived as not believing as he did. If he indeed believed in what he said he did - I wonder if the animals were an outlet for him only because he felt so unaccepted by other humans; or, perhaps, some form of self-loathing that made him want to run away from his own kind. The risks he took were foolish, but purposeful--he knew what he was doing, but perhaps more for himself. It may have started as a noble idea, but I think the footage proves that it did not end that way for him. The only reason this story is a tragedy is that someone else died with him, his companion who it is said did not really want to be there.

Then, other thoughts began to grow within me that made me question how I really feel about our world, the animal's world, and a host of other issues. I do wholly believe there are big-hearted people with truly noble aspirations out there who do want to help and make a difference, and The Fates love them and bless them for that. And then there are other groups who may truly be doing more harm than good. Being from (and in) the Pacific NW, I'm all too aware of these "eco-terrorosts" who believe that violence upon animals justifies violence against humans, a belief I do not share in the least. Violence doesn't prove any point, except that that person is violent. Period. How can blood and angry words ever invoke harmony and understanding? How does screaming about how evil society is and calling me names, without even knowing me, make me want to listen to you?

So, because of certain groups in vogue these days, animal preservation has become more of a pundit point rather than the worthy cause it is. But, after seeing this, I do have to agree with a few points. In that, even though we as humans may have the best of intentions, the more we interfere the more unintentional harm we may be doing. Yes, there are very good people living among animals these days, trying to help them be used to us. But, is this really such a good idea? And, do we really belong there? Yes, we are mammals--we are from these species. But, sadly, we are not of them anymore. We have domesticated ourselves just as we have domesticated dogs and cats over time. A great parallel would be to take a modern German Shepard and toss it in to a pack of wolves, in order to show them that the dog is simply another wolf. What do you think would happen?

Through thousands of years, that German Shepard is no more wolf anymore than we are ape. This does not give us the right to infiltrate their land, nor does it give us the right to prove that we are the most dominant species - a theory of which I personally have doubts. After all, in a "fair fight" against me and a bear, I have a good idea who would win! The only things that links animals and humans anymore is that we are all equally killable. And, we all do sometimes kill our own.

Personally, I feel that given a choice, any animal would choose to leave us alone. I think we owe the animals that same courtesy. If we really want to help and respect the animals, then preserve where they are and leave them alone. As much as we care, and as much as some guardians such as Dian Fossey have cared with all of their lives, I think the best thing we can do is to not try and integrate with them, but leave them to their own existences and give them the space they need to live their lives in peace without us. They've been here thousands, millions, of years before us, and chances are good that they'll be here after us, too. We could help so much more by working to keep their spaces just that--their spaces. Just as we work so hard to keep ours. It's only fair.

If you're ready to think about these things in a way that has not been fed to you, please see this movie.

The Green Mile (1999)

When Story Was King

[10/10 · 17 January 2009]

The most frequent word I have read in all the comments about this movie confirm for me both why I adore this film and why others do as well, because that one word is something sorely lacking in most movies of today - The Story. Truly, how many movies in the last 10 years can you honestly say that the story, the tale, is what took you away from the theater? That the tale from someone's imagination both shed light on your own problems in life and transcended you above them? Also, how many original stories are for adults these days and not from Pixar? I don't say that as a knock against Pixar at all, mind you - they are terrific films. But, they are purely CGI, which is what most 'adult films' are, too. How often have you come out of a theater and said, "Whoa, did you dig those effects?" All too often, I think. But it's rare that one can see a film these days and say, "Wow, what a story!" Indeed, The Green mile, is one of those.

It is, and yet it isn't, a surprise, also, that the most prolific storyteller of our time has been the ubiquitous Stephen King. Yes, he has scared the daylights out of us. But, he has also made us laugh, made us cry, made us doubt (Misery), made us wonder (The Stand), made us reminisce (The Body/Stand By Me), made us hope (Shawshank Redemption), and above all made us imagine. At this point, I don't think it's accurate to call him a horror writer, because he has proved himself beyond that. He weaves his tales so effortlessly that we go along for every ride he takes us on. As one of the stars in The Green Mile has said, he's just the best storyteller around the campfire - at least in modern times. He often leaves the reader wondering, "How does he come up with this stuff?" But above all, it is in the way he tells it. His people are real people dealing with cleverly-disguised-as-unreal situations, and that's why we are drawn to his tales because we can see ourselves and ask ourselves what we would do when faced with the demons we face in life - real or imagined.

This brings us to the story of The Green Mile. On the surface, a fanciful and heart-wrenching tale. But in its telling, it becomes a several tales woven into one tapestry that we all can identify with. Haven't we all had a co-worker who makes our skin crawl and our blood boil but that is so connected we can do nothing about? Haven't we all felt at times so isolated and alone in this big world that we pour our love and care into the first creature that will come along into our "cell"? Haven't we all felt so uninformed and jumbled that we have a hard time accepting pure and innocent love given without recompense? Haven't we all felt so helpless and broken when we know what the right thing is to do, but we are powerless to stop the wrong from happening? Haven't we all felt hesitant at first to accept the miracle of human kindness? And when that kindness is gone, then why are we still here?Haven't we all felt at times that maybe our travels have gone on just a little too long, to the point when we wonder briefly just why we're still here? I cannot mention one actor in particular without mentioning them all, so I will refer you to this movie's cast list so that you can appreciate just what a true ensemble this is - no one 'star' shines in this film. Everyone shines their own light. The music by Thomas Newman is nothing short of perfection, and deserved a special mention for its completeness in emotion and symbolism, as well as lifting the listener to even higher highs above the story itself (as an aside, and with all due respect, I feel that this score deserved the Oscar for 1999).

This could be coupled with 'Shawshank' as a prime example of cinematic-yet-human storytelling at its finest. And, they are both directed by the same director, Frank Darabont, who seems to understand what grand and caring film-making used to be, and deserves to be again. He sees the beauty in the simple, the humanity in the unbelievable, and he is able to pull off the sadly rare feat of crediting his audience, without resorting to trends or porn or language or lots of blood & booms. He gets it. Plain & simple, he gets it.

Yes, we are all fans of great special effects. We're wowed by big explosions and digitally-enhanced boobs and butts. And, OK, we laugh at naked wrestling men, or stoned losers, or drunk geeks, or anything easily accessible to the masses. Sure, films can appeal to the common denominator - this is evidenced by the string of movies that have their two weeks in the sun, every single two weeks, until another one comes out. But, do we still remember "Superbad" with the same awe and emotion as we do "The Green Mile", or "Shawshank"? The same way we remember "Casablanca" or "Citizen Kane"? It's easy to give an audience a momentary guffaw or gross-out moment. But, it's rare these days that a film will stir within our hearts and psyches even years after we've seen them. It's rare that a story so original and unexpected can both bring us back to our fundamental selves while sweeping us away. And, just like within The Green Mile itself, it is rare that someone or something comes along who knocks us off our carefully constructed foundation.

But, thank the heavens when they do...

300 (2006)

We, Who Are About To Be Digitally Enhanced, Salute You!!

[10/10 · 22 May 2008]

Hands down, this was the most sublime, contrite comedy of the year! I shall comment specifically on the finer aspects of this slice o' celluloid:

On Leading Actor: George Clooney doing a bad Sean Connery impression. Sorry, George--I didn't know 2006 was such a lean year for you...

On Entrances Of Fighting Animals: Ladies and gentlemen, Elton John! Queen! Miss Piggy! Did anyone notify Michael Jackson that some of his parade pets had escaped NeverLand? The only two missing were Kodos & Kang from the Simpsons...In face this reminded me of Bart & Milhouse trying to do their own Gladiator remake, intercut with clips from the Village Peoples' secret stash (probably snuck in there by Rod & Tod Flanders): 'OK, wheat! We need more wheat! OK, battles, some kind of speech about freedom, more blood, beheading, 'nother speech about freedom, limbs flying, push the bodies, 'nother speech about freedom...'Wait, Bart, are we doing Gladiator or Braveheart?' 'Oh man, I think we're sitting too close to this bucket of Mr Clean suds....Hey--Mr Clean! Yea! Put him in there, too!'

On The Villain: We can all rest easier now, because this 'film' has heralded the triumphant comeback of RuPaul!! Pierced, pumped, and sassy!! If you doubt that it was truly he/she, just think about his/her most spoken line - "Kneal before me!" Think about it...On second thought--don't.

On Token Judas Character: The bastard son of Gollum and John Merrick. And when it was led into the harem of wanton, randomly-pierced, rejected LA Lakers cheerleaders, even Caligula might have just said, "You know what, I'm outta here, pal".

On The 'Fierce Persian Army': (Cue b-sharp) We represent the Screen Actor's Guild The Screen Actor's Guild, The Screen Actor's Guild And in the name of The Screen Actor's Guiiiiiiiiiiild, We wish to welcome you to short-term contracts!

On Soundtrack: Nice to know Survivor's still getting work.

Now, some of you may be asking, 'Well, what of the story? The characters? The plot lines? (Pause for 8 minutes of uncontrollable snickering)...OK, seriously, back to it now...

(hee hee)Yes, I'm having fun writing this. And that brings up a very good point: Movies are meant to be fun! To be enjoyed--to entertain! So, in that sense, it served its purpose very well. True, my enjoyment may not be the kind the makers had in mind, but it gave me some great laughs, which are always welcome in my life; so I can't knock it too hard. Besides, those of you who know me how much a kick I get out of laughably bad cinema (oh, I do love them - ever so much!!).

Don't expect anything of substance, and you will have a great time watching this. And remember the immortal cry:

They make take our lives, but they'll never take our Ab-Rollers!!!

Glory (1989)

More Than My Words Could Praise, The History Glorifies Itself

[10/10 · 28 January 2006]

I find this one of my most difficult reviews to write. Even as I sit here for what must be the 206th viewing, I marvel, as acutely as I did in the very first viewing, that this tale has the compelling and overwhelming power to touch aesthetically, viscerally, profoundly and emotionally my sense of pride,injustice, soul. Even if this were not a true story, I would still recommend this movie to everyone with awe and reverence. And even as I watch, there is goose-flesh and damp eyes. As there always is...

Based on the letters compiled and only two reference books (including "One Gallant Rush" by Peter Burchard, which I proudly own), this tells the tale of the heretofore largely unknown 54th Massachusetts Infantry, the first Afro-American regimen in American history during the Civil War. Colonel Robert Gould Shaw was a 26-year old bright eyed Bostonian who was chosen by favor to lead the "first colored regimen" at the apex of the Civil War. Matthew Broderick portrays Col. Shaw as accurately as possible, bringing the youth and zeal of the real Shaw to grand light. He was truly overwhelmed by the thought of leading the troops, but idealistic and optimistic enough to give it everything he had and to make his family and title proud. Broderick never loses sight of the simple fact that Shaw was humble and grateful for every advancement he was given. Although in reality the 54th was compiled of mostly free black men from upper New England, Denzel Washington is cast as the runaway slave Trip who brings his grudges and injustices to the troop. He portrays a slave who is on a personal mission to hurt those who have hurt him (if you know about the history of slavery, one can hardly blame him), but in the process hurts himself all the more until by rote he learns to channel his hate into determination, and by his actions is humiliated and beaten down to the point that he can only rise up like a griffin and prove that he is as much a soldier as the rest of them. The 'whipping scene' in which you see him go through that exact process, every emotion known to a man culminating in a quiver of the cheek, a single tear escaping, and eyes that shred, plea, hate, mourn, haunt. That Denzel could convey that with a role that could have easily been a stereotype deserves more praise that I can type. Morgan Freeman is a man of quiet yet profound dignity that carries him in every role he plays, and this time as Rawlins is no exception. He is a victim of prejudice, but still carries his own as a man. He is there for his men as a leader even before being officially decorated, but he is not above reaching out to Shaw to help his men simply because Shaw is yet another white authority--he helps the cause, no matter the colors. And that cause is so much more than the War, which I will explain further below...

The score by the wunderkind James Horner is Majesty in every literary definition of the word. I know that if I'm ever stressed and need a release, all I have to do is pop in a CD of this score, listen for only a few minutes, and I will be sobbing. In my humble opinion he has yet to top himself with his work in this picture. From the subtle ache of a single horn to the swelling of the Harlem Boys' Choir and their keening voices that beg us to remember forever.

I won't break down the actors, directing or anything individually any more than I have because that's not the intention of this film. It's not a star vehicle, but rather hundreds of people coming together to tell a story they believe in. And as such, deserve to be praised as a whole, which only proves how well they've done their work. But some scenes cannot escape the psyche...The morning after they've been read a proclamation stating that they will be put to death, black and white, if caught bearing Union arms, and there they stand as a unit for roll call, not one man deserting, at attention for duty, prouder and taller than ever...The aforementioned Corporal Punishment scene (which, by the way, was the same punishment white officers would suffer if they deserted as well)...The charge on Fort Wagner--Shaw finally returning to the seashore he so loved all his life for what he knows in his heart is the last time, feeling home again and yet feeling already a walking spectre--Rawlins with a divine inner pride in his eyes marching toward the fort as Thomas looks to the others and Trip with no longer the mad lashing-out force to kill but the aggravated determination to win--the company as a whole marching into Fate with a gallant unified step...

The true meaning of "hero" is in the heart of a man who faces even death if it will prove himself a man, not only to others but to himself. This lies true for every person in that brave pioneering regimen, black and white. They didn't just die for their country or their rights, but for their own personal honors and faiths as human beings who are deserved of dignity. The likes of which this country will never see again, but must not fall into obscurity. At the heart, and in my heart, this is not a story of men, but what it means to be a man. And the sacrifice it sometimes takes to become one and prove yourself one.

We as a Nation, as Earth, should thank the 54th for that beautiful lesson. This pristine film will guarantee it so.

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

Hey, If You're Gonna Go Goth...

[7/10 · 12 May 2004]

...you might as well go all the way. In terms of production, camera work, score, and everything-but-the-kitchen-sink scene work, Donald Trump only wishes he were as rich as this film. Taken on that production level, it is almost reminiscent of a weekend with Jim Morrison in terms of excess. But somehow, this overly-sumptuousness works for such a tale as this. And yes, I do agree that in the terms of the original story, this telling is more faithful that the host of other movies made over the decades. If you have not read the original, I highly recommend it, but save it for Samhain :)

Individual notes: Some of the casting in this is positively inspiring, especially Tom Waits as Renfield who was superb. Of course, the ubiquitous Gary Oldman as the Count was a casting inevitability, and he did not disappoint--pulling out so much that he gave new height to The Hilt that most actors aspire to! Boy, if ever there were a candidate for a remake of The 7 Faces Of Dr. Lao...And Sir Anthony Hopkins (slight pause for a reverent bow) captures the exact mood of the entire production in this film--bold, bawdy, lush, wicked and witty. There must have been some secret delight for him to go from the vampiric doctor in "Lambs" to the vampire-eradicator in this film. What other actor could find so much with so little?

Now, the bad notes...I know that Winona Ryder was very keen on doing this film and tried her best, but she tried TOO hard, and it showed. Her accent was almost a caricature of the true British tongue, and she almost sounded like Carol Burnett imitating the Queen on her variety show. One reader commented on and questioned her gasping through the film; it could have been an attempt to look shy and easily frightened, but I'm going to chalk it up to an overly-tight corset. And where Ms. Ryder over-did her part, Mr. Reeves UNDER-did his. I, too, kept waiting for a "dude" to slip into his speeches. And his pronunciation of certain words had my friends and I giggling hysterically. Which is a shame, because in the book, the part of Jonathon Harker is a major and pivotal role...though not in this film, and I can't help but suspect that the fact that Harker was played by Reeves might be the reason that the Harker character was pared down dramatically from the book for this movie. But, because of the lavishness of the rest of the material, we don't miss it much.

And rightly so, for this is not supposed to be a true remake of the book, but rather an experience. The true Victorian feel of the book gives way to the lustiness that would never have been expressed by Stoker (maybe not even realized...??). Why do we feel such sexual magnetism about the legend of the Count? There is something very sensuous about someone entering your mind and exerting intellectual will over yours. This was never more evident than in "Lambs", and in this modern version of Dracula. Also, I think what makes Dracula more appealing, particularly to females, is the way he exacts what he needs. Other fabled "monsters" merely slash, chop, dice, shoot, etc. There is no contact with the victim. But with Dracula, he supersedes the will of the victim by engulfing their will with his, he moves in close over them, draws from them in a "kiss of life/death"...but does not kill the women. Instead he makes them his wives. And immortals. So not only does such a character appeal to some secret side of a woman's sexuality, but also feeds the human desire to live forever. That, to me, is why the Count survives as still the most feared, yet feared not, of all the movie "monsters". And these facts are what this movie captures - the written fable, the primal desire AND the imagined legend.

So to sum up...Goth doesn't get better than this. Be prepared to laugh and lust. Give your will over to the bawdiness, and enjoy--it really is a carnival ride of a film.

Foxes (1980)

If You Lived It, You Love It...

[9/10 · 10 May 2004]

If you weren't there, then unfortunately this movie will be beyond compassion for you. Which as I say is a shame because although some of the acting is amateurish, it is meant to be for realism. Let's face it--in real life, we don't say things in an exacting or perfect way, even when we mean to. In this sense, it works. This, however, does not apply to our "known" actors in this film, notably Jodie Foster (born a natural). The fact that the other 3 girls are not accomplished only adds to the story--Jodie plays the glue that struggles to keep their friendship close, even with the obvious feeling of fatality. Meaning that no matter how close friends are, eventually there are some people that just fade away, no matter how you try.

And therein is the core of the movie. It's not about partying, it's not about sexuality, but about these 4 girls and their final time as still young girls before they have to go the world alone.

If you have ever had a friendship like that in your life, you will feel this movie--it will mean a lot to you, no matter what era it is set in, or what era you grew up in. We all knew these girls in school, or at the very least knew of them. We all knew the frustrated virgin, half wanting to hold onto childhood and half wanting desperately to grow up and thinking that will do it for her. We all knew the boy-crazy one, the fashion plate whose vanity hides her fear of the world, her fear of acceptance. We all knew the party girl, the one they whispered about, with tales of not only her sad home life but of her notorious exploits. And we all knew the "mother figure", the one a little more real, a little more grounded, a little more sad because she knew what would happen. Maybe you were one of those girls. Maybe, like me, you had been each one at one time or another...

This film really captures that fragile time in life when want, needs, pressures, womanhood, childhood, the world and loneliness are all embodied in each female's head, each factor on the precipice. Which aspect do you hang on to? What do you toss over the edge, no matter how you may want to hold on? And how painful is goodbye to everything you've known? That's what this movie is--steps into womanhood while clinging onto childhood, and how damn tough it is to keep walking. If you were there, you know...and love this film, as I do. Aching and tenderly done. A fine piece of captured femininity.

24 (2001–2010)

"Everything But The Girl"

[9 March 2004]

I see that most of the people here seem to agree with me, so I will keep my honest yet slightly sardonic opinions (depending on what kind of day I'm having) brief. This is indeed one of the most well thought out and intelligent shows that has graced the small screen in years. Stellar and top-notch cast, including the autumn Kiefer Sutherland and the ever-reliable Xander Berekley, and a few surprise guest stars (which I will not spoil for those of you who are, like me, waiting for the DVD releases so you can watch uninterrupted). And the characters are deliciously presented. Some are so bad as to be campy: The wife of the President and Nina come to mind (I can't help but hear the Elton John song, "The Bitch Is Back" whenever they appear on screen).

But yes, my friends--KIM MUST GO!!! She goes from ditzy high schooler who ends up Stockholming for one of her captors and even getting him involved in the Government plot, to ditzy nanny who leaves bodies in her wake and can't seem to keep a secret to save her life, to working for the CTU???? What's next--are they going to give her a monkey sidekick named Bleep for Season 4??? With all due respect for the actress, she is a looker, but there's only so far eye-candy will go in such a tremendously skilled program as this. So please Fox and 24 producers--keep the Kim character to a minimum. It IS becoming obvious now that she is just filler material, and fans of this show seem to be in agreement that this show can do better than resort to padding.

So yes--on the whole, stellar show, except for the one character. My apologies to Ms. Cuthbert. The rest of the cast, crew, writers & producers, Slaintè!!!

1984 (1984)

Comments on Comments

[9/10 · 9 March 2004]

I really have only one thing to comment on. Most of the other reviewers have stated just about everything about this wonderfully gritty, dark, foreboding movie that still remains an eerie parallel to our lives today, especially in the last 2 years...

But I'm confused by the number of people who have commented that claim to be put off by "the gratuitous nudity" by the two characters of Winston and Julia. Given the fact that everything in this society--waking up, food, habits, desires, work, workers, even the underwear and overalls--is so uniform, has it occurred to viewers that being nude was the only link to identity that these characters had? Everything in their world depends, thrives on sameness. Without clothes, everyone is unique. The two lovers were already in dire conditions by committing the sin of feeling for another human being, let alone carnally but in the heart. And they had to deceive and pretend and go through the motions of the dutiful cogs in the Big Brother wheel. But their only shared peace and comfort was their sacred time alone, and in love. They had finally found their own identities through loving each other. Their nudity was merely symbolic of that. In that sense, their union and expressions of that union only becomes more fragile, beautiful and honest, in such a heartless, cold, indifferent world.

May that be truly said of us, and all of us...

OK, that out of the way...one of the most gritty, realistic, honest translations ever to grace the screen. Wouldn't have changed a thing. Highly, highly recommended, along with the original 1955 version of "Animal Farm". Perfect double-feature for a somber, thoughtful evening's viewing.

Se7en (1995)

Haunting, gripping, sadistic--welcome to America (minor spoilers)

[8/10 · 2 March 2004]

First of all, I would like to make a few comments about some of the other comments on the movie: First of all, it was actually intentional that Brad Pitt seem somewhat cocky & ne'er-do-well in his role; the point of his character was that he most likely came from a smallish town's precinct where the hardest crime was probably stealing from the collection plate, and his attitude was looked up to. In a small town. He, in their minds, had the attitude of "those movie & TV cops". In L.A., an attitude doesn't even get you a latte. So his bravado is supposed to be misplaced. But what does come through is the fact that he honestly does want to do the right thing his own way, and "get the bad guys & teach them some manners", usually with a lot of verbal & some physical abuse. Typical small-town, or rent-a-cop, mindset. Secondly, a lot of people claim that the gore was hard to take...WHAT gore? We only see the aftermath of the murders, not what they go through. And what they go through is only speculated upon, not hard-cold fact. The gore is in the mind of the audience. Frankly I am quite please that they took that approach, as it shows that the writers, producers, directors are giving the audience SOME credit for having minds & imaginations. Hollywood thinking their audience has a few brain cells--go figure... To sum up my feelings on the movie, I have to quote the artistic director, Rob Bottin, on this one--"This is a script that definitely gave me the butt-willies!" From beginning almost to the end, I was impressed by not only the idea, but the approach to such an idea. And a haunting thought occurred to me...why hasn't this ever been done before in real life? Or has it, but was not clued in to? Not that I'm hoping this is so, of course!! I think that given the circumstances, the victims were actually handled with dignity. So many times in movies, the victims are exploited because most of Hollywood thinks that we only want shock and after-death scandals. Here, there was no dirty laundry airing, no contrite bloodletting...just the sad fact that they were everyday people in everyday lives (whether we want to admit it or not), and chosen to fit a specific killer's agenda. Much like most other serial killers. Morgan Freeman, as usual, does no wrong, and brings a quiet grandness to his role (and every role). Brad Pitt, with the aforementioned background character, holds his own and does a pretty impressive job to get most of us to forget that he's known for his looks alone. Gwyneth Paltrow isn't given much to do, but she does it amiably. And R. Lee Ermey, as always, is a comic-relief treat (ring..."This is not even my desk!" slam!). Plus, how much fun was it for us to see "Shaft" as the governor?? One minor flaw I feel compelled to say, and this is just my opinion: Not the actor portraying him, but the character of John Doe, left me a little dry. When he first arrived in the station, his character seemed to fit with all that was discovered in his apartment. But once he started talking, he fell into the same old Hollywood Killer mode. Giving away all of his motives and intentions and thought processes right before the end. This contriteness is in EVERY killer movie, and was a sore disappointment. For me. Personally, I would have preferred not to have him speak at all, or very minimally. Case in point, at the very end when Mills has the gun on him and Somerset rushes up after receiving the box. Doe goes into saying what his role is in the 7 deadly sins, and what Mills' role will be as well...Hasn't that been implied already?? We KNOW who will be what sin, just by the set-up! And there's only two left--I think we can tell who is which! Sorry, but Hollywood--take note, please - we don't need every killer's life story, motives, and intentions spoon-fed to us. Besides, with everything only being implied in the rest of the film, having John Doe go into such a self-serving diatribe really goes against the grain, and gives the feel of the film a 180 turn...which makes it all the more sad when the first hour & 45 minutes have proved that the writers, et al, have the intelligence to not stoop to that level. However that is my only beef with the film. The rest; above par, superb, magnificent, and a must-see...that you will be seeing in your conscious and subconscious for a long while after the film ends. Guaranteed.

Helter Skelter (1976)

A Remake...WHY???

[9/10 · 25 January 2004]

It's not bad enough that Hollywood is so addlepated as to think that they can improve upon the quirky genius of Willy Wonka with special effects, or the cinematic perfection of 1967's In Cold Blood, now they are remaking what is still an effective frightener of a movie as Helter Skelter? I weep for Hollywood sometimes...but I digress...

TV movies have not really come very far in this generation when compared to the movies of the 70's or very early 80's. Sure, they can get away with some language that they couldn't before, and maybe a little more skin. But there lacks the explorative nature of storytelling the miniseries of that bygone era once gave us. Case in point, the 1976 TV movie, Helter Skelter. The chronological point of view takes the viewer through the important milestones of prosecutor Bugliosi (very accurately portrayed by Geo. DiCenzo) and his search for answers in what seems to be a motiveless crime. But as most people should know by now, there is no such thing as murder without motivation--every killer has his/her reasons. It just depends on whether or not the evidence shows that motive. And that evidence can be something as overt as a letter, or something as minute as an object placed upon a victim or even how the victim is left...The motive is always there; and in recent years, maybe the last 20 or so, profiling experts have proved this. But in the late 1960's, profiling was unknown, and the search for a motive was dependent upon good old fashioned legwork and long hours staring at notes. The book Bugliosi wrote of course goes into far more detail about how formidable a task this was for such a notorious and violent crime as the one depicted. But for the 3-plus hours of this film, we get a lot of information indeed, and it only serves the viewer to get as complete an education as possible about Manson, his vagabond followers, and the collective insanity that ensued. Actually, I suppose with our rash of reality shows, we are seeing more of that 'collective insanity' when people are thrown together without many means of escape...again, I digress...Overall, the acting was formidable, effective, and quite fearless for its time period--I can't recall another TV movie where the actors swallowed their roles with as much gusto without going way over the top, to the point of caricaturizing. Truly, this is a small but bizarre chapter in criminology, and everyone involved in this movie had their work cut out for them. They did not disappoint, and they don't disappoint us. Neither did the film-makers by dumming up the story to be more acceptible to the masses, which is the hallmark of its era, and sadly is ALL too common in the television fare as of late. This is a horrible and weird story that deserves to be told in toto. Kudos to the film-makers and actors who did not insult the viewers' intelligence levels, and told as much of the truth as they could cram in to the alloted time.

One more interesting note: Much has been said about Manson's subsequent interviews and parole hearings displaying his "madness". I'm going to throw a thought out here--did it ever occur to anyone that this is the image he WANTS us to have? If you've done your homework, you know the famous tale of how he has repeatedly asked not to be released. Maybe, just maybe, do you suppose that his disconnected ramblings, fits of anger, bizarre diatribes about ninjas and wildlife--perhaps even the motive for such overly gruesome and notorious crimes--are his way of guaranteeing that he will indeed never get out of prison again? That this is all an act so that the prison and the public will think he's a looney and keep him locked up? He has been tested with an above-average intelligence with the footnote, 'master manipulator who can seemingly talk anyone into anything', after all. And not so impossible...Now THERE'S something to think about!!

A Flintstones Christmas Carol (1994 TV Movie)

Droll...Veeeeeeery Droll

[7/10 · 30 November 2003]

When I first caught this movie on cable a few years ago, I expected it to be of the "Flintstones Meet The Jetsons" fare, or something equally par for the standard TV course. But I was happily surprised, and went out the next day to buy the videotape. True, the sub-plot of Fred ignoring work, friends, and family to rehearse his upcoming role as Scrooge for the Bedrock Community Players (and to give in to grandiose dreams of Broadrock Way) are of the typical fare we've been used to for a couple of decades now. But once the actual production gets underway, try to forget the rest because you will be as happily surprised as I. The voice talent seems to take their roles in "A Christmas Carol" very seriously, and most do a formidable job, handling the script with reverence and affection. Well, let's face it--what actor doesn't want to be in "A Christmas Carol" just once for the sheer fun of it? But Henry Corden is the surprising stand-out in this, proving that he can do more than just play straight man to Barney and Wilma's cutting one-liners. He treats this role as if he's been studying to play Scrooge

for years. You get a hint of what's to come in the Ebonezer/Fanny/Ghost of Christmas Past scene, mixing a balance of fragile loss and forced bitterness very well indeed. By the time the Ghost of the Future shows up, Henry really sports his acting chops, and by the last few scenes he pulls off a terrific and moving performance, showing the delicate sadness, guilt, and the pivotal dichotomy of the fear of living and fear of dying that the character of Scrooge is really made of. OK, so it's not Albert Finney in "Scrooge"; but it's certainly not the kind of acting one expects of a Flintstones cartoon--well, not since the passing of Alan Reed, and the mass-production of Saturday morning Flinstones cookie-cutter shows. It's refreshing to see Henry Corden pull out all the stops and remind us that he is an actor, not just a Fred substitute. Although one wonders and mourns what Mel Blanc could have brought to this tour-de-force as Barney/Cragit...(sad sigh). During the curtain call, all pull back and fall into typical Hanna-Barbara "filler humor", but what has just happened should more than make up for those last 4 minutes. Overall, this is a wonderful addition to anyone's Scrooge collection, and should be picked up to enjoy while decking the Bedrock halls for years to come!