Change Your Image
jdgratz
Reviews
The Weather Man (2005)
Simply Put, a Good Movie
Wow. A friend of mine had told me that this was one of the worst films he had ever seen. He went on to say it only had a few funny moments when Cage was hit with stuff. As per usual, I took this certain friends poor review to mean that I would probably like it. I wasn't expecting a comedy, but something a bit less existential. I had actually seen little more than a trailer a long time ago, so I was actually expecting something a bit more resembling the movie Falling Down. I expected to see Cage losing it over so many people complaining about his mis-predicted weather that he went ballistic on a town with a bow and arrow.
Boy am I glad that I was wrong. I was going to take it with a grain of salt. But, once the film ended, the deep, rich story line had me turned in a few different directions. Do you feel for the main character? Do you feel angry at him? Is it his father's fault? The movie does such a wonderful job teetering around many possibilities as well as including the risk factor of several possible life altering experiences. Several of the bad ones seem to overshadow the good experiences, but upon further musing at the end of the movie, you start to realize where the hidden moments of good opportunity existed. Did he make the right choices? Did he say the right thing? I am also a big proponent or worthwhile resolve. Movies that leave you hanging (NOT in the sense that there will be a sequel) are usually poorly put together. Granted, you give someone like Lynch an open ended idea, and he will masterfully complete a film with a perfect ending that leaves everyone thinking, 'What the hell just happened?'. This film satisfied me while not being ultimate. By the middle towards the end of the movie, there were a few possibilities for where it could all end up. It's final destination was worthy and explained decently enough for acceptance.
The most amazing thing about this film was the depth of each character based on how flat they were all acted. The flatness I describe is clearly intended. So little emotion is shown at many points that you wonder if these people are all on Valium. It becomes apparent that they're all just numb to their surrounding due to their current circumstances. It's almost as if the more emotion a character shows, the more in touch they are at the present time.
This also produces ideal capabilities for those that are the more flat of the bunch to be able to wear the emotions they DO decide to show right on their sleeve for the whole world to see.
This movie was brilliantly written, directed, and performed. If you're into movie that make you think and take some concentration to follow, it's a must see. If you're like my friend, however, go rent How To Lose a Girl in 10 Days, again.
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
You have got to be kidding me.
Will there ever again be a big budget film that maintains some semblance of originality? This pathetic display of a film is detestable, and the people who decided to create, market, and actually charge money for this film should be bludgeoned.
Think about it. When you produce a film with this many digital effects and such grand scenery, you must have seen something to it that made it worth the while. Well, obviously, actor agents didn't think so. I don't know who was considered for the parts, but when the best casting you can do is a washed up Dennis Quaid and a kid with an infectious smile in Jake Gyllenhaal (And by "infectious", I mean something that you would take lots of drugs to alleviate as soon as possible) it should throw up a red flag.
So that's it! Those are your Big Names. As a producer, I might think, 'wait a minute. I am producing this huge Hollywood hit, and all of these agents said no and we had to take our 10th or 11th picks in many cases, and brought in new faces in others. Maybe this isn't as great as I thought.' Granted, I know little about the movie making process in respect to this aspect, but can they not pull the plug on a film when it's clearly going to suck? Or are people that shallow to actually consider this film worth their time and money? If you're going to do an end of the world movie, make it about the end of the world.
From horrible foreshadowing about a girl who scraped her leg needing penicillin, to escaped wolves (which don't naturally attack human beings anyway. A little research actually shows that there are few, if any, documented wolf attacks on humans anyhow) which are poorly animated, this movie offers little more than an overcoming of insurmountable odds to bring a family back together and two bring two young people together in love.
The scale of the reuniting story was far inferior to the aspect of the 'overnight' arrival of the next ice age. If you're going to have a plot based on such a grand catastrophe, show us more of the effect it has on world-life as a whole. Don't just show us one exceptional climatologist and his son and their story. If the temperature dropped to sub-zero temperatures tomorrow and such a catastrophe actually occurred, the history books that would be read by survivors would discuss much more than what happened to Dennis Quaid and Jake Gyllenhaal. They would discuss the effect it had on every society in the world. While you can't make a two-hour movie that explains every bit in detail, at least follow a couple of different story lines. Independence Day did it fairly successfully. Hell, ID's spoof Mars Attacks! even did a better job of this. If you're going to emulate someone else's work, at least take the time to recreate the aspects that made the story good. Make it appealing to respective intelligence, instead of just to the visual and auditory senses.
My initial reaction of the film being unoriginal is basically that I saw this movie as a combination of all of the recent natural/major disaster films we have all been privy to. From the bringing together of estranged family members that Jeff Goldblum's Character and his wife accomplish in Independence Day, to the hero status accomplished by a person who, by normal standards, holds a seemingly nominal position such as a tornado chaser, or for sake of my argument, and climatologist, or even a seismologist or an astronomer, this movie took pages right out of the handbook for creating movies about catastrophes. I am not saying that these people do not hold important jobs, but as a world community, we hope that it's our governments and armies having to prevent worldly disasters as opposed to people who have to help avoid full world destruction.
Luckily, I never had high expectations for this movie, which is why I have not seen it until now. I was waiting for something else to start on TV because I woke up a little early, and this was on a cable movie channel, so I gave it a look. As with all movies, good and bad, I will usually sit through anything so I can legitimately praise or bash it accordingly. All things being equal, however, my time would have been much better spent if my system had not gotten me up two hours before I had planned. In other words, I should have stayed in bed.
Crash (2004)
A good watch, but definitely NOT tops!
Maybe I have lost my heart for films that tackle controversial issues, but this didn't seem that far off base from any other one I've seen.
Okay, let's break it down. Everyone is a racist. There, that just about does it.
Obviously, this is a bit of a rash way to describe the entire film, and I mean it with a grain of salt. The fact is that all of us have some sort of prejudice to some other group of people (regardless of what the definitive characteristic of that group may be; IE - they like to butter their toast on the other side than I do).
This movie tackles the fact that in many cases of intelligent society, the reasons for this prejudice is due to life experience as opposed to learned ignorance. In other words, seemingly consistent activity (or at least 'seemingly consistent' according to statistics) of any particular sect of society has lead to a label whereby that activity is expected before rational judgment can be made. Sometimes, the rational judgment comes too late.
The writer of this screenplay does a good job of explaining this and getting it across. This is why I cannot completely downplay this film. However, it seems like this intention is all that is successfully put forth for the first two-thirds of the film.
The script seems more like someone had some great speeches he/she wanted to read to some people. Well, since some person reading speeches doesn't appeal to the masses, it's easier to convert the speeches into a screenplay and make some money off of the message.
Now, with this, it is understandable why the characters' racism is so 'in-you-face' for the majority of the movie. We did not get to grow up with each character, nor do we know why they think the way they think. The only way to successfully get an audience to accept a personality in a short period of time is to shove it down their throats.
The final third of the movie aggressively tries to complete each story, and does so in a fairly acceptable fashion. Almost every question is answered, lives are changed, and messages come full circle. For this purpose, I will give this movie a 7 out of 10. It functions as a message, explains that there are different reason why people fall prey to such activity, and defines how single incidents and accidents can alter one's entire life perception. But, it is a far cry from a perfect 10, much less do I think it deserves the company of IMDb's top 250.
The Brothers Grimm (2005)
Brothers Grimm lived up to this viewers expectations.
Going to see this movie with a friend who works in the film industry, I was a bit concerned. If anyone is ever critical about some things that most would take lightly, he is. There is no flaw to this, though. Clearly when you spend your life doing it for a living, you will be picky of every aspect.
So we went to see this with different expectations. I went to see a movie made by one of my favorite directors, and he went to see ANOTHER movie made by a great director. In other words, he was expecting Brazil or Twelve Monkeys, I was expecting a cool fictional story that incorporated the many fictional fairy tales I was told as a child.
I got what I wanted, however, my friend did NOT.
I never find it a good practice to go into any movie expecting a director or even a writer that I like to be trying to make a movie that is comparable to whatever film or films made my like that particular individual.
The thing about a director is that the movie is typically written by someone else. the base story is going to determine the outcome no matter how good or bad the director is. If you look at some of the movies that made Gilliam a household name for people that care (ie - Fisher King, 12 Monkeys, Brazil) his hand in writing is typically minimal (exception, of course, of Brazil).
Brothers Grimm may be a bit more lighthearted than these movies, but what's wrong with that? So, some of Gilliams most memorable works were a bit more on the dark side of things when it came to the characters and subject matter. This film takes on the dark side of lightheartedness.
The characters are a bit more easy going, the one liners a bit quicker and more direct, and the story a bit less fantastic, but from beginning to end, it was an enjoyable trip with a clear-cut beginning, plot, and ending.
Ladder 49 (2004)
Fluff writers should kick this writer's butt!
With all due respect to the wonderful men and women of America's Fire Fighting forces, this movie stinks! I place this movie along the lines of talent with country music. This with the fact that after seeing it once, you could probably recite every line and every scene by heart. It's as if someone took the textbook for how to make a sappy film and went word for word.
Every sequence is contrived, predictable, and just plain poorly written. Just rip all of the sappy award-worthy wannabe scenes from any dramatic film in the past 20 years, put a hose in it's hand, flames before it, and put it on the big screen.
For every time you've seen a group of 'macho' fellows let down their guard to sing a karaoke tune that matched their profession, to every worn-out "Tell my wife I love her" line you have ever heard in any fluff film, the people who decided to put this film out to honor the Fire Fighters should be ashamed of themselves.
The reason I gave this film a 2 instead of a 1 is so to not belittle such wonderful people as this movie managed to do.
I've seen good and bad fluff. I know people who would say that there is no such thing as good fluff, and I know people who would swear by the entertainment value of nothing but fluff. However, people on either side of this fence should strive to kick the butt of whomever decided that this film was worthy of anyone's money, and much less, their time.
I Heart Huckabees (2004)
Can I have my hour and 45 minutes back, please!
What a dreadful movie. It may even be hard to fill the minimum requirement for this comment with different ways of saying how awful it was.
The script was a dismaying attempt to rip-off one of the best screenwriters in the business. The directing was, yet, another attempt to rip-off, yet, another was of the industries best directors. After suffering this display, I called a friend to discuss how bad it was. While speaking to him, I found myself more intrigued at his description of his troubles with getting the chocolate syrup to mix properly with his milk.
I rented this film not having heard very much about it (I stay away from conversations about films I want to see to keep my mind from getting clouded with other peoples' reviews). I just knew that the cast had some actors and actresses that I had seen, and liked, in previous films. I now find myself somewhat ired to discover that they would take the roles involved.
Jason Schwartzman has never really hit me right, and deep in the back of my mind, I always sort of viewed him as a hack. His portrayal of Albert did nothing more than confirm what I had always wanted to believe. I will not hasten to see any of his films in the future.
Jude Law, though covering an American accent quite well, has been in every movie I have watched in the past month. In my eyes, he is merely marketing himself by taking any role that comes his way.
Dustin Hoffman...why?
Lily Tomlin? A far cry from All Of Me.
Naomi Watts, you should have spent much more time studying for your upcoming role in Ring Two. That one's going to blow us away (sarcasm intended).
The only actor that gave me enough to mark this one a step above one star was Mark Wahlberg. By no means do I consider him one of the greatest of American film, but at least his character was fun at some points. His wild volatility made about 5 total minutes combined worthwhile. But the remaining 95% was brutal.
Do yourself a favor. Read a book. Draw a picture. Hell, clip your toenails for 2 hours. But, don't waste your time with I Heart Huckabees.
Finding Neverland (2004)
Truly, a moving cinematic experience.
I went in to this film with high expectations, which is usually dangerous. I fall prey to this action quite often, and have found that movies that transcend this predetermined experience are remarkable. Finding Neverland is no exception.
This movie is well cast, well written, and well acted. The cinematography shines above all. The foreshadowing is exquisite in that most, if not all viewers, do already know, at least, the story of Peter Pan. So the experience is not empty. When little details of what went into the play show their faces throughout the first half of the movie, every viewer feels like they're one up on the characters on the screen. But, the viewer also understands each portions of the plays relevance to what is being experienced in the film. It's a learning experience in both directions.
But, the heartfelt sentiment of this one man's love for this unfortunate family is ever-present.
I am a man who has no problem admitting that a film brought tears to my eyes. So, this film brought tears to my eyes. Tears of happiness and sadness at the same time. A movie that can portray these two ends of the spectrum so eloquently and honestly deserves a bid for movie of the year. I don't know if it will receive the honors, as I have only seen two of the nominees, but the nomination alone is very justified.
Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)
Don't take bad reviews to the bank (mild spoiler only)
I'm not going to say that this is the best flick I have ever seen. It's not! But, I've seen much worse. Granted the Zombie-Movie is a bit overdone, but so are many other genres which still produce watchable movies.
I don't play video games very much. I own the traditional Nintendo with Tetris and Dr. Mario. Maybe once every 2 months or so do I even take the time to plug it up and waste away. I do, however, watch a lot of movies.
So I don't, exactly, know the original basis behind the Resident Evil video game. With that in mind, I see a decent plot. The story-line is fairly easy to follow, and the action seems right on. Where I see all kinds of action films set in real world situations with beyond-belief sequences, this series is at least set in an improbable world. This gives freedom to some fairly improbable activity.
After watching a recent Bond film the other day and witnessing the main character pound through load bearing portions of several structures with a tank and with no recourse, Apocalypse was much more believable. If you abandon reality with the entire plot, (and here's the mild spoiler) then a genetically altered person being able to kick the butt of various other genetically altered individuals is not so far-fetched.
So watch this movie with a grain of salt. And, if you are one of those who is dedicated to whatever the real story is, then watch it with an entire cannister. This viewer was able to sit through all 90 minutes without wanting to turn it off, so maybe you will, too.
Steven Banks: Home Entertainment Center (1989)
This was one of my youthful favorites.
I was looking this up just to see if I could remember the title. I remember this HBO special for it's Penn & Teller intro, and then the ensuing hilarity of the Steven Banks performance. I remember always waiting and waiting for his next installment of Pay TV stand-up, but I never saw it happen. I have always wondered if there were an archive somewhere that the footage of this could be retrieved from for personal viewing. I think we wore the VHS out that we had copied of it. I would love to see it resurrected. It was a terrific one man show with clean-fun for adults and children. It was very musically-based, and we'll performed.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)
Ferrell is officially typecast!
As if it is surprising news, Will Ferrell just doesn't seem like he can have the staying power we all hoped he would. With his most memorable performances being SNL skits and backup roles in films with other typecast comedians in the lead role, it doesn't seem like he can blossom as a lead himself.
Other famous comedians tend to eventually work their way into more prolific and demanding roles in the action and drama spectrum, this viewer doesn't foresee the possibility for Will Ferrell. This movie is a prime example.
After receiving the Best of Will Ferrell on SNL DVD for Christmas, I laughed my tail off to the reminiscing of every Saturday night in my college days. I am now older and looking for a bit more out of what I watch, and Anchorman delivered very little. It was almost like I was watching the 'Best Of' in a different format. Will played just another silly character with the same deliverance as his portrayal of Robert Goulet.
Steve Carell is the only savior. However, this is much in the sense of Ferrell in his backup roles. Carell made me laugh in this movie much as Ferrell did in Zoolander. In a backup role, you only see the highlights, and I'm afraid that Ferrell is destined to just be a highlight. It's kind of sad when the trailer is funnier than the movie.
The Bourne Supremacy (2004)
Could've been much more.
I recall watching the first of this series and being fairly impressed from a pure action movie point of view. The story was cut, the acting was decent, and the actions was intense. I guess that in this one, though, they tried to stick to the action bit alone. Whenever a sequel does this, they leave much to be desired with few exceptions. The story was basic and the portrayal was very choppy.
Damon has some acting ability. Granted, nothing may ever top his breakout performance, but he's not the worst I've seen. The script attempted to make him the 'strong, silent type'. He did the best he could with it, but your main character in a film such as this needs to at least have some character. they attempt to give him some at the very end of the film, but it's too little too late.
Another fatal error in a film like this is the obvious nature of the identity of the saboteur. The nature of the script, combined with the quality of mystery from those who were trying to find Bourne kinda left it in the hand of two people. One of which was so innocent in knowledge of the whole situation that she was clearly cast to be the apologetic misunderstander by the end of the movie. This came true as well.
In order to gain the 5/10 I gave this movie, though, was simply the car chase towards the end of the movie. Car chases have become extremely commonplace in action films, and due to this, have become rather monotonous. But the cinematography and chosen angles gave this one a new feel. Many of the explosive crashes and wild driving action was depicted from inside the cockpit of the cab Bourne is driving. Instead of the anticipation you receive from normal car chase scenes, where you can see from a distance what may or will occur, the surprise factor is terrific. You DON'T see it coming.
So, it's worth a watch if you've exasperated all possibilities of movies on your list of "movies to see", but until then, you may want to stay away.
Twisted (2004)
This is a bad movie, period. (mild spoilers)
When you come up with an idea for a decent plot twist for a surprising ending, it's better to work backwards. It seems more like this movie came up with an ending and decided to see where it all would have started. With this format, you're never going to get the movement you're looking for. There will be too many points where the plot must be forced. To a watchful eye, the end of the movie can be predicted in the first 5 minutes.
The performances were not so dandy, either. Ashley Judd is now, officially, type-cast (if she wasn't already before). Sam Jackson comes across as attempting to be more Mr. Entertainment than to be his character. When his character has to become very serious to maximize the twist, it feels almost awkward to watch. Andy Garcia has had roles that I have appreciated in the past, but this one was not for him. It's almost the exact same character as Pacino in the Recruit with a bit more mystery. Except that the 'mystery' here is why he would take the part.
I've always taken pride in the fact that I can appreciate even a bad movie if it was put together well and a sufficient point is put across. But, if you're point is that both of your parents are dead and you have an insatiable appetite for casual, yet brutal, sex, don't be a detective. Not to mention that you should go ahead and suppose that anyone who doesn't notice that you're hungover (or should be) every single day probably isn't the best boss.
Festival Express (2003)
People of the world, join the love train!
What a terrific bit of insight into an event that until recently, was relatively unknown. In the wake of Woodstock, it was time for the players to have their fun. Some of the most tremendous artists of the 60's all join together to have a mobile party that ran across Canada. The movie includes some amazing footage of Janis Joplin, members of The Band, and a lot of Jerry Garcia and Bob Weir. I was curious where the remainder of the Grateful Dead spent much of their train time, but the footage shown was enlightening enough. From a night with LSD laden whiskey where spirits and the music was VERY high, to onstage performances by many of the groups from the actual concerts, and promoters and band members discussing the concerns about unruly fans and city managers. There was at least one huge aspect to note. For those of you who may appreciate Joplin for who she was and the influence she had but, maybe, aren't huge aficionados of her music, you may gain a new respect. Her onstage presence was clearly electrifying. You could tell that whenever she was belting out her bluesy tones, she had every bit of her heart bleeding out of her entire being. It would be a wondrous day to find that this, plus more and more hours of the footage could be released. I would waste away for an entire day watching and enjoying every tidbit of what was collected.
Garden State (2004)
I tend to go into movies with very high expectations.
Many times, my expectations lead to a sub-par experience at some of the highest touted movies. I remember purchasing My Big Fat Greek Wedding on DVD without having ever gotten the chance to see it in the theater. Based on reviews from professionals and friends alike, I was sure I couldn't go wrong. That movie went right to the used-book and CD store the immediate next day.
So, being a huge fan of Scrubs, I allowed myself to label this movie as a possibility of being one of the best movies I had seen this year. Well, it's always a wonderful treat when my expectations are met or exceeded, and this was one of those instances.
Several things made this movie tremendous, but three aspects stand-out the most.
First, the writing. When I heard of this movie, I immediately thought that through Braff's ability to portray the character he conveys in Scrubs, that he would have a good mind for dialogue in his own right. He has always seemed to suggest that his character is contrived of his own fruition, which means that no other actor could satisfy the role quite the same.
Second, Natalie Portman. Wow! What an amazing way to grab a role and run with it. I have spent time as a counselor in a mental health facility, and probably more time being counseled. She hits this neuroses dead on. Clearly, the writing has a lot to do with her character, but the writing and the portrayal must blend together to form a cohesive role. Without the proper agreement, if you will, of casting and dialogue, a part, or entire movie, can fall by the wayside. I had my doubts about her abilities, until viewing this brilliant performance.
Finally, the cinematography. Having a friend who has recently began his career in this field, I've had the priveledge of gathering insight in to this somewhat unknown side of film-making. Granted, in this forum, it may not be so unknown, but to the layman, usually only the most bizarre of angles, lighting, and whatnot may grab attention to this side of film. In this film, I would go as far to say that if you turned the sound on mute and watched the entire film, it would still be intriguing enough to stick around until the very end. There are little touches and elements of, to create a new word, 'surreality', that make the movie have an almost inconceivable setting. But bring in the script and the acting, and the setting because impossible to deny.
Some points made me laugh. Some points made me cry. Some things kept me guessing. And some points made me wonder why. But, all in all, I have to say that barring the next couple of months, this movie ranks in my top 3 of this year, and it will be hard for many to contend.
Zeke (2004)
A feline comedy that goes balls out
I don't know how much trouble it was to train a cat (or a pair of them) to be that sadistic, but it worked. Leaving the viewer 'dangling' to see what happens next, this short explores the twisted side of a sweet little kitty who has a lot of testicular fortitude, while having none at all. I would go as far to say that the sweet fur-ball is 'nuts'. I was 'sacked' with laughter. I'm looking forward to seeing Dana translate into a longer format. I dare to say that I see elements of Kaufman in her writing style, however translated to a non-verbal character. But the dementia is relatively apparent. Just when you thought it was safe to go back to the Veterinarian, Zeke may just be a warning.....or a predecessor of wonderful things to come.
Along Came Polly (2004)
Blech!!!!
That's about all there is to say. Ben needs to take it easy. He's giving the cliché, 'spreading yourself too thin' and entirely different meaning. I hasten to think that at any one time in the past 3 years there has been at least two movies out simultaneously starring this funny-man. I still respect his abilities, but it's kind of hard to focus when your trying to repeat Something About Mary over and over again. Go back to some less slapstick and more 'dark' comedic roles. We've seen this enough already. It was funny the first time. It began to lose it's flare the second time. Now it's like you're begging for attention. We all know who you are and what you're capable of, but your core is growing up. It's time for the comedy to do the same.