reidy-christopher

This film was enjoyable in a detached kind of way. You are not ever involved with any of the characters. It's sort of like watching a Cohen Brothers home movie or the student film of some very talented, but very in-jokey film students. It doesn't matter if you think it's funny--it cracks up the directors, and that's all that matters. It's too bad. At times, the film is brilliant; sort of like "It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World" if that film had been written by the "Airplane" guys and co-directed by Ingmar Bergman and David Lynch. But that only comes in sublime flashes. For most of the rest of the time, you feel like you are watching over paid if not over qualified Hollywood Movie Stars (and yes, Frances McDormand, you are one. You too Tilda)hamming it up (way too much mugging here)at some sort of comedy camp retreat for actors. You sort of wish they had found some new struggling fresh faces for these roles, since the actors here seem to be slumming, or lazy, or falling back on old tricks. Remember how refreshing Frances was in "Blood Simple"? That's what they needed here. The other thing they needed was a cohesive script. Too much happens "off screen" so to speak; when it would've been way more interesting than what we actually see. The CIA agents talking about the case is lame and falls flat, and frankly, is lazy. The other mistake was the shock moments the directors shoe-horned in for no reason other than to shock. Gore did not belong in this film. This really should've been rewritten and polished and given a strong plot on which to rest all the complications. This was a lost chance. This film really could have been a true classic. As it is, it's a notable, but forgettable minor comedy thriller. Wait for DVD.

Always loved this movie, always will. Gorgeous, dream quality cinematography (metaphorically and literally). Have problems with the Great Director though. Forget about ripping off Psycho and Hitchcock. I just saw "The Bird With the Crystal Plumage" and was shocked how close DTK is to almost every aspect of that earlier film. DTK is practically a remake of "Bird". Right down to shot compositions, costumes and even actors gestures. For example, when Angie is on the elevator floor reaching out to Nancy Allen. It is the exact same scene recreated from "Bird". No wonder Dario Argento hates DePalma. I can no longer give Brian the benefit of the doubt as an "auteur". Everything he does is somehow derivative. I used to think Dressed To Kill was something you could point at when the naysayers mocked him. Used to. He is the Knock-off king of American Cinema. Yes, he can make a damn good movie, or should I say, remake. If only he weren't so god damned arrogant. But I guess you have to be an asshole to claim your work is original when it absolutely is not.

This movie started out very promisingly but then completely lost its momentum. By the time you get to the Big Show you're so bored you just don't care. And the Big Show just isn't scathing or outrageous enough to be shocking. In order for a story like this to work, it has to be grounded in a believable "reality" (the world of the movie);but from the get-go you just don't buy it, and the whole thing falls apart. And the lead here (Coogan) is just too creepy to care for. Everyone else is just nasty and self-serving. Elizabeth Shue is there in the service of an idea that is never interestingly developed. That's the problem with this whole movie. You can tell the people who wrote and directed it thought it was way more clever, scabrous, and funny then it actually is. You shouldn't be sitting there in the theater counting the plot holes, flaws, and inconsistencies. Kind of kills the magic.

This movie tried really hard to be a good little gay themed movie and coming of age film in general but it was done in by its flaws. The actors were all excellent, especially the two brothers, but I never believed they were in High School. And that's where the problems with this started. They seemed more like college frat brothers. It was as though the screenwriter/director forced everything to fit what was written, which causes the viewer to go, "Huh?"...When the viewer starts going "Huh?" you've got problems. And by the end, the "Huhs?" started coming fast and furious. The film started reaching for emotional moments it hadn't really earned because they'd never been established during the story and then it tried to cover way too much ground following Dorian from High School to college (in Greenwhich Village yet, where he manages to keep away from men for two years! Please!). The other major problem was the characterizations of the parents. The father was such an unrelenting asshole and the mother was such a zombie you just couldn't become emotionally involved in the family plot lines. Seriously, these boys could've given the Menendez brothers a run for their money with parents like that. Actually, the guy who played the dad used to be on the soap "One Life To Live". He played Brad the tennis pro who raped his sister-in-law, the ex-prostitute, played by Judith Light...which is weird, since she's so involved in the Gay Rights Movement. Interesting.

This film completely fails to deliver on a promising premise because it breaks the rules for suspension of disbelief. It is supposed to be taking place in the real world of Passaic New Jersey, but why does Jack Black not die from receiving tens of thousands of volts of electricity? How did he become magnetized? Who rents video tapes anymore? When you start asking these basic questions at the beginning of the movie it's a lost cause. "Magic Realism" it's not. You just sit there going, "This is stupid! That can't happen...that wouldn't happen...they wouldn't do that...why are they doing this?" And when you ask "Why did they do this?" of the filmmakers, you know you have a turkey. I suppose this could be forgiven if there were delightful performances and sparkling dialog, but there ain't. Michel Gondry is a whiz at directing this kind of material, but unfortunately, not at writing it. The combination here is deadly. I laughed once.

I was pleasantly surprised when I saw a trailer for this movie a while back. I always enjoyed the show when I caught it on TV, except when it got really stupid towards the end (Mulder dies, then is buried in a coffin and is then dug up again and is alive--Excuse me?). Given that, I was happy to catch up with Scully and Mulder. It had been six years. Six years. Six years for the shows creators to come up with a script worthy of the legacy of the show. NOT! What a piece of doo-doo. This wouldn't have cut it as a two part episode during season eight. What were they thinking? That show had some of the best writing and directing in the history of television. Part of the joy of watching that show was that it was so much like a movie. Every week you got to watch an incredibly engrossing mini-movie. I felt bad for the actors. They looked slightly embarrassed to be there. Imagine having read the script, knowing it was a dog, and then having to do it and not be able to tell the writer, "You know, Chris, this really sucks..." because he's the big honcho and gave you your big break seventeen years ago. This is supposed to be a movie. Movies are supposed to be BIG. This seemed chintzy. It felt like a rip-off. Six years! If they weren't going to do it right, why did they do it at all? During the movie, my friend, who is not really a big fan of X-Files, leaned over and said, "This is like a remake of "Plan 9 From Outer Space" with an actual budget..." Sadly, I had to agree.

I am so sick of product placement in movies. Nowadays, it's hard to avoid so you kind of expect it and let it slide. Hey, movies are expensive to make. You find yourself admiring the director if they are able to slide it in without being too obvious or obnoxious...but hey, wait a minute...Aren't we, the movie going public, funding these movies by paying upwards of eight, nine, ten, dollars a pop? We expect commercials on television because the programming is free. Why then do we have to have products advertised in a movie we've paid to see? Not to mention being duped with dubious movie start times so we have to sit through the trailers and the actual TV commercials before the movie. Why do we put up with this? I really found myself thinking about this because The Weather Man was so clearly pushing Mickey D.'s. Oh sure, they tried to disguise it within a "fast food running gag" but it soon became clear that it was all about the golden arches. Maybe this was why Nicholas Cage's daughter was so obese and suffering from camel toe. Of course they'd never have that scene in this film. A little too close to home. Otherwise, the movie was an okay "darkish sorta comedy, maybe more dramedy". Sort of a poor man's "Accidental Tourist". The actors were all quite good. The writing wasn't terrible, nor was the direction. It was interesting enough and not too predictable to watch. It was not, however, as sophisticated and deep as it thought it was being. Rent it if you're a Nick Cage fan. Although I do not seek out his work, I always enjoy it when I see it. The character he plays here, though, is really hard to care about. Kind of the problem with the whole movie. Ah screw it! Save your money and buy a Big Mac and fries and go throw it at a movie studio chief.

While I watched "Pretty Persuasion" I couldn't help but sit there and catalog all the movies it was trying to be. "Heathers" came to mind first, then "Election", then "Cruel Intentions", then "To Die For" and even, "Pretty Poison", which I've never seen, but have read about (and that one came out about forty years ago). Yes, I'll admit by now that this Teen-Age-Badgirl-Master-Manipulator idea is officially a genre, and going into "Pretty Persuasion" you kind of accept that it is going to tread familiar ground...but seriously...so familiar you can't but sit there and consciously think about those other, better films? Every caustic, nasty bit of dialog that came out of Evan Rachel Wood's mouth just crashed to the floor of the set and laid there. It wasn't shocking. It was shockingly bad. And sophomoric. I remember when I first saw "Heathers" at the movies in 1989. I remember that experience because it literally was shocking. I was actually shocked by it. But delighted too. Because it was so original and yes, witty, it made it enjoyable and that was even all the more shocking. This movie tries to do the same thing but fails miserably. It fails because, A.) It was all ready done twenty years ago and B.) It was grade school level humor at best. Seriously, it was embarrassing. James Wood's made a complete fool of himself. I've never liked him anyway, but here he confuses acting disgusting with actually being disgusting, which seems to be a problem he shares with the filmmakers. Every single character in the movie is a cretin. No one has a sense of humor, let alone a wicked one. The only appealing character is the one played by Jane Krakowski, but she isn't given much to do in a subplot that goes nowhere. Most of the actors were very good, but again, in the service of characters you actually despise, what is the point? There's no one to route for here, even in an anti-hero kind of way. The filmmakers must've sensed this on some unconscious level, because the film veers into straight melodrama in the last half hour or so, which makes the questionable idea of viewing the movie even more disturbing. There's also a sort of anti-Americanism going on. There's this Arab teen girl character who is the butt of jokes and then ends up blowing her brains out in some weird bid for audience sympathy. Is the writer an Arab? He seems to hate the U.S. Of course we're all shallow, psychopathic, materialistic, morally bankrupt miscreants, yeah, I know, we get it, but that doesn't keep the Arab family from making a bee-line to Beverly Hills. Kind of a mixed message, huh? How about Poughkipsie? I get the feeling this film got made because someone (from Arabia maybe?)had deep enough pockets to drop a huge bag of money on some movie executive's desk and say "Make my kid's movie." I say this because the whole thing reeks of "vanity project". What person in Hollywood read the script and thought, "Oh, yeah, a sub-par rip-off of "Heathers"! Let's do it!" But apparently that bag of money was big enough to attract top acting talent and above the line contributors. Which is why this gets three stars. The photography was excellent. The Director of Photography knew where to put the camera. At least he knew what he was doing.

Being one of about three people who didn't like Nolan's "Memento" I know I will be in the minority on not liking "The Dark Knight". But here goes. I thought this movie was awful. It was boring. And when it wasn't boring it was pretentious. And when it wasn't pretentious it didn't make any sense. It has to be one of the most poorly edited films I've seen. There always seemed to be three things happening at once and every time one event became involving, the movie would cut away (on an action no less)to a second or third event until you weren't sure which event was happening where and when. Not only was this completely confusing, it undercut the tension in any one of the single events. The action sequences, where Batman is actually involved in a fight or a car chase are so mangled they are drained of all excitement. The fistfights are too close-up and choppy and the motorcycle/truck chase is all over the screen with no continuity or point of view. It's a total mess. So is the overall plot. It tries so hard to be "complex" it defeats itself on a dramatic level. It's trying to thwart audience expectations, but you know, sometimes audience expectations should be honored. Aren't super-hero movies supposed to be fun? This is about as much fun as walking barefoot through an open landfill. When I think about it, the answer to that question is "no". Arguably, The Terminator is a super-hero and he isn't much fun. But the first two Terminators were fun;and they were as dark as could be. The rest of these comments are just random thoughts I had, watching the movie. They are disjointed and perhaps non-sensical, but then, so was the movie. The Dark Knight completely lacks a sense of humor, unless you count the Joker's insanity. Heath Ledger was great at first, but his "Crazy" act became repetitive and started to grate after ten minutes. There's not a single likable character, or actor to play them. And the Gotham Police Department seems to have recruited it's staff from a local home for the mentally challenged. Why are Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, and Alfie in this? Couldn't they throw a bone to some struggling unknown actors and let them play these disposable roles? Maggie Gyllenhaal has all the appeal of a bruised cantaloupe. I was routing for her to die. When did Batman start disguising his voice by talking like Astro from the Jetson's. Like people really aren't going to recognize the bottom half of his face anyway? Wouldn't Harvey Dent's facial burns require at least a little Solarcaine to keep from getting infected and killing him? How did the Joker manage to pay for all that gasoline before he robbed the bank? The only scene I thought was good was when the Joker pushed Maggie off of the Wayne building and Batman swooped down to save her. Maybe because it reminded me of the same scene from Superman? What I hated most was all the holier than thou (Batman!) moral posturing by the filmmakers when they are marketing this disturbingly violent picture to kids. And then they have a little boy on screen being threatened with a gun to the head. It's pretty sick. People in this movie are brutally murdered and physically threatened usually by gun, or by knife, and even by a pencil. The theater where I saw this was packed with little kids. THIS IS NOT A MOVIE FOR CHILDREN.

I probably will not see either version of Funny Games. From what I've read here and seen in the trailers, I don't need to. I can tell what it is. It's an exercise in cruelty masquerading as a morality tale or lesson or whatever the director thinks it is. It's about the director playing God and putting his characters through a meat grinder. It's the cinematic equivalent of aiming a magnifying glass at an anthill. Something he apparently enjoyed so much he did it twice, in two languages. But not having seen it, I shouldn't make these assumptions. But I have seen the marketing and it smacks of the worst kind of hypocrisy. The poster itself is a clue. A beautiful blonde VICTIM and the words: "You brought this on yourself"--Is that meant for the woman or the potential audience of the film? And one more thing. Why does the luminous Naomi Watts keep taking these kinds of morbid roles? Why is she focusing her talent on such nihilistic garbage? She is quickly becoming the All Time Masochist of The Silver Screen. How about a comedy Naomi? I know! You and Brad Pitt in a remake of "Pillow Talk"! Now that would be a funny game!