mercuryix-1
Lifetime Total
10+
IMDb Member
18 years
Reviews
Death Proof (2007)
Misogyny Hits a New Low
from Tarantino.
Quentin Tarantino has never been known for his portrayal of women as humans. They are either deadly ninjas or strippers in the making.
In this film, four zomboid women who are self-indulgently stupid talk about sex with hot guys in a way only a horny junior high-school boy could write, then shows the four young jerks getting shredded by Kurt Russell.
This is not one of Russell's shining moments. I'm not sure why he signed onto this; it doesn't exactly help his career.
Tarantino can write better dialogue than this, and it deserves the criticism it has received. But what's most interesting is his uncontrolled hostility to anything female in this film. Even the female doctor is presented as a trash-talking, hostile bitch.
Most movies are tolerable, and only a few are actually painful. This one was genuinely painful, and makes me think twice or three times before seeing another Tarantino film.
It also makes me think about Tarantino's past attitudes towards women characters in his films. I think Tarantino needs more than a few sessions with a good counselor before sitting down and writing again.
And maybe let someone else (who actually sees women as people) write the women's dialogue....
Quentin Tarantino has never been known for his portrayal of women as humans. They are either deadly ninjas or strippers in the making.
In this film, four zomboid women who are self-indulgently stupid talk about sex with hot guys in a way only a horny junior high-school boy could write, then shows the four young jerks getting shredded by Kurt Russell.
This is not one of Russell's shining moments. I'm not sure why he signed onto this; it doesn't exactly help his career.
Tarantino can write better dialogue than this, and it deserves the criticism it has received. But what's most interesting is his uncontrolled hostility to anything female in this film. Even the female doctor is presented as a trash-talking, hostile bitch.
Most movies are tolerable, and only a few are actually painful. This one was genuinely painful, and makes me think twice or three times before seeing another Tarantino film.
It also makes me think about Tarantino's past attitudes towards women characters in his films. I think Tarantino needs more than a few sessions with a good counselor before sitting down and writing again.
And maybe let someone else (who actually sees women as people) write the women's dialogue....
Fargo (1996)
Oscar-Winning Writing Based on a Lie to their Audience
The premise of this screenplay begins with a lie to the audience; at the beginning of the film, a somber title comes on saying that "due to respect for the survivors, names have been changed in this film". This implies that the events of the film are true, and that the writers are showing respect.
Neither of these two things are true. The Cohen Brothers, after winning the Oscar for Best Writers (not before), eventually came out and admitted the story was entirely fictional. So much praise had been heaped on them, that no-one seemed to care at that point.
It would be great of newspapers worked the same way. Bush would never have been criticized when no WMD's were found.
Why does this matter, and who cares at this point?
When I first saw this movie, I was disturbed by the way the kidnap victim, the mother, was portrayed: as comic relief. Her running from her kidnappers was comical, the way she was shown running around in the snow with a bag over her head was comical, and even her death (her skewed legs upside down) was shown as comical.
The son, however, who was terrified for his mother, was not shown comically. So here we have a screenplay where the writers showed a terrified victim as comedy, and the son's terror for his mother dismissed. If this screenplay had been based on true events, to say this was disrespectful both to the mother and the son is an understatement. Imagine being the son who survived your mother's kidnapping and murder, and seeing her portrayed in this way.
But that's OK, because we find out later the whole thing was fictional. Except for the fact that I wasn't the only one upset by the way the victims were presented; other people, in particular victims rights groups, were too. Then we find out that we had been jerked around, that it was all a fiction.
Does that make it any more acceptable? Imagine your favorite movie that moved you because it was based on true events; then you find out years later it was all done so you would buy a ticket, and you had been deceived. This is what the Cohen Brothers did to their audience.
Good writers? Sure. Ethical people? You decide.
But respectful of their audience and to murdered people?
Apparently, not very.
Neither of these two things are true. The Cohen Brothers, after winning the Oscar for Best Writers (not before), eventually came out and admitted the story was entirely fictional. So much praise had been heaped on them, that no-one seemed to care at that point.
It would be great of newspapers worked the same way. Bush would never have been criticized when no WMD's were found.
Why does this matter, and who cares at this point?
When I first saw this movie, I was disturbed by the way the kidnap victim, the mother, was portrayed: as comic relief. Her running from her kidnappers was comical, the way she was shown running around in the snow with a bag over her head was comical, and even her death (her skewed legs upside down) was shown as comical.
The son, however, who was terrified for his mother, was not shown comically. So here we have a screenplay where the writers showed a terrified victim as comedy, and the son's terror for his mother dismissed. If this screenplay had been based on true events, to say this was disrespectful both to the mother and the son is an understatement. Imagine being the son who survived your mother's kidnapping and murder, and seeing her portrayed in this way.
But that's OK, because we find out later the whole thing was fictional. Except for the fact that I wasn't the only one upset by the way the victims were presented; other people, in particular victims rights groups, were too. Then we find out that we had been jerked around, that it was all a fiction.
Does that make it any more acceptable? Imagine your favorite movie that moved you because it was based on true events; then you find out years later it was all done so you would buy a ticket, and you had been deceived. This is what the Cohen Brothers did to their audience.
Good writers? Sure. Ethical people? You decide.
But respectful of their audience and to murdered people?
Apparently, not very.
Midnight Express (1978)
The "True Story" is Mostly Lies, Admitted by the Subject
It's hard to rate an effective drama that sold itself as true, only to find out 20 years later the supposed victim admitted he grossly exaggerated most of the details.
SPOILERS: The character, based on Billie Hayes, did not kill the guard at the end. Someone else did, a recent parolee (see the trivia section). Billie Hayes was not treated that badly, and admitted it, many years later.
This is a man who smuggled drugs into Turkey, was caught, sentenced according to their laws, and then escaped. He's not a hero by any definition.
The movie Fargo, by the Cohen Brothers, sold its incredible events to the audience by claiming it was based on a "true story". After they won the Academy Award, the Cohen Brothers admitted this was a lie, and the story was fiction. But the movie was so darn cute the audience forgave them. Would they have forgiven them had they known the truth at the time? Would the audience have forgiven Billie Hayes for his stretching (breaking) of the truth in this film had they known it as the time? As a work of drama, it's effective. But if you're expecting a work based on truth, this isn't it. And that's deceiving the audience.
SPOILERS: The character, based on Billie Hayes, did not kill the guard at the end. Someone else did, a recent parolee (see the trivia section). Billie Hayes was not treated that badly, and admitted it, many years later.
This is a man who smuggled drugs into Turkey, was caught, sentenced according to their laws, and then escaped. He's not a hero by any definition.
The movie Fargo, by the Cohen Brothers, sold its incredible events to the audience by claiming it was based on a "true story". After they won the Academy Award, the Cohen Brothers admitted this was a lie, and the story was fiction. But the movie was so darn cute the audience forgave them. Would they have forgiven them had they known the truth at the time? Would the audience have forgiven Billie Hayes for his stretching (breaking) of the truth in this film had they known it as the time? As a work of drama, it's effective. But if you're expecting a work based on truth, this isn't it. And that's deceiving the audience.
The Dark Knight (2008)
A Dark Night At the Movies
This film should almost be titled "Two-Face", because it tries to be two different movies, and fails at both; one that presents itself as grim, depressing and adult, the other one aimed at 14 year-olds. The result felt like watching "Portrait of a Serial Killer" aimed at kids. Watching this big, expensive, super-hyped movie was a strangely joyless, almost depressing experience. At the end, I was as worn out as if I had watched a documentary on spousal abuse, complete with raw footage of victims being beaten while we helplessly watch.
The mob bosses are presented as idiots who can't stop one guy, and the cops, who start off being competent, become more and more incompetent throughout the movie until they start to resemble the cops from the Adam West Show.
Moments of silliness do not transition well with scenes of police officers being brutally murdered by shotguns at point blank range. If you want audiences to enjoy the movie on a comicbook level, then don't show graphic scenes of people being murdered, threatened with mutilation and being pushed to their death. It's these two things together that make for an unpleasant viewing experience.
The moralizing is extremely fatuous: "you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain". Really? So Superman, Spiderman, et. al are due for villain status pretty soon. Firefighers and police officers if they live long enough will become criminals. Pronouncements like this in the movie sound slick, but don't hold up on examination. "But it's only a comicbook movie". That's the film's trouble. It tries to have its cake and eat it too.
The three lead characters, Bruce Wayne, the Joker, and Harvey Dent are presented as the only competent people in the movie. Even Gordon is seen as ineffectually leading the incompetent police. Batman is the only character in the movie able to throw a punch to stop an armed gang, even in scenes of rooms crowded with men.
Forcing the audience to watch long, protracted moments of the Joker holding a knife to a helpless victim's face as he threatens to mutilate her, shot in loving 360 degree panoramic closeup, is like being forced to watch a snuff film shot by Martin Scorsese. Worse, it forces the audience to participate in the victimization. The makers of the film call this being "grown-up". Since when is showing graphic sadism being "grown-up"? They want it to be a "grown-up comicbook". Fine; then don't show the rest of the characters as being incompetent cartoon buffoons, and assume your audience is stupid; this constant shifting is playing fair with the audience.
The Joker seemingly has an army of hundreds of highly organized commandos, but all of the unbelievable pyrotechnics are orchestrated by one person and a handful of schizophrenic patients. Even comicbooks have some kind of credible storyline and idea of what's physically possible, and this completely ignores them to the point of disregarding the audience's intelligence (and patience.)
Finally, Heath Ledger's performance. Heath Ledger tries very hard in this role, and you can't blame him for lack of effort. He plays a twitchy, sadistic psychopath in clown makeup. But is it the Joker? Well, that depends on your view of the Joker. If your view is a twitchy, sadistic psychopath, then he has succeeded in presenting it. If it's someone who is fun to watch,with a deranged sense of humor that makes you laugh in spite of yourself, then it isn't. The Joker as presented here is as joyless as a serial killer who only feels when he tortures someone, and as irritating as a Bugs Bunny character that is drawn as one step of the good guys, defying physics and logic, so he can continually dangle victims out of windows and force the victims into making sadistic choices. Finally, this is the filmmakers' view of what this comicbook is. It isn't necessarily ours. To add to the irritation, there are long, long interludes where the Joker gives his personal commentary on life's meaninglessness, as he threatens and tortures his victims. These commentaries are presented as "deep" and "heavy", when they are in fact as meaningless, and without relevancy; comicbooks succeed better than this.
Finally, we reach the end, which provides an irritation and insult to the audience all on its own: the movie actually makes the statement that the public can't handle the truth, that unless it is covered up, all the criminals will be freed and society as we know it will fall apart. Therefore, in order to continue and have hope, the public must continued to be deceived, and Batman must be martyred and chased by the hounds for the crimes he did not commit. Uh, what? Nice statement there: Bush's administration is correct after all (in fact, all institutions are correct), and we, the ignorant masses, can't handle the truth about one person, without losing all hope and reason. The idea that hundreds of criminals will be freed, and that crime will win, just because one district attorney became criminal, is ridiculous. The end actually sets Batman up to be a martyred Christ figure at the end. I found myself laughing at the end, much to the annoyance of my friend, at this "poignant" moment. This film took itself much too seriously, and its audience not seriously enough.
At the end, the score is: Batman competent, everyone else helpless and stupid. That's the message of this film. I came to see a movie about a comicbook character, and instead was inflicted with a pompous, psychobabble morality play instead. It was not fun. And after all, isn't that what a comicbook should be?
The mob bosses are presented as idiots who can't stop one guy, and the cops, who start off being competent, become more and more incompetent throughout the movie until they start to resemble the cops from the Adam West Show.
Moments of silliness do not transition well with scenes of police officers being brutally murdered by shotguns at point blank range. If you want audiences to enjoy the movie on a comicbook level, then don't show graphic scenes of people being murdered, threatened with mutilation and being pushed to their death. It's these two things together that make for an unpleasant viewing experience.
The moralizing is extremely fatuous: "you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain". Really? So Superman, Spiderman, et. al are due for villain status pretty soon. Firefighers and police officers if they live long enough will become criminals. Pronouncements like this in the movie sound slick, but don't hold up on examination. "But it's only a comicbook movie". That's the film's trouble. It tries to have its cake and eat it too.
The three lead characters, Bruce Wayne, the Joker, and Harvey Dent are presented as the only competent people in the movie. Even Gordon is seen as ineffectually leading the incompetent police. Batman is the only character in the movie able to throw a punch to stop an armed gang, even in scenes of rooms crowded with men.
Forcing the audience to watch long, protracted moments of the Joker holding a knife to a helpless victim's face as he threatens to mutilate her, shot in loving 360 degree panoramic closeup, is like being forced to watch a snuff film shot by Martin Scorsese. Worse, it forces the audience to participate in the victimization. The makers of the film call this being "grown-up". Since when is showing graphic sadism being "grown-up"? They want it to be a "grown-up comicbook". Fine; then don't show the rest of the characters as being incompetent cartoon buffoons, and assume your audience is stupid; this constant shifting is playing fair with the audience.
The Joker seemingly has an army of hundreds of highly organized commandos, but all of the unbelievable pyrotechnics are orchestrated by one person and a handful of schizophrenic patients. Even comicbooks have some kind of credible storyline and idea of what's physically possible, and this completely ignores them to the point of disregarding the audience's intelligence (and patience.)
Finally, Heath Ledger's performance. Heath Ledger tries very hard in this role, and you can't blame him for lack of effort. He plays a twitchy, sadistic psychopath in clown makeup. But is it the Joker? Well, that depends on your view of the Joker. If your view is a twitchy, sadistic psychopath, then he has succeeded in presenting it. If it's someone who is fun to watch,with a deranged sense of humor that makes you laugh in spite of yourself, then it isn't. The Joker as presented here is as joyless as a serial killer who only feels when he tortures someone, and as irritating as a Bugs Bunny character that is drawn as one step of the good guys, defying physics and logic, so he can continually dangle victims out of windows and force the victims into making sadistic choices. Finally, this is the filmmakers' view of what this comicbook is. It isn't necessarily ours. To add to the irritation, there are long, long interludes where the Joker gives his personal commentary on life's meaninglessness, as he threatens and tortures his victims. These commentaries are presented as "deep" and "heavy", when they are in fact as meaningless, and without relevancy; comicbooks succeed better than this.
Finally, we reach the end, which provides an irritation and insult to the audience all on its own: the movie actually makes the statement that the public can't handle the truth, that unless it is covered up, all the criminals will be freed and society as we know it will fall apart. Therefore, in order to continue and have hope, the public must continued to be deceived, and Batman must be martyred and chased by the hounds for the crimes he did not commit. Uh, what? Nice statement there: Bush's administration is correct after all (in fact, all institutions are correct), and we, the ignorant masses, can't handle the truth about one person, without losing all hope and reason. The idea that hundreds of criminals will be freed, and that crime will win, just because one district attorney became criminal, is ridiculous. The end actually sets Batman up to be a martyred Christ figure at the end. I found myself laughing at the end, much to the annoyance of my friend, at this "poignant" moment. This film took itself much too seriously, and its audience not seriously enough.
At the end, the score is: Batman competent, everyone else helpless and stupid. That's the message of this film. I came to see a movie about a comicbook character, and instead was inflicted with a pompous, psychobabble morality play instead. It was not fun. And after all, isn't that what a comicbook should be?
The X Files: I Want to Believe (2008)
Chris, Chris, Chris....
I just saw X-Files: I Want to Believe. There are too many other people beginning their reviews with "I Wanted to Believe It Would Have Been a Decent Film", for me to do the same.
However, that is how I, like many others, felt tonight. There was laughter during the serious scenes, and no laughter during the briefly "comic" moments. Not a good sign when the audience is tittering during moments of anger or tears between the main actors.
After it was over, I wanted to buy Chris Carter a beer, sit down with him, slap him in the head and say "Chris..... what happened?" Chris wrote some great episodes, but as the series ended it got weaker and weaker. This movie plays like a subpar episode from one of their weaker seasons. It's as if Carter had proved the old cliché that a writer only has so many stories in them, and when they're gone, they're gone. I don't want to believe that, but it's hard to dispute it in this case.
Duchovny and Anderson are first-rate, as always; they are the only reason people would watch this movie; no-one else could say these lines and hold interest.
Watch this movie only if you want to see them as their characters, and discard any need for coherency or plot, let alone logic; because you won't find it.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS (NOT THAT IT MATTERS):
The main villain in this movie is a 50 year-old Russian delivery man, who outruns the younger Mulder, outwits him, is played as if he's the unstoppable Alien throughout the series, when he is really only a.... 50 year-old Russian guy with no special powers. Then, at the very end, after getting away after every gruesome crime, he gets whacked in the noggin with a wrench from a woman and goes down. End of villain. The movie ends shortly thereafter.
The "hero" of the movie is a retired pedophile priest. Making this schmoe a "pedophile" just to make him unpalatable, was unnecessary, and insensitive to those who have actually been molested as children. It was a very cheap and easy way to make the guy disturbing to audiences, and Carter is smarter than to use such a cheap device.
SPOILER ALERT: (again, not that it matters): The entire plot, as ludicrous as it sounds, boils down to this:
A 50 year-old gay Russian dude who is part of an illegal organ-snatching ring wants to save his gay partner by stealing body parts; when that fails, he plans to have his head grafted onto a woman's body. That's it. I kid you not. When you see the movie, you will see this is exactly the plot. You will also want to join me in slapping Chris Carter in the head. After all this time, this is the best he can come up with? It is a cross between a Russian Dr. Frankenstein movie and Hairspray.
MOST LUDICROUS MOMENT AWARD: Again, the shame here is on Carter, not Duchovny. He actually has Mulder go into a room full of the people he knows have been abducting and cutting up women for body parts, armed with.... a wrench. That's right, a wrench. He staggers around (he has a head injury) saying "Stop! Just Stop what you're doing! Do any of you speak English??" Then a 70 year old Russian doc hits him with a hypo gun, knocking him out. This is the guy who went toe to toe with unstoppable morphing aliens in the series. Now he's dumb enough to get hypo'd by a guy on social security. Everything after this point was pure farce, and you feel insulted that you were expected to take any of it seriously.
The plot holes are too giant to describe. Save that for a guy that used to live on the cell phone, it doesn't occur to Mulder to use his phone when he finds out where the bad guys are. Oh yeah, he does, but his car gets rammed so he drops it. Then, when he wakes up hours later in his car, he still has his phone, but doesn't use it.
But wait, Skinner arrives anyway! And he has some of the dumbest lines in the movie as he and Skully try to find Mulder randomly in the dark! OK, I give up..... there's no describing it.
The Truth Is Out There, and it is this: Any member of the audience tonight that was laughing during this movie could have sat down, and in two weeks, written a treatment that would have turned into a better movie than what Chris Carter and Spotnitz wrote. If you are a fan, you will leave the theater with the same feeling; and you will be correct.
Yep, this...thing with two heads was written by two heads. Which is probably why you will see two-headed things in this movie.
As for myself, I Don't Want to Believe. I Don't Want to Believe that Carter would write something this bad, and this insulting to not only the die-hard X-Files fans, but for Duchovny and Anderson to perform.
I can't end without saying something directly to Carter, though I know he won't ever read it: Come on, Chris. You know you could have written a better and more compelling (and more coherent) script than this. You should have vetted it, found out how bad it was, scrapped it, and started from scratch with a new script with higher stakes and more meaning for your audience. Your audience deserved better, and your legacy deserves better.
(Cue mournful X-Files music at end......)
However, that is how I, like many others, felt tonight. There was laughter during the serious scenes, and no laughter during the briefly "comic" moments. Not a good sign when the audience is tittering during moments of anger or tears between the main actors.
After it was over, I wanted to buy Chris Carter a beer, sit down with him, slap him in the head and say "Chris..... what happened?" Chris wrote some great episodes, but as the series ended it got weaker and weaker. This movie plays like a subpar episode from one of their weaker seasons. It's as if Carter had proved the old cliché that a writer only has so many stories in them, and when they're gone, they're gone. I don't want to believe that, but it's hard to dispute it in this case.
Duchovny and Anderson are first-rate, as always; they are the only reason people would watch this movie; no-one else could say these lines and hold interest.
Watch this movie only if you want to see them as their characters, and discard any need for coherency or plot, let alone logic; because you won't find it.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS (NOT THAT IT MATTERS):
The main villain in this movie is a 50 year-old Russian delivery man, who outruns the younger Mulder, outwits him, is played as if he's the unstoppable Alien throughout the series, when he is really only a.... 50 year-old Russian guy with no special powers. Then, at the very end, after getting away after every gruesome crime, he gets whacked in the noggin with a wrench from a woman and goes down. End of villain. The movie ends shortly thereafter.
The "hero" of the movie is a retired pedophile priest. Making this schmoe a "pedophile" just to make him unpalatable, was unnecessary, and insensitive to those who have actually been molested as children. It was a very cheap and easy way to make the guy disturbing to audiences, and Carter is smarter than to use such a cheap device.
SPOILER ALERT: (again, not that it matters): The entire plot, as ludicrous as it sounds, boils down to this:
A 50 year-old gay Russian dude who is part of an illegal organ-snatching ring wants to save his gay partner by stealing body parts; when that fails, he plans to have his head grafted onto a woman's body. That's it. I kid you not. When you see the movie, you will see this is exactly the plot. You will also want to join me in slapping Chris Carter in the head. After all this time, this is the best he can come up with? It is a cross between a Russian Dr. Frankenstein movie and Hairspray.
MOST LUDICROUS MOMENT AWARD: Again, the shame here is on Carter, not Duchovny. He actually has Mulder go into a room full of the people he knows have been abducting and cutting up women for body parts, armed with.... a wrench. That's right, a wrench. He staggers around (he has a head injury) saying "Stop! Just Stop what you're doing! Do any of you speak English??" Then a 70 year old Russian doc hits him with a hypo gun, knocking him out. This is the guy who went toe to toe with unstoppable morphing aliens in the series. Now he's dumb enough to get hypo'd by a guy on social security. Everything after this point was pure farce, and you feel insulted that you were expected to take any of it seriously.
The plot holes are too giant to describe. Save that for a guy that used to live on the cell phone, it doesn't occur to Mulder to use his phone when he finds out where the bad guys are. Oh yeah, he does, but his car gets rammed so he drops it. Then, when he wakes up hours later in his car, he still has his phone, but doesn't use it.
But wait, Skinner arrives anyway! And he has some of the dumbest lines in the movie as he and Skully try to find Mulder randomly in the dark! OK, I give up..... there's no describing it.
The Truth Is Out There, and it is this: Any member of the audience tonight that was laughing during this movie could have sat down, and in two weeks, written a treatment that would have turned into a better movie than what Chris Carter and Spotnitz wrote. If you are a fan, you will leave the theater with the same feeling; and you will be correct.
Yep, this...thing with two heads was written by two heads. Which is probably why you will see two-headed things in this movie.
As for myself, I Don't Want to Believe. I Don't Want to Believe that Carter would write something this bad, and this insulting to not only the die-hard X-Files fans, but for Duchovny and Anderson to perform.
I can't end without saying something directly to Carter, though I know he won't ever read it: Come on, Chris. You know you could have written a better and more compelling (and more coherent) script than this. You should have vetted it, found out how bad it was, scrapped it, and started from scratch with a new script with higher stakes and more meaning for your audience. Your audience deserved better, and your legacy deserves better.
(Cue mournful X-Files music at end......)
Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970)
Forgotten High-Class Cautionary Tale
It's interesting reading the comments of those who dislike this movie; they either call it "dated" and so disregard it, or "ludicrous" in that it could never happen; that way they don't have to take the concept seriously and so aren't threatened by it.
Well, History is dated. That's why it's history. And we learn history supposedly so that we won't repeat the mistakes of the past (I wonder if that's ever worked?).
Science Fiction, if done well, is like watching future history. Star Wars begins with "Long, Long Ago..." and yet the world it presented was thousands of years ahead of ours. Science Fiction's best use is often in producing cautionary tales so that "We Don't Go There", or at least make us think before we do. Yes, the idea of a computer taking over the world through control of nuclear technology is ludicrous; very ludicrous. Until it happens. Then it is already too late. That's the point of science fiction and other cautionary tales.
So Collosus is about a dated computer that becomes sentient and starts asserting ruthless control for what it sees as the "betterment of mankind". What does it matter if the technology is dated? Our technology will seem hopelessly dated 100 years from now. This movie is very much like Terry Gilliam's dark movie, "Brazil", in a strange way. Gilliam has said his movie was a cautionary tale, that the only escape from the world is in your imagination. Both movies make the same point: that if a certain process (government, or technological) is allowed to continue without safeguards, we will reach a point where there is no escape. The time of quaint tales of Robin Hood and other rebels has passed: No "rebel band" is going to stop it, no revolution is going to succeed, because the stranglehold granted by modern weapons is so pervasive we can't fight it without dying. So instead of relying on comicbook fantasies of "fighting the Power", we should make sure we never get to the point of no return. In this movie's case, the fatal error was trusting in technology to run itself, without understanding it or taking precautions to install safeguards of overriding its commands and shutting it down if necessary.
In our country, if our government suddenly decided to become a dictatorship, there would be no revolution or rebellion. Our little handguns and rifles aren't going to match cluster bombs, missiles and chemical weapons. We're at the mercy of our leaders, and the chance for rebellion by force in countries around the world (such as Zimbabwe) has past.
The cautionary tale that Collosus tells is very old, and considered dated and clichéd by many. And because of that, its lesson is lost on those too "clever" to learn from it. Let's hope these people too clever to learn from dated clichés don't come into positions governing things like Collosus.
Well, History is dated. That's why it's history. And we learn history supposedly so that we won't repeat the mistakes of the past (I wonder if that's ever worked?).
Science Fiction, if done well, is like watching future history. Star Wars begins with "Long, Long Ago..." and yet the world it presented was thousands of years ahead of ours. Science Fiction's best use is often in producing cautionary tales so that "We Don't Go There", or at least make us think before we do. Yes, the idea of a computer taking over the world through control of nuclear technology is ludicrous; very ludicrous. Until it happens. Then it is already too late. That's the point of science fiction and other cautionary tales.
So Collosus is about a dated computer that becomes sentient and starts asserting ruthless control for what it sees as the "betterment of mankind". What does it matter if the technology is dated? Our technology will seem hopelessly dated 100 years from now. This movie is very much like Terry Gilliam's dark movie, "Brazil", in a strange way. Gilliam has said his movie was a cautionary tale, that the only escape from the world is in your imagination. Both movies make the same point: that if a certain process (government, or technological) is allowed to continue without safeguards, we will reach a point where there is no escape. The time of quaint tales of Robin Hood and other rebels has passed: No "rebel band" is going to stop it, no revolution is going to succeed, because the stranglehold granted by modern weapons is so pervasive we can't fight it without dying. So instead of relying on comicbook fantasies of "fighting the Power", we should make sure we never get to the point of no return. In this movie's case, the fatal error was trusting in technology to run itself, without understanding it or taking precautions to install safeguards of overriding its commands and shutting it down if necessary.
In our country, if our government suddenly decided to become a dictatorship, there would be no revolution or rebellion. Our little handguns and rifles aren't going to match cluster bombs, missiles and chemical weapons. We're at the mercy of our leaders, and the chance for rebellion by force in countries around the world (such as Zimbabwe) has past.
The cautionary tale that Collosus tells is very old, and considered dated and clichéd by many. And because of that, its lesson is lost on those too "clever" to learn from it. Let's hope these people too clever to learn from dated clichés don't come into positions governing things like Collosus.
The Fan (1981)
"I Want It Allllllll......."
Spoilers (not that it matters): This is the most ludicrously melodramatic line in the movie sung (actually spoken) by Lauren Bacall, an aging actress staging a comeback in a musical in this "suspense thriller". There is nothing suspenseful or thrilling in this movie, and the alleged musical the actress is starring again, seems to have been improvised on the spot instead of being fleshed out even minimally; which only serves to undermine an already unbelievable plot.
The villain of the piece is a disturbed young man who has developed an obsession of this actresses old films. He is never explained, and we learn nothing about him, other than he has chosen complete isolation as he pursues his obsession. His sister comes to his apartment to try to talk to him before he shuts her out too. He remains at this level of anonymity for the rest of the film. If this was intended to add to the mystery or interest of the character, it doesn't succeed. We care nothing about this character, other than he appears to be a sad, lonely young man with little social skills. It's hard to believe however that a guy this good-looking with this good a voice, would be this lonely and isolated. If he were truly mentally ill, he would have been evaluated by now.
The movie is mean-spirited and sadistic, only Maureen Stapleton seems to actually be alive and fleshed out in the movie, and James Garner seems to be there only as a prop as the boyfriend.
I actually came across a copy of the book this movie was based on, in the value bin of a bookstore many years ago. I leafed through it, to see how a movie this bad could be based on a successful novel. The book is written as a series of "letters", which used to be a popular style in the late 1800s. In the book, the heroine is aloof, her secretary is abrasive (she actually responds to the fan's first letters by saying "Are you for real? Why don't you go bother another actress?" Something a real assistant to a celebrity would never do: antagonize an unknown loony.) The boyfriend is presented as an aloof lug. The villain is presented as an emotionally-numbed narcissistic verbose bore. The author is deliberately laconic about the heroine's demise at the end. In short, the book is deliberately written as emotionally distanced. Why the author thought this would be effective in a thriller, I have no idea. Why the book was a success is a true mystery.
Unfortunately, the emotionally flat part of the book got translated into the screenplay. The older actress is never developed, the lonely and pathetic villain is never explored, and nothing actually "develops" in this movie. There is no arc of any kind. The actor playing villain pumps as much life as he can into a dead script and dead lines that do nothing to help him; to the point where you actually start feeling sorry for the actor, not scared of the character! This movie deserves to be forgotten about and obscured in film history. This may sound harsh, but it contributes nothing to the viewer, will waste two hours of your time, and will leave you wondering why it was ever made based on its screenplay.
Lauren Bacall deserved much better than this, and why she didn't demand better is the biggest mystery about this movie. I'm sure it's not one of the films she enjoys talking about.
I'm glad the "villain" of the piece, went on to bigger and better things.
Bacall sings "I want it all!" at a point in this film; that's especially ironic, considering there's nothing here.
Two stars.
The villain of the piece is a disturbed young man who has developed an obsession of this actresses old films. He is never explained, and we learn nothing about him, other than he has chosen complete isolation as he pursues his obsession. His sister comes to his apartment to try to talk to him before he shuts her out too. He remains at this level of anonymity for the rest of the film. If this was intended to add to the mystery or interest of the character, it doesn't succeed. We care nothing about this character, other than he appears to be a sad, lonely young man with little social skills. It's hard to believe however that a guy this good-looking with this good a voice, would be this lonely and isolated. If he were truly mentally ill, he would have been evaluated by now.
The movie is mean-spirited and sadistic, only Maureen Stapleton seems to actually be alive and fleshed out in the movie, and James Garner seems to be there only as a prop as the boyfriend.
I actually came across a copy of the book this movie was based on, in the value bin of a bookstore many years ago. I leafed through it, to see how a movie this bad could be based on a successful novel. The book is written as a series of "letters", which used to be a popular style in the late 1800s. In the book, the heroine is aloof, her secretary is abrasive (she actually responds to the fan's first letters by saying "Are you for real? Why don't you go bother another actress?" Something a real assistant to a celebrity would never do: antagonize an unknown loony.) The boyfriend is presented as an aloof lug. The villain is presented as an emotionally-numbed narcissistic verbose bore. The author is deliberately laconic about the heroine's demise at the end. In short, the book is deliberately written as emotionally distanced. Why the author thought this would be effective in a thriller, I have no idea. Why the book was a success is a true mystery.
Unfortunately, the emotionally flat part of the book got translated into the screenplay. The older actress is never developed, the lonely and pathetic villain is never explored, and nothing actually "develops" in this movie. There is no arc of any kind. The actor playing villain pumps as much life as he can into a dead script and dead lines that do nothing to help him; to the point where you actually start feeling sorry for the actor, not scared of the character! This movie deserves to be forgotten about and obscured in film history. This may sound harsh, but it contributes nothing to the viewer, will waste two hours of your time, and will leave you wondering why it was ever made based on its screenplay.
Lauren Bacall deserved much better than this, and why she didn't demand better is the biggest mystery about this movie. I'm sure it's not one of the films she enjoys talking about.
I'm glad the "villain" of the piece, went on to bigger and better things.
Bacall sings "I want it all!" at a point in this film; that's especially ironic, considering there's nothing here.
Two stars.
Peggy Sue Got Married (1986)
Kathleen Turner's Comment Right On the Mark
I wondered why I didn't like Peggy Sue Got Married more than I did, when it first came out in 1986, with all the hype. Somehow I found Nic Cage's character off-putting. Way off-putting. Then the plot didn't seem to make sense. Then by the end of the credits, the question came to mind: What point was this movie making? What was it saying? The answer, unfortunately, was not much, if anything. I really don't think this movie aimed at making a statement; unless it was "your life is your life, you're gonna make the same mistakes no matter what, so keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not the hole". Not a very profound statement, and I'm sorry, not profoundly made in this movie. The writing simply isn't that good. The direction is uneven, and is strangely overblown at times. Kathleen Turner was the best, and in my opinion, only worthwhile thing in this movie, and performed something of a miracle creating a whole character despite bizarre, unexplained circumstances, with a script that had no apparent statement to make.
She also finally cleared up the mystery for me of the main reason I didn't enjoy this movie more. She states in her autobiography that Cage made a point of fighting his uncle Coppola's direction every step of the way, doing it "his own way" (not a good idea for a new actor), and putting on a goofy voice she called "stupid". His voice was annoying, abrasive and unnatural, and his character was obnoxious and overbearing as a young guy. I understand what he was attempting to do: play a young-guy "hot shot" who is not as hot as he thinks he is, setting up his own karma for future failure. But he goes overboard, the way he does it is abrasive, not effective, and if he had listened to his uncle instead of "fighting the Man", we would have had a more enjoyable film. Cage slips a little with his obnoxious voice stylings in the movie and occasionally sounds like a real person, and those scenes are more watchable than others. But if I had to watch the movie through in its entirety, I would find myself wanting to pay someone in L.A. to pour a bucket of water over his head during some of his more affected (put-on) scenes.
The movie doesn't aim for a statement, doesn't make a point, is great to look at except when Cage is doing a demented Elvis impression (but without the voice), and is, ultimately, confusing and a waste of time. Given all this, Kathleen Turner surely deserved an Oscar in this flailing mess of a movie. I can't recommend anyone spending two hours watching this, unless you like Turner and have a remote to pick out all her scenes. Believe me, you will miss nothing plotwise by skipping the other scenes, and it will make just as much sense.
Kathleen Turner is getting a lot of flak from critics regarding her Cage comments, which proves that she's strong enough to be honest, and to hell with other people's comments. You go, Turner! I'm not particularly a fan of this actress any more than I am of any other first-rate actor or actress, but her candor is refreshing. Cage's acting can be good to annoying, and here it doesn't work. At least, in this film, now we know why.
She also finally cleared up the mystery for me of the main reason I didn't enjoy this movie more. She states in her autobiography that Cage made a point of fighting his uncle Coppola's direction every step of the way, doing it "his own way" (not a good idea for a new actor), and putting on a goofy voice she called "stupid". His voice was annoying, abrasive and unnatural, and his character was obnoxious and overbearing as a young guy. I understand what he was attempting to do: play a young-guy "hot shot" who is not as hot as he thinks he is, setting up his own karma for future failure. But he goes overboard, the way he does it is abrasive, not effective, and if he had listened to his uncle instead of "fighting the Man", we would have had a more enjoyable film. Cage slips a little with his obnoxious voice stylings in the movie and occasionally sounds like a real person, and those scenes are more watchable than others. But if I had to watch the movie through in its entirety, I would find myself wanting to pay someone in L.A. to pour a bucket of water over his head during some of his more affected (put-on) scenes.
The movie doesn't aim for a statement, doesn't make a point, is great to look at except when Cage is doing a demented Elvis impression (but without the voice), and is, ultimately, confusing and a waste of time. Given all this, Kathleen Turner surely deserved an Oscar in this flailing mess of a movie. I can't recommend anyone spending two hours watching this, unless you like Turner and have a remote to pick out all her scenes. Believe me, you will miss nothing plotwise by skipping the other scenes, and it will make just as much sense.
Kathleen Turner is getting a lot of flak from critics regarding her Cage comments, which proves that she's strong enough to be honest, and to hell with other people's comments. You go, Turner! I'm not particularly a fan of this actress any more than I am of any other first-rate actor or actress, but her candor is refreshing. Cage's acting can be good to annoying, and here it doesn't work. At least, in this film, now we know why.
Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)
Mindless Violence, Mindless Movie - In other words, an American Favorite
Possible Spoilers:
When I first saw this movie many years ago on cable, I couldn't understand why it was made. a nameless gang commits random murders of adults and children (if you want to gear your audience for a really cheap mad-on, kill a kid), then attacks a police station harboring a guy who killed one of the gang members. That's the movie. This is a nameless, faceless gang that we never see, that attack like robot drones, all armed with guns with silencers, yet can't spring for bullet-proof vests. They get mowed down like grass but keep comin', proving how stupid they are. However, they seem smart enough to figure out how to cut all the phone lines in the neighborhood so no-one can call out when someone finally gets the bright idea of calling for help. The director conveniently forgets that police stations have radios that can call to other stations, and emergency generators to power those radios in case power is lost too. What's worse, he expects his audience to forget that too.
Unfortunately, the audience does. This is a high-rated movie by a lot of critics and users, which makes a statement on the intelligence of American movie-goers I can't even touch.
It's dumb, insulting to the intelligence, violent for it's own sake, and I wouldn't be surprised if it inspired some disturbed person to shoot at a police officer at some point. Of all John Carpenter's hack movies, this is the worst one.
This movie was remade in 2005. Of all the movies to remake, they chose this one? It would seem that studios know their American audience......
When I first saw this movie many years ago on cable, I couldn't understand why it was made. a nameless gang commits random murders of adults and children (if you want to gear your audience for a really cheap mad-on, kill a kid), then attacks a police station harboring a guy who killed one of the gang members. That's the movie. This is a nameless, faceless gang that we never see, that attack like robot drones, all armed with guns with silencers, yet can't spring for bullet-proof vests. They get mowed down like grass but keep comin', proving how stupid they are. However, they seem smart enough to figure out how to cut all the phone lines in the neighborhood so no-one can call out when someone finally gets the bright idea of calling for help. The director conveniently forgets that police stations have radios that can call to other stations, and emergency generators to power those radios in case power is lost too. What's worse, he expects his audience to forget that too.
Unfortunately, the audience does. This is a high-rated movie by a lot of critics and users, which makes a statement on the intelligence of American movie-goers I can't even touch.
It's dumb, insulting to the intelligence, violent for it's own sake, and I wouldn't be surprised if it inspired some disturbed person to shoot at a police officer at some point. Of all John Carpenter's hack movies, this is the worst one.
This movie was remade in 2005. Of all the movies to remake, they chose this one? It would seem that studios know their American audience......
Dune (1984)
The Best Bad Movie to Forget About
If there is one major movie that can be lost and forgotten about, without a loss to cinema, it is Dune. This was an enormously expensive movie to make, and it looks it; it takes a lot of money to film something that visually looks this drab, this depressing, and this off-putting. I didn't know that David Lynch both directed and wrote this movie until years later, but when I did, everything made perfect sense. The author of the book chose the Wrong person to do a screenplay of it!
Lynch wrote the movie not caring if it was coherent or made sense to the audience. He directed all of the scenes to be bizarre for the sake of bizarre, and off-putting for the sake of itself. In short, he directed it for himself, not caring what the audience would think. This works if the director of a film is realizing his vision and his vision happens to be accessible to the public, but Lynch's vision and mentality are anything but that. There are artists that paint for themselves, and have contempt for what viewers think. I don't respect these people, because they're not artists; the definition of art is that it communicates, to a purpose. Art is by definition a form of communication. Here, Lynch does not communicate, nor cares to. The result is incoherent, off-putting, repellent, and contemptuous of its audience; in other words, the film is pure Lynch.
If you happen to have Lynch's peculiar mentality, with a preference for bizarre visuals without context, you'll think the movie is brilliant. If you like a movie to have more than empty style, if you want it to have substance, meaning, hope and a storyline of some kind, with characters you care about, you have described something that Lynch does not care about, and will not produce. This film is the most pure example of that; he eventually met his karma with Twin Pinks, when his nonsensical and bizarre scenes reached the point where it became clear he was jerking around his audience to no purpose with no plot in mind, and the series was canceled suddenly at the height of its popularity; a singular thing to happen to a popular series I think.
Thankfully, Lynch has been on a decline ever since, and people have finally caught on to his Picasso-like style of painting something bizarre for its own sake, and letting audiences read into it whatever they want, with no real direction or statement intended or cared about.
If there was ever a movie that deserves to be lost deep under what it is named for, it's this one. There is only one mystery that remains that is a big one; how did a screenplay this incoherent, horribly written (especially the dialogue), and meaningless get approved with a budget of $40 million? Are the studios this easy to dupe? Please sign me up....
Lynch wrote the movie not caring if it was coherent or made sense to the audience. He directed all of the scenes to be bizarre for the sake of bizarre, and off-putting for the sake of itself. In short, he directed it for himself, not caring what the audience would think. This works if the director of a film is realizing his vision and his vision happens to be accessible to the public, but Lynch's vision and mentality are anything but that. There are artists that paint for themselves, and have contempt for what viewers think. I don't respect these people, because they're not artists; the definition of art is that it communicates, to a purpose. Art is by definition a form of communication. Here, Lynch does not communicate, nor cares to. The result is incoherent, off-putting, repellent, and contemptuous of its audience; in other words, the film is pure Lynch.
If you happen to have Lynch's peculiar mentality, with a preference for bizarre visuals without context, you'll think the movie is brilliant. If you like a movie to have more than empty style, if you want it to have substance, meaning, hope and a storyline of some kind, with characters you care about, you have described something that Lynch does not care about, and will not produce. This film is the most pure example of that; he eventually met his karma with Twin Pinks, when his nonsensical and bizarre scenes reached the point where it became clear he was jerking around his audience to no purpose with no plot in mind, and the series was canceled suddenly at the height of its popularity; a singular thing to happen to a popular series I think.
Thankfully, Lynch has been on a decline ever since, and people have finally caught on to his Picasso-like style of painting something bizarre for its own sake, and letting audiences read into it whatever they want, with no real direction or statement intended or cared about.
If there was ever a movie that deserves to be lost deep under what it is named for, it's this one. There is only one mystery that remains that is a big one; how did a screenplay this incoherent, horribly written (especially the dialogue), and meaningless get approved with a budget of $40 million? Are the studios this easy to dupe? Please sign me up....
Blade Runner (1982)
The Best of the Almost Great Movies
There are so many comments regarding this movie that I doubt anything I write will be seen as relevant. Obviously it's affected a lot of people, because of all the comments here. I saw this movie when it first came out, then I saw it again when they thankfully removed Harrison Ford's voiceovers from it (which he himself didn't think was appropriate for the film.) This film has apparently been re-edited several times, but no matter how many times they do, it will never be completely satisfying. What it needed was one more rewrite at the beginning, with development of one tiny element: the characters.
We don't care about the replicants enough; because we don't know enough about them. We don't care about Harrison Ford's character enough, because he kills too soullessly, "just doing his job", and doesn't give it a second thought. Which brings me to the movie's biggest deficit: He has no character arc. He doesn't grow or change throughout the movie. Phillip K. Dick mentioned in a rare interview I'm glad I got to read, that he intended the replicants and the character of Deckard to undergo a reversal: the replicants become more human, with a conscience, by the end of the film, and Deckard becomes less and less human because of his actions, until their characters have completely switched. This would have given a satisfying and complete meaning to the film. All the replicants wanted to do was live, not be slaves and to be left alone for the remainder of their brief lives. All Deckard wanted to do was kill them, get paid and go home. No thought given to his actions afterwards.
We learn nothing of the replicants' inner feelings except the main one, and then only peripherally. If they had been allowed to emote and to feel pain, we would have empathized with them and had a problem with Deckard killing them. So there really is no-one to empathize with, certainly not Ford, who plays a futuristic Charles Bronson character out of Deathwish, who killed muggers and punks with no emotion whatsoever.
Possible Spoiler:
One major quibble I have is with the murder of Sebastian, the one (and only) empathetic character out of the whole film. He acts as the unwilling host for two of the replicants, he comes to like them and they seem to like him, but after the head replicant kills Tyrell, the genius who bioengineered the replicants, he goes after Sebastian, and we hear later that the replicant killed him too. Why? This completely undermines the evolution of the replicant towards humanity. We can see why the replicant would kill his creator who created him to be a disposable slave who will die after four years, but a man who had helped him? It was a senseless contradiction and brought us back to square one about caring about the replicants. (Even with Darth Vader, the audience empathized with him a little, being scarred up and a victim of his destiny. He didn't just kill people randomly.)
So, there we have it. The reason why, in my opinion, the movie will never be as great as it could be, because nothing changes, and we have no-one (and nothing) to really care about. At the end we're left with a film that creates a sense of mood, and not a moral or meaningful statement. That's too bad; it could have done all of that, with one more rewrite and ten minutes more of developing (i.e., evolving) the characters. Rutger Hauer's "tears in the rain" speech at the end unfortunately is not enough to accomplish that by itself.
However, I doubt that Ridley Scott cares about any of that, as he endlessly re-edits the visuals in his film......
We don't care about the replicants enough; because we don't know enough about them. We don't care about Harrison Ford's character enough, because he kills too soullessly, "just doing his job", and doesn't give it a second thought. Which brings me to the movie's biggest deficit: He has no character arc. He doesn't grow or change throughout the movie. Phillip K. Dick mentioned in a rare interview I'm glad I got to read, that he intended the replicants and the character of Deckard to undergo a reversal: the replicants become more human, with a conscience, by the end of the film, and Deckard becomes less and less human because of his actions, until their characters have completely switched. This would have given a satisfying and complete meaning to the film. All the replicants wanted to do was live, not be slaves and to be left alone for the remainder of their brief lives. All Deckard wanted to do was kill them, get paid and go home. No thought given to his actions afterwards.
We learn nothing of the replicants' inner feelings except the main one, and then only peripherally. If they had been allowed to emote and to feel pain, we would have empathized with them and had a problem with Deckard killing them. So there really is no-one to empathize with, certainly not Ford, who plays a futuristic Charles Bronson character out of Deathwish, who killed muggers and punks with no emotion whatsoever.
Possible Spoiler:
One major quibble I have is with the murder of Sebastian, the one (and only) empathetic character out of the whole film. He acts as the unwilling host for two of the replicants, he comes to like them and they seem to like him, but after the head replicant kills Tyrell, the genius who bioengineered the replicants, he goes after Sebastian, and we hear later that the replicant killed him too. Why? This completely undermines the evolution of the replicant towards humanity. We can see why the replicant would kill his creator who created him to be a disposable slave who will die after four years, but a man who had helped him? It was a senseless contradiction and brought us back to square one about caring about the replicants. (Even with Darth Vader, the audience empathized with him a little, being scarred up and a victim of his destiny. He didn't just kill people randomly.)
So, there we have it. The reason why, in my opinion, the movie will never be as great as it could be, because nothing changes, and we have no-one (and nothing) to really care about. At the end we're left with a film that creates a sense of mood, and not a moral or meaningful statement. That's too bad; it could have done all of that, with one more rewrite and ten minutes more of developing (i.e., evolving) the characters. Rutger Hauer's "tears in the rain" speech at the end unfortunately is not enough to accomplish that by itself.
However, I doubt that Ridley Scott cares about any of that, as he endlessly re-edits the visuals in his film......
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988)
A Monumentally Expensive, and Disappointing, Muddle
When I read the reviews by the critics of this film, I wondered if we had seen the same movie. There seems to be a fear when a great artist presents something that doesn't work, that critics are afraid to criticize it because they may reveal their ignorance. Picasso is probably the greatest example of this effect.
The same thing seems to have happened with Baron Munchausen. It is big, the cinematography is first-rate, the production values and the actors are all first rate, but the film itself is impossible to follow. I have always been a big Terry Gilliam fan, and this was one of my biggest disappointments in a film I was sure would be brilliant.
There were several very basic and fixable things wrong with this film. The first is that not everyone is familiar with the Baron Munchausen story. The script should have introduced us to the character and made us familiar with why he is a pathological liar who believes his own tall tales. Secondly, Neville, the actor who played the title role, never had acted in a movie before, and here he acts exactly as if he is on stage, complete with warbling old-age stage voice. Third, Gilliam lost track of what should have been the core interest of the film; the relationship between the hopelessly muddled old man and the little girl who cares about him despite his fabrications. Instead, that gets lost, and we lose the only thread of the story we care about.
Possible Spoilers: The point where we leave reality and enter his tall tales is not made clear, and the fact that the little girl inhabits his tall tales as he tells them, makes it even more confusing and muddled to the viewer. We don't know where we are, and if that is what the director intended, it is a mistake. After a while the audience gets disconnected from the film and we stop caring, because we get tired of being confused.
The characters of the dwarf with sharp hearing, the world's strongest man, Eric Idle as the world's fastest man, and the guy who can see around the world are all superfluous. We don't know who they are other than their powers, what their relationship is with the pathological Munchausen, and why we should care about them. There is an absolutely tedious scene where Eric Idle does a silly dance to confuse Hephaestus (the god of fire) so Munchausen can escape, that goes on and on. The scene has absolutely no purpose and isn't funny, even tho Idle puts everything into it. It's painful to watch, and feels insulting to the audience to believe an Olympic god is going to be "tricked" this way.
This movie reminds me very much of Yellowbeard, in the amount of great talent that is wasted. Gilliam told some pretty tall tales himself to get the movie made, misleading the studios into how much it would cost, then kvetched at length about having to cut down the script. What he should have done was bitten the bullet, swallowed his pride, and had a coherent rewrite done of the script. In this case, less expense, less visuals, and tighter writing would have been much more. The ending makes no sense and will leave the viewer with the full sense of confusion the rest of the movie induced. It will also leave the viewer with the correct sense that they have just wasted well over two hours of their time, waiting for a satisfying conclusion that makes sense of the preceding two hours.
As expensive as this movie was to make, and as much as I admire Gilliam, I can't recommend this movie; it is tedious and headache-inducing, and repeated viewings don't help clear up gaps in the story. You also will not care about a single character in it.
Buy the book "Losing the Light" about the debacle of the making of this film. It is much more gripping, enthralling and fun to read than this movie is to see. In it, Gilliam comes through, unfortunately, as a man done in by his own perceived cleverness and hubris (and deliberate deception, which almost destroyed one company, the completion bond company, after costing it millions), and you will understand why this movie is not more successful than it is. The definitive Munchausen story, for those that care about this character, is still waiting to be made; however, after this $50,000,000 movie, it is doubtful another one about Munchausen will be!
The same thing seems to have happened with Baron Munchausen. It is big, the cinematography is first-rate, the production values and the actors are all first rate, but the film itself is impossible to follow. I have always been a big Terry Gilliam fan, and this was one of my biggest disappointments in a film I was sure would be brilliant.
There were several very basic and fixable things wrong with this film. The first is that not everyone is familiar with the Baron Munchausen story. The script should have introduced us to the character and made us familiar with why he is a pathological liar who believes his own tall tales. Secondly, Neville, the actor who played the title role, never had acted in a movie before, and here he acts exactly as if he is on stage, complete with warbling old-age stage voice. Third, Gilliam lost track of what should have been the core interest of the film; the relationship between the hopelessly muddled old man and the little girl who cares about him despite his fabrications. Instead, that gets lost, and we lose the only thread of the story we care about.
Possible Spoilers: The point where we leave reality and enter his tall tales is not made clear, and the fact that the little girl inhabits his tall tales as he tells them, makes it even more confusing and muddled to the viewer. We don't know where we are, and if that is what the director intended, it is a mistake. After a while the audience gets disconnected from the film and we stop caring, because we get tired of being confused.
The characters of the dwarf with sharp hearing, the world's strongest man, Eric Idle as the world's fastest man, and the guy who can see around the world are all superfluous. We don't know who they are other than their powers, what their relationship is with the pathological Munchausen, and why we should care about them. There is an absolutely tedious scene where Eric Idle does a silly dance to confuse Hephaestus (the god of fire) so Munchausen can escape, that goes on and on. The scene has absolutely no purpose and isn't funny, even tho Idle puts everything into it. It's painful to watch, and feels insulting to the audience to believe an Olympic god is going to be "tricked" this way.
This movie reminds me very much of Yellowbeard, in the amount of great talent that is wasted. Gilliam told some pretty tall tales himself to get the movie made, misleading the studios into how much it would cost, then kvetched at length about having to cut down the script. What he should have done was bitten the bullet, swallowed his pride, and had a coherent rewrite done of the script. In this case, less expense, less visuals, and tighter writing would have been much more. The ending makes no sense and will leave the viewer with the full sense of confusion the rest of the movie induced. It will also leave the viewer with the correct sense that they have just wasted well over two hours of their time, waiting for a satisfying conclusion that makes sense of the preceding two hours.
As expensive as this movie was to make, and as much as I admire Gilliam, I can't recommend this movie; it is tedious and headache-inducing, and repeated viewings don't help clear up gaps in the story. You also will not care about a single character in it.
Buy the book "Losing the Light" about the debacle of the making of this film. It is much more gripping, enthralling and fun to read than this movie is to see. In it, Gilliam comes through, unfortunately, as a man done in by his own perceived cleverness and hubris (and deliberate deception, which almost destroyed one company, the completion bond company, after costing it millions), and you will understand why this movie is not more successful than it is. The definitive Munchausen story, for those that care about this character, is still waiting to be made; however, after this $50,000,000 movie, it is doubtful another one about Munchausen will be!
13 Ghosts (1960)
"Ask Me No Questions, And I'll Tell You No Lies!"
POSSIBLE SPOILERS:
Where else are you going to see a scary movie with both the incomparable Margaret Hamilton (as a good guy) and the hero of Adam-12 (as the bad guy??)
This movie was an absolute staple of the yearly Halloween scary-movie marathon when I was a kid. No, it's not scary by today's standards, but it's strangely disturbing in some way, which puts it ahead of about 90% of the gorefests out there. The plot device that makes it work is extremely clever: a special pair of glasses made from a special glass that enable the view to see ghosts, while the others can't see the danger that looms over them. There's a great subtle moment that would never be found in today's hack bloodfests; the scientist who made the glasses puts them on his desk for the night, & a fly buzzes over them; only to disintegrate.
The embarrassing remake had Everyone wearing the glasses; so the entire suspense of being the only one that can see them is gone! The movie is directed so that the viewer has the experience of being the one wearing the special glasses; so the "Look Out Behind You!" factor is very high. If the effects weren't so campy, this would be very effective even today; and still could, in the right hands (this would've made a great idea for the X-Files or similar original show). However, some of the effects are still disturbing, it is atmospheric as heck for those who have an attention span, and you get to see a great ending that put a smile on my face (only because I love Margaret Hamilton so much). It's a crime this great actress wasn't starring in more films of high caliber; a true waste of talent. Check it out on Halloween for your kids if it isn't on TV. If they haven't been desensitized by chain saws & decapitations yet, they'll like it. Then again, maybe I'm just nostalgic.
Where else are you going to see a scary movie with both the incomparable Margaret Hamilton (as a good guy) and the hero of Adam-12 (as the bad guy??)
This movie was an absolute staple of the yearly Halloween scary-movie marathon when I was a kid. No, it's not scary by today's standards, but it's strangely disturbing in some way, which puts it ahead of about 90% of the gorefests out there. The plot device that makes it work is extremely clever: a special pair of glasses made from a special glass that enable the view to see ghosts, while the others can't see the danger that looms over them. There's a great subtle moment that would never be found in today's hack bloodfests; the scientist who made the glasses puts them on his desk for the night, & a fly buzzes over them; only to disintegrate.
The embarrassing remake had Everyone wearing the glasses; so the entire suspense of being the only one that can see them is gone! The movie is directed so that the viewer has the experience of being the one wearing the special glasses; so the "Look Out Behind You!" factor is very high. If the effects weren't so campy, this would be very effective even today; and still could, in the right hands (this would've made a great idea for the X-Files or similar original show). However, some of the effects are still disturbing, it is atmospheric as heck for those who have an attention span, and you get to see a great ending that put a smile on my face (only because I love Margaret Hamilton so much). It's a crime this great actress wasn't starring in more films of high caliber; a true waste of talent. Check it out on Halloween for your kids if it isn't on TV. If they haven't been desensitized by chain saws & decapitations yet, they'll like it. Then again, maybe I'm just nostalgic.
An Inconvenient Truth (2006)
Notice Something Interesting in the Comments Section?
There are too many comments about the relative merits and faults of this documentary for mine to add much; without being a scientist himself, Al Gore has exhaustively compiled, over many years, all of the studies/findings he can accumulate that point to the possibility of global warming. Yes, there are some moments of implied bitterness sprinkled here and there about his loss to Bush by dubious Supreme Court decisions. His documentary has been attacked because it does not show both pros and cons of the global warming debate equally. However, if it did, it would make no point.
There are two interesting points, both in the documentary, and in the comments section for this documentary: Gore actually got ahold of an internal memo from a corporation that flatly stated its intention to "reposition" the global warming findings not as a scientific conclusion, but as a "theory", by paying media & "experts" to raise doubts; an undertaking that succeeded.
The second interesting point is if the reader goes to the "hated it" section of the comments section, they will find extensive refutations of Gore's documentary, not written by the average viewer, but by what appear to be paid writers & journalists that exhaustively refute point by point the documentary film from beginning to end, complete with references and quotes from everyone they can find, scientist or not, that disagree with the documentary. These "comments" don't read like comments, but like editorials in the Nation and other right-wing gung-ho publications. They are so obvious it is funny. And there are a Lot of these so-called comments! If you read some of them, the writers seem to have shot themselves in the foot; they reveal themselves not as average viewers, but as part of the interests that seek to cast doubt the global warming findings. There are dozens of these comments, many appearing to be clones of each other, and some of them even quoting the conservative senator who attacked the concept of global warming! "The greatest single hoax perpetrated on the world" is found over and over again in some of these "comments". If there is no conspiracy to cast doubt on the global warming issue, why are there so many of these attacks that read like editorial pieces appearing here? And this is just IMDb we're talking about. There is way too much energy being spent on trying to debunk Gore's warning, by way too many writers, citing facts and figures your average viewer wouldn't have at his fingertips. Read the "hated it" section of the comments and you'll see what I mean. It's goofy and strangely unsettling at the same time, that such a large group of fake commentors would go to so much trouble to so aggressively refute every word coming out of his mouth.
There are two interesting points, both in the documentary, and in the comments section for this documentary: Gore actually got ahold of an internal memo from a corporation that flatly stated its intention to "reposition" the global warming findings not as a scientific conclusion, but as a "theory", by paying media & "experts" to raise doubts; an undertaking that succeeded.
The second interesting point is if the reader goes to the "hated it" section of the comments section, they will find extensive refutations of Gore's documentary, not written by the average viewer, but by what appear to be paid writers & journalists that exhaustively refute point by point the documentary film from beginning to end, complete with references and quotes from everyone they can find, scientist or not, that disagree with the documentary. These "comments" don't read like comments, but like editorials in the Nation and other right-wing gung-ho publications. They are so obvious it is funny. And there are a Lot of these so-called comments! If you read some of them, the writers seem to have shot themselves in the foot; they reveal themselves not as average viewers, but as part of the interests that seek to cast doubt the global warming findings. There are dozens of these comments, many appearing to be clones of each other, and some of them even quoting the conservative senator who attacked the concept of global warming! "The greatest single hoax perpetrated on the world" is found over and over again in some of these "comments". If there is no conspiracy to cast doubt on the global warming issue, why are there so many of these attacks that read like editorial pieces appearing here? And this is just IMDb we're talking about. There is way too much energy being spent on trying to debunk Gore's warning, by way too many writers, citing facts and figures your average viewer wouldn't have at his fingertips. Read the "hated it" section of the comments and you'll see what I mean. It's goofy and strangely unsettling at the same time, that such a large group of fake commentors would go to so much trouble to so aggressively refute every word coming out of his mouth.
Sicko (2007)
Sicko, and my upcoming personal experience with Insurance
I would like to give Sicko 10 out of 10, as I believe in its message 100%; that the insurance industry in this country is exploitive. Michael Moore doesn't delve deeply into statistics as he knows the American public doesn't have patience for them, so he relies on anecdote. Of course, he goes too far in presenting one side, when he would actually win more converts if he presented both, and let the public decide for themselves. My personal experience: I work in the insurance field, and I am about to leave; it was only the insurance that made me stay. I am about to take a test to determine if I am diabetic; a little late, as I am about to lose my insurance. Now I may change my mind; because, as his movie states correctly, if I am found to be diabetic, I will never get insurance again! I will find out just in time for my insurance to run out.
So what do I do? Get the test and find out I am diabetic, & not get insurance again, or don't get tested and live with my gradually worsening state of health? Without insurance, I can't afford treatment for diabetes. So I may need to cancel my appointment (so the insurance company doesn't find out) and wait until I get insurance again, which may be never. Meanwhile, untreated diabetes only gets worse. And if they find out I suspected I'm diabetic, the new insurer will cancel me anyway.
That is the place I am in. I wonder how many millions of Americans are in the same place for different reasons? This is the richest country on earth. We are "Number One". And this is the way we have to live? In fear of our health? Only in America....
And Michael Moore's critics call him "UnAmerican". The question of Sicko is: What is American? Supporting capitalism to the point of sacrificing life and health (hopefully others', not yours), or saying this is a pathetic situation, and we need to do better for our people?
By the way, did I mention I work in insurance? Right now my company is bribing the Governator to throw Californians a bone & insure the poor. Awwww, how sweet. They've put hundreds of thousands of dollars in this millionaire Governor's pocket. Again, what a sweet gesture. Do you think they're doing it out of charity, or because they see Californians waking up and getting angry? So they're throwing you a bone. And if you accept the bone my company is throwing you (i.e., the current proposed scam), a bone is all you're gonna get.
Go see Sicko, however biased you think Michael Moore is.
So what do I do? Get the test and find out I am diabetic, & not get insurance again, or don't get tested and live with my gradually worsening state of health? Without insurance, I can't afford treatment for diabetes. So I may need to cancel my appointment (so the insurance company doesn't find out) and wait until I get insurance again, which may be never. Meanwhile, untreated diabetes only gets worse. And if they find out I suspected I'm diabetic, the new insurer will cancel me anyway.
That is the place I am in. I wonder how many millions of Americans are in the same place for different reasons? This is the richest country on earth. We are "Number One". And this is the way we have to live? In fear of our health? Only in America....
And Michael Moore's critics call him "UnAmerican". The question of Sicko is: What is American? Supporting capitalism to the point of sacrificing life and health (hopefully others', not yours), or saying this is a pathetic situation, and we need to do better for our people?
By the way, did I mention I work in insurance? Right now my company is bribing the Governator to throw Californians a bone & insure the poor. Awwww, how sweet. They've put hundreds of thousands of dollars in this millionaire Governor's pocket. Again, what a sweet gesture. Do you think they're doing it out of charity, or because they see Californians waking up and getting angry? So they're throwing you a bone. And if you accept the bone my company is throwing you (i.e., the current proposed scam), a bone is all you're gonna get.
Go see Sicko, however biased you think Michael Moore is.
Risky Business (1983)
"Money may not buy happiness, but it will buy the things that will Make you happy"
There are too many reviews of Risky Business for mine to have any relevance as a movie review. However, this movie is for me a time capsule of the era I saw it in, and a photograph of the future to come in American culture.
I saw this movie when I was 22 in a tiny college theater with a date. I remember several disconnected things about it: The movie was much more interesting than my date was, the music by Tangerine Dream was hypnotic and fit the tone of the film, which struck me as being more depressing in places than funny (although there are some funny moments in it), and it gave me a glimpse into a world that I thought was fictional. It turned out I hadn't experienced the world it was presenting yet. When Cruise asks his friends what they plan to do with their lives, one's answer is very simple and focused: "Make money". Another friend adds: "Make a LOT of money".
It turns out the movie was precognizant of the next ten to twenty years of American culture; the absolute obsession with making money through any means necessary, legally or illegally, regardless of consequences to yourself or others. Then taking that money and buying the things that will make you happy: a porsche, a big house, and most importantly, a hot babe in your bed, that will only be there as long as the money is. Internally discovered happiness? A quaint notion created by the poor who can't afford the toys that validate your existence.
I am sure that the filmmaker would be the first to say that the movie parodies the hollowness of the "American Dream" of acquiring wealth to buy creature comforts, but too much of the time it feels like it celebrates them. At the end, the hooker stays Cruise's girlfriend only as long as he continues to make her money; she even says "I'll be your girlfriend...for a while". Real loyalty there. But then, she is a hooker, and is being honest. She in fact is presented as the only person in the film that is not a hypocrite. She has no illusions that money & sex make the American world go 'round, and doesn't pretend herself to be otherwise; unlike Cruise and the rest of his friends. In the end however, she is still hollow, the values the kids pursue are hollow (they are only after sex, not love), and the movie feels as deep and solid as a glossy magazine ad for a Lexus.
Even over the obsession of greed, however, the film illustrates the complete alienation of the modern American teenage male: alone, isolated, judged by his peers with the kind of car his dad lets him drive, his clothes, and whether he can get laid or not. The emphasis is on sex, not relationship. There is no rite of passage into adulthood, no guidance from parents who more often than not are as distant from their children as the cardboard cutout parents in this film.
In short, as depressing as this film is when you step back from it, it paints a frighteningly accurate portrait of how superficial and narrow a world, yet directionless (except for accumulating superficial wealth) a young boy's world can be. There are no values taught in this film, because there are none available as examples. And that is the environment too many kids are subject to. That is what was so disturbing to me about the film at the time I saw it, yet it took 20 years to understand why (as I was, like most kids my age, in the same vacuous and bankrupt culture this kid was in at the time).
There are 300% more suicides committed by 14 year old boys in America than any other age group or category. This movie explains why.
Seven stars, not for humor, but for photographing the beginning of an era that lasts until this day. The message from Enron, WorldCom, Martha Stewart and others for American kids will be: Don't get caught. A message which is slowly becoming the only "moral direction" left in American culture.
I saw this movie when I was 22 in a tiny college theater with a date. I remember several disconnected things about it: The movie was much more interesting than my date was, the music by Tangerine Dream was hypnotic and fit the tone of the film, which struck me as being more depressing in places than funny (although there are some funny moments in it), and it gave me a glimpse into a world that I thought was fictional. It turned out I hadn't experienced the world it was presenting yet. When Cruise asks his friends what they plan to do with their lives, one's answer is very simple and focused: "Make money". Another friend adds: "Make a LOT of money".
It turns out the movie was precognizant of the next ten to twenty years of American culture; the absolute obsession with making money through any means necessary, legally or illegally, regardless of consequences to yourself or others. Then taking that money and buying the things that will make you happy: a porsche, a big house, and most importantly, a hot babe in your bed, that will only be there as long as the money is. Internally discovered happiness? A quaint notion created by the poor who can't afford the toys that validate your existence.
I am sure that the filmmaker would be the first to say that the movie parodies the hollowness of the "American Dream" of acquiring wealth to buy creature comforts, but too much of the time it feels like it celebrates them. At the end, the hooker stays Cruise's girlfriend only as long as he continues to make her money; she even says "I'll be your girlfriend...for a while". Real loyalty there. But then, she is a hooker, and is being honest. She in fact is presented as the only person in the film that is not a hypocrite. She has no illusions that money & sex make the American world go 'round, and doesn't pretend herself to be otherwise; unlike Cruise and the rest of his friends. In the end however, she is still hollow, the values the kids pursue are hollow (they are only after sex, not love), and the movie feels as deep and solid as a glossy magazine ad for a Lexus.
Even over the obsession of greed, however, the film illustrates the complete alienation of the modern American teenage male: alone, isolated, judged by his peers with the kind of car his dad lets him drive, his clothes, and whether he can get laid or not. The emphasis is on sex, not relationship. There is no rite of passage into adulthood, no guidance from parents who more often than not are as distant from their children as the cardboard cutout parents in this film.
In short, as depressing as this film is when you step back from it, it paints a frighteningly accurate portrait of how superficial and narrow a world, yet directionless (except for accumulating superficial wealth) a young boy's world can be. There are no values taught in this film, because there are none available as examples. And that is the environment too many kids are subject to. That is what was so disturbing to me about the film at the time I saw it, yet it took 20 years to understand why (as I was, like most kids my age, in the same vacuous and bankrupt culture this kid was in at the time).
There are 300% more suicides committed by 14 year old boys in America than any other age group or category. This movie explains why.
Seven stars, not for humor, but for photographing the beginning of an era that lasts until this day. The message from Enron, WorldCom, Martha Stewart and others for American kids will be: Don't get caught. A message which is slowly becoming the only "moral direction" left in American culture.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)
The Mother of All Cult Films
Or I should say, the Sweet Transvestite of all cult films!
To those who haven't seen Rocky Horror, don't bother reading reviews about it. It won't mean anything. Don't rent it on DVD which it recently came out on. It also won't mean anything, because it's missing the thing that gave it and the stage play that preceded it life... the audience. By definition, a cult film is meant to be seen by a group. Preferably, a large one.
I saw Rocky Horror 20-something years ago, and wound up playing "Brad" with the players next to the stage. Something I would normally never do. Why? The show's energy sucked me in. More accurately, the audience's energy sucked me in.
The show, with a revved-up audience, is almost like a dialogue between the movie and the people watching it. It celebrates sex, hedonism, even while playing out the danger, violence, and tragedy it can result in. It allows the audience of mostly young kids to exude and rejoice in their sexuality, whatever it is. And without ever taking their clothes off. I think that is the real appeal of the show. There's a joyousness, and a strange innocence, in throwing raunchy comments at the screen, watching the live performers on-stage act out the scenes in racy costumes, and sharing the energy anonymously in the dark with strangers.
The live show with the original actors must have been electrifying. Plays always have more energy than films because of the immediacy of the live actors, and the energy must have been even more intense. I'll always regret not having the chance to have seen it.
The movie itself has been described too many times for me to give a synopsis. I will however say that it is really a collage of feelings, ranging from fear, trepidation, excitement, lust, joyous sexual fulfillment, more lust, tragedy, and a strange sadness at the end. Basically, all the emotions that make life worth living, in an hour and a half. However, the visceral enjoyment of this film, and the emotions it brings, will only be experienced with a large, highly energized audience. If you get a chance, and if you can get your reserved ego out of the way, go to a midnight showing in your area when you know there's going to be a big showing. Don't go expecting a logical, coherent storyline. Its about experience, not narrative. You'll get an experience that you've been missing your whole life. At the end, there is a message here, hidden under all the seemingly blissful hedonism. It takes a long time for it to become clear, however.
I wonder if O'Brian, its creator, was clever enough to have put it there all along?
By the way, there is no nudity or actual sex in the entire movie. For a movie with its reputation, that's pretty amazing. Compared to the slasher/gore fests passing themselves off as film these days, the movie is strangely quaint and innocent. But then, that's what true enjoyment of sensuality should be.
For a cult film, 10 out of 10 stars. It doesn't get any better than this as cult films go.
To those who haven't seen Rocky Horror, don't bother reading reviews about it. It won't mean anything. Don't rent it on DVD which it recently came out on. It also won't mean anything, because it's missing the thing that gave it and the stage play that preceded it life... the audience. By definition, a cult film is meant to be seen by a group. Preferably, a large one.
I saw Rocky Horror 20-something years ago, and wound up playing "Brad" with the players next to the stage. Something I would normally never do. Why? The show's energy sucked me in. More accurately, the audience's energy sucked me in.
The show, with a revved-up audience, is almost like a dialogue between the movie and the people watching it. It celebrates sex, hedonism, even while playing out the danger, violence, and tragedy it can result in. It allows the audience of mostly young kids to exude and rejoice in their sexuality, whatever it is. And without ever taking their clothes off. I think that is the real appeal of the show. There's a joyousness, and a strange innocence, in throwing raunchy comments at the screen, watching the live performers on-stage act out the scenes in racy costumes, and sharing the energy anonymously in the dark with strangers.
The live show with the original actors must have been electrifying. Plays always have more energy than films because of the immediacy of the live actors, and the energy must have been even more intense. I'll always regret not having the chance to have seen it.
The movie itself has been described too many times for me to give a synopsis. I will however say that it is really a collage of feelings, ranging from fear, trepidation, excitement, lust, joyous sexual fulfillment, more lust, tragedy, and a strange sadness at the end. Basically, all the emotions that make life worth living, in an hour and a half. However, the visceral enjoyment of this film, and the emotions it brings, will only be experienced with a large, highly energized audience. If you get a chance, and if you can get your reserved ego out of the way, go to a midnight showing in your area when you know there's going to be a big showing. Don't go expecting a logical, coherent storyline. Its about experience, not narrative. You'll get an experience that you've been missing your whole life. At the end, there is a message here, hidden under all the seemingly blissful hedonism. It takes a long time for it to become clear, however.
I wonder if O'Brian, its creator, was clever enough to have put it there all along?
By the way, there is no nudity or actual sex in the entire movie. For a movie with its reputation, that's pretty amazing. Compared to the slasher/gore fests passing themselves off as film these days, the movie is strangely quaint and innocent. But then, that's what true enjoyment of sensuality should be.
For a cult film, 10 out of 10 stars. It doesn't get any better than this as cult films go.