Mr Mauve

Mike Nichols; Gary Shandling; Annette Bening; Ben Kingsley; John Goodman; Greg Kinnear...

Some may look at this list of utterly-undeniably talented people and expect great achievement, while others may anticipate a too-many-cooks effect. Whatever *you* expect from What Planet Are You From? I can tell you one thing; Let this be the only review you read!!

I have read countless reviews of this film, such as Roger Ebert's One-Star one-note write up (in which he sounds as if he wishes he wrote the film), The SF Examiner's feeble complaint and Time Magazine's bile explosion in paragraph form, and they all nitpicked the film to death while ignoring the beauty of it all. Some focused on the 'buzzing penis' gag which leads me to believe they only screened previews and slept through the actual film. Yet others complained that Gary Shandling isn't sexy and shouldn't have starred in the title role. Uhhh... OK, lets cast Fabio, for his looks and great comedic timing.

I've seen plenty of movies, many of them comedies, and this one ranks with some of the best. I feel the casting was inspired across the board and features one of Greg Kinnear's best performances as a slimy womanizing cretin. Shandling is stellar as always, seeming to have an endless supply of one-liners and expressions for any situation. Annette Bening is possibly the best actress of her generation, and this performance clinches it.

I'll bring it into focus for you: it's a comedy of manners featuring a procreation-obsessed alien and a sex/relationship-disfunctional planet. The script is a Shandlingesque miracle and the performances are perfect. The film mixes universal truths about the human condition and truly funny situations which could have been clichés but were saved by the sly screenplay.

I don't know what the negative reviewers were expecting, but I got exactly what I thought I would: gifted actors and a fantastic director making what should have been a huge hit. Unfortunately, it seems that the prejudices and laziness of reviewers have sent this great movie to the bargain bin. See it today.

Lets look at this as a recipe... (please forgive the gimmick)

Start with a premise: A radio show. OK, so it's been done. But this isn't WKRP. This is WNYX, an all-news station. So, it's far from original; an amalgam of different sitcoms which take place in media outlets. This is our main protein source, where we get our main plotlines.

Here's where it gets interesting. Add a former member of one of the most popular Sketch comedy shows in the world, The Kids In The Hall: Dave Foley. A gifted comedian and a very good actor as well. Probably the most versatile player out of the 5 "Kids", Foley is the base flavor that keeps the show balanced, like a carefully prepared stock.

Add another former Sketch player from the award winning Ben Stiller Show: Andy Dick. Dick plays probably the most ridiculous character to ever be employed in any capacity. Picture a 30 year old man with the mind of a 15 year old girl. A great physical comedian, Andy Dick is an acquired taste akin to cilantro- strong, sometimes overpowering, but improves almost anything to which its added.

What?! Another gifted comedian straight from a great sketch comedy show? Of course I refer to Phil Hartman, without question the most consistent and versatile actor ever to be featured on the uneven series Saturday Night Live. Mr. Hartman, who left the show abruptly due to his untimely demise, was the potato in this dish- so consistent you sometimes forget how amazing he could be.

Maura Tierney and Khandi Alexander were given what were probably the most "straight" roles, usually only involved in storylines which involved sex or relationships with the men on the show. Both are very talented actresses but neither contributed nearly as many laughs as the three men above. Their roles were essentially sauces, breaking up the flavor and adding different sweet, rich notes.

Vicky Lewis, on the other hand, was quite like the female version of Andy Dick. Instead of cilantro, however, she was the hot pepper- and not just because of her red hair. She was a foil for every character, taking no one seriously while doing as little work as possible. Again, not a favorite character for most because of her caustic screen presence. Hmmm... this tastes pretty good so far, but it needs something more... Perhaps some vegetables... well, kids don't like their vegetables and immature adults don't like to be told what to do. So Stephen Root, the hilarious Billionaire/Owner of WNYX, is the bitter vegetable- unyielding and necessary for good health.

OK, we have our meat, our potatoes, our vegetables and our sauce as well as the important herbs and spices. But... this doesn't taste good. It tastes flat. We need something which improves every flavor it comes in contact with. Salt!

Joe Rogan, the station electrician/conspiracy theorist, is the icing on the cake- a theoretically irrelevant yet logically important character who just happens to be funny every time he appears on screen. Possibly my favorite character.

There... delicious! A heady mix of flavors which would conflict without the sturdy base it's built upon. I love Newsradio and although I do like Jon Lovitz, the show was never the same after Hartman's departure. Watch for reruns, as the show has been canceled, whenever possible.

This film is a great example of a production of the laziest screenplay I have ever read. In my opinion, the key to great science fiction is to create an utterly real world around the elements which require suspension of disbelief. This world is totally unreal.

For some reason the 'monster' in this movie can't be killed by a severe blow to the head with a crowbar, a massive electric shock or being burned over his entire body with a blowtorch. These things don't even slow him down, actually. He could kick anyone's butt with 3rd degree burns and massive brain hemmorhaging. The 'monster' is a normal man who happens to be invisible. I think Paul Verhoven was confused- perhaps he thought invisible also meant invincible.

I'm not going to waste my time writing about this movie. Just look at the goofs page, they pretty much explain everything.

If you have a mental deficiency and only like movies if they feature boobs, explosions and thoughtless unexplained violence, then you will love this movie. If you have up to a 6th grade education, you will be laughing half the time and annoyed for the other half. Sure, the effects were impressive... but they still looked a bit fake. Jurassic Park is still the best I've ever seen. I think we're a far cry from recreating the human form, even when we have the opportunity to render the graphics directly over a picture of Kevin Bacon.

Either way, this is a fun movie for people who like to pick apart details of a poorly thought out movie and feel superior. I know I did. (giggle) Don't hate me for this review. But you can't deny the factual evidence. I can see how one would enjoy this movie, but don't ask me to like it.

This is an unmistakably good film. I'm really not familiar with any

bad reviews (although I am sure there are some) but I have read

people's comments attacking the premise. They say, I don't buy it,

how could he not have known he was dead? This is why:

"They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see.

They don't know they're dead."

This line is M. Night Shaymalan's justification for any 'plot holes'

that anyone might have found in the film. Obviously people have

ignored this line in their criticisms because it eliminates all

possible 'plot holes' one might find. So, there you go. Just wanted

to clear things up.

This is a very good film.

It has a good script, good performances, good camera work, etc. The story alone is enough to spark interest in most filmgoers; a fantasy grounded in reality has a fairly wide appeal. The idea of a hero unaware of his talents is quite original and like the Sixth Sense, lends a believability to the story.

I really have no complaints about the first two thirds of the film, although I was hoping for more of a spectacular scene involving the train wreck. And in hindsight, although I did guess the twist about halfway through the film, there weren't any logical clues to lead one to determining the outcome. Regardless, the film contained many very entertaining and engaging scenes, such as The Bench Press scene and the Silver Gun scene (at the arena). These segments of the movie helped merge the fantasy and reality by allowing certain characters to give in to the possibility of Dunn's powers

Anyway, moving to my main complaint. The editor of this film took a vacation for the last third. Every scene was drawn out much too long; Strunk and White's Elements of Style recommends that all unnecessary words be edited from one's writing, but Dylan Tichenor obviously didn't read it. By the time Dunn takes his destiny into this own hands and acts as a hero, I was bored. It was stylish and engaging in its own way, but each individual shot was too long.

***FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO STOP READING.***

Regarding the ending, I was a bit disappointed with the implications of the twist and its following epilogue. Since Price turned out to be a deluded crackpot, the entire point of the film is devalued because it was his own crusade which birthed the story. Do you understand? I'm having trouble getting this across.... Mr. Glass's only evil acts were killing hundreds of people in order to find his nemesis. What does he have to do now?

And what kind of stupid Evil genius name is Mr. Glass? How about Dr. Pinched Nerve or Mr. Hard of Hearing? Just seems like a bit of a letdown that Price didn't have any hidden talents, like the ability to fly or laser beam eyes.

I don't know... I liked the film, but it squandered many opportunities to be an amazing film as opposed to a good flick.

This film is not the cinematic train wreck that the other reviewers have made it out to be. It is, admittedly, low-budget and features some pretty lean performances, but it was not ALL bad.

Sure, this film has a lot to be thankful for- a huge hit preceding it, tons of hype, and a soundtrack chock full of popular music. But there are thousands of people out there ready to knock it. I think what people wanted was to smugly confide that it was just as terrible as they thought it would be and there were no redeeming features at all.

A few popular thoughts are that 'there was no plot' and 'nothing happened.' Well, you could say the same about the first one. But you didn't, did you? If last year's double dose of celluloid trash, "The House on Haunted Hill" and "The Haunting" proved that CGI isn't scary and constant screaming and strobing visuals are boring and irritating, then BW2 proved that static, confusing images and disruptive timeline jumps are rather unsettling and exactly what make a suspenseful film work.

Now, I am not saying that this film was fantastic. The acting was startlingly bad at times, and none of the characters were sympathetic. Also, I think that there was a script/improvisation mix which exposed the limitations of the actors more than a well-written screenplay would have. But I was impressed by the unusual 'twist' and the framing devices/story structure which sparked a long discussion about the nature of reality (and the depiction thereof). When you discover the end, and the TRUE events are played out on the screen, it not only changes one's perspective on the action up to that point, but also what may have happened in the first film. It isn't a masterpiece but is at least worth renting.

This film commits many blunder, not the least of which is casting Leslie Nielsen in a comedic role. The Naked Gun flicks worked because he was the straight man in a wacky world. This film, however, just plugs along with tired gags and puns which were never funny to begin with. Don't waste your time when this is shown on comedy central. Instead, rent a Zucker/Zucker/Abrahams comedy like Airplane or Top Secret!. Trust me.

*spoilers* This film isn't terrible. As far as sci-fi sequels farmed out to first time directors go, it stands up fairly well, thanks to a decent cast and a basis for an interesting story. For some reason, metamorphosis tales such as this, and including The Fly '86 and American Werewolf in London, hold much fascination for me. The biggest problem with THIS film, however, is that the main character changes dramatically throughout the entire film, and there is no time to become accustomed to the character before he changes. The pace is confused, as the character changes constantly, but not much actually happens for the first hour. OK, now that that is out of the way, I have to make a complaint regarding the updated, less slimy full body fly costume created for this film. Yes, its pretty nasty. Yes, it spews corrosive vomit. BUT: it has teeth. In the first film, Seth Brundle's teeth gradually fall out as his fly-digestive system becomes active. In this film, the fly actually has huge fangs, which serve no purpose whatsoever. When I was 12 and I saw this movie, I guess I didn't notice, but about ten minutes ago, it really bothered me. All in all, this film is sort of fun, but only in context of the first film. If you are still a bit weepy about Jeff Goldblum getting his head blown off, you might enjoy seeing his progeny survive. Aside from that... eh.

Fantastic... this film is one of the few I've ever seen that is essentially and permanently grounded in reality. Real people, real emotions, real situations, real relationships. Watch it and you'll find yourself identifying with AT LEAST one of the many characters- most likely Patrick Fugit's William Miller or Kate Hudson's Penny Lane. It is a rare thing when I find a film which makes me want to live my life differently - either by reacting to situations with more confidence or strength of character or by simply adopting the profession of a particular character. I don't know- I can't go on just letting my heart gush all over the screen. The film was nearly perfect- performances, screenplay, camera work... only two complaints: One- Close-ups of Kate Hudson's face went on a tad too long and happened a bit too frequently; two- Jimmy Fallon, a rising comedy star, was not given enough to do. Please excuse me while I go see it again.

This is one of the best ensemble works I have ever seen. The always satisfying Ben Stiller leads a mission across the country coming into contact with the some of the craziest people ever immortalized on celluloid. Alan Alda, Patricia Arquette (thankfully more lucid here than in recent memory), Lily Tomlin, George Segal, and Mary Tyler Moore join the roller-coaster ride and within it all are many beautiful portraits of life which we learn should probably never intermingle too much. The disaster lies among these rocky run-ins (sorry, i'm too tired to edit out alliteration). If you like movies in which there are no fiery explosions, people being shot or messages in a spielbergian vein, or if you are sick of teen slashers, teen classic lit remakes and John Hughes retreads, rent this movie. You will laugh and bite your nails. Pure viewing satisfaction.

Wow... this film was a big disappointment. Yes, Pixar is the vanguard of companies producing computer-generated feature films; A Bug's Life is one of the most visually stimulating, unreal yet real animated films I have ever seen. Kevin Spacey's Hopper crackled with intensity and I was sure he was actually taking up space on the screen. The bird was far more terrifying than any other villain - it was simply a mindless killer, a mechanical crusher of dreams. (Watch the 'bloopers' at the end for a nod to Jaws)

I would have, however, preferred to have watched A Bug's Life without sound. Every character was a clichè and I think the plot was lifted from an old episode of Three's Company. Why bother with that sort of limp, trite trash when I can flip on the Idiot box and watch 24 hours of the same?

As in ANTZ, the main characters lack any charisma.... Sure, in an attempt to keep the story somewhat plausible the ants are all identical, but as in Toy Story, the most entertaining characters were those marginally associated or appearing late in the story : the boozing, rat-racing bugs of the city and the neurotic circus rejects.

At least there was no Sharon Stone in this one.

Finally, I'd like to add a question. Who are these wild, slave bugs/animals we see in every disney feature since 1930? The insane, rabid grasshopper- is there no explanation for why he is a drooling, snarling beast among fun loving layabouts? And P.T. Flea's Centipedes? Are they at least paid? It's an outrage! Free the non-human insects!

* * (two stars)

I can only guess this movie suffers mainly from laziness. Its unoriginality is outstanding, from the ship designs ('Star Wars' & 'Star Trek') to the 'hellish' imagery ('Hellraiser'). The colors, which were discussed on an HBO 'making of' special, were the only notable aspect, although darkness is the most pervasive element, as is the case in most 'stranded in space' thrillers. This film isn't total trash, because it mines some respectable, albeit well-worn, territory. If you are a fan of horror sci-fi you would be better off watching Alien Resurrection, which for a third sequel was incredibly watchable. Oh, yes I forgot. One more thing... this movie also struggles to make as little sense as possible. Only the veiled references to "knowing a person's inner fears" gives the audience anything to watch for, and by the time we catch on, the idea is left to us to actually relate to the final scenes. Rating: * (one star)

There is one thing about this movie that I want to talk about which makes this film great. It is the title and inherent theme therein. Picture a snowflake falling outside your window. Now, freeze-frame, and zoom in until you are enveloped in an ice palace that is way more spectacular and unique than Superman's house. This is your plan, a white speck made up of an infinite number of other variables, and it is as unpredictable in nature as it is uncontrollable. There is a scene late in the film in which four men walk through snow into a forest, and their trails line up parallel behind them. In the end, those paths are no longer so orderly... The characters are equally profound yet outwardly homogenous. Amazing performances, Beautiful photography. AND ALL FROM THE DIRECTOR OF 'THE EVIL DEAD'! Rating: ****1/2 (four and one half stars)

Well, I have to admit I did not finish watching this cringefest - or should I say COULD not? I thought 'The Lover' featuring Jane Marsh was exploitative... But then again, it had nice atmospherics, while 'Ripe' is just fairly flat images meant to shock or create tension which instead nauseate or bore the viewer. This is pretty intense, right? OK, so the issue of pedophilism is touchy, but you can't build a WHOLE movie around it.

Rating : 1/2 * (one half star)

Whew, this is ultimately in the top two of my all time most feared and wretched films. I can't say whether it's #1 or #2 until Joel Schumacher decided to Batman 5 or not. On to the film at hand: When I find my self saying, as I walk out of the theater, "Gee, not even cameo appearances by Alan Arkin, Ozzy Osbourne and the minimalist punk-metal group Helmet made that movie watchable at all!", I feel the cold hand of evil around my heart. This movie could have been something if it had had a script... or sets, or even a clear sense of plot, but it didn't, so it wasn't. Rating: Manure (no stars)