Torch-6

While I enjoy stop-motion animation, I am not what one would call a fan. Nonetheless, this short (less than 9 minutes, all told) has a strangely, eerily compelling script that wormed its way not only into my brain, and into the lexicon of myself and my friends. Many is the time when we have encountered mindless, blinkered bureaucracy and muttered to each other "The way is blocked" or "Couldn't we just go around?"

There is is the card game of Shaft of Light, simple but effective, just like the animated short. Tominson studied at the CalArts center for experimental animation, and this work is a product of that time. You can find both online, just employ your favorite search engine.

The allegory of Shaft of Light is clear, as is its message of hierarchical privilege and punishment. The solution--common sense, not blind adherence to authority--is as clear as the message: don't rock the boat.

That's right, I rated it a 6; it's not the best show ever...X-files with more humor, but almost as much bu115h!t mystery and enigma. I swear if even one more show appears where dialogue is primarily some kind of post-Illuminatus conspiracy questions-answering-questions, I think I'll just freak.

There's nothing new here. We have a relatively unimaginative collection of characters: handsome yet clueless single-dad sheriff, perplexed more by his teenage daughter than the mysteries around him. Hot yet emotionally unavailable female deputy. Ball-breaking (and, yes, scorching hot) female administrator. Spooky and diabolically-handsome government overadministrator who can't answer any questions about the "entity" entombed in the unsurprisingly-yet-enigmatically named "Level 5." I mean, come on.

Each week we see a new cast of character types; the Adrian Monk type germophobe who suddenly becomes invincible; the teenage kid who can't be around electrical devices...but has to be. The usual plot devices.

Did I say, usual? This show is actually a remake of the original Star Trek series, complete with Captain, Engineer, Chief Medical Officer and meddling Starfleet Bureaucrats. Think about that.

I'd have given it a 7, but some episodes are scene-for-scene predictable (e.g. "Invincible"). But whatever, it's fun to watch and often quite entertaining ("Magnitized fence?" Riiiiight.)

But whatever, it's a fun show...not SF Channel's best, but enjoyable. Give it a couple of episodes. You might have fun. G'wan, have a beer and give it a try.

OK, first and right off the bat, as in the first Transporter (2000), too much plot, not nearly enough driving. Second, too much fighting and not enough sex. Third, WAAAAAYYY too much of this "acting" stuff by the female lead and the husband guy. SAG should consider rescinding their guild cards.

You don't want to see this film for depth. You want to see the Audi W12 do its thing. You want to see the Transporter open a whole metric ton of whooop-ass on the local badguys. You want to see unlikely things happening that result in people you don't like getting hurt, and you don't want to see so much as a scratch on that Fine European Automobile. And don't miss the Ferrari, putting in a surprise guest appearance! You want "acting," rent Lawrence of Arabia, maybe Grand Canyon or Gattaca. You want the above? Get out your celly, call your homies and reach for your wallet--then sit back put your feet up on the seat in front of you and enjoy the show.

I'm surprised to see the IMDb crowd rate this film in the top 250; while a good film, nearly lyrical in the use of light and wire-fu, the story a great deal of sound and fury that ultimately signifies very little.

The story is told in a series of flashbacks, as most everyone already knows. I would comment more, but this is film whose content is difficult to discuss without giving away major plot points.

But still...Top 250 #133 for a 96 minute movie that's about 70 minutes of fighting?

Many will comment on the blatantly obvious propaganda value of "Hero"--the unifying message in the film seems particularly unsubtle as Taiwan edges closer and closer towards full independence in name and deed and fact, from Mainland, so-called 'red' China.

(Hey, there might be spoilers here--but I don't think so; if you've seen the trailers you've seen the movie.)

Look, you know the story: Angst-driven masculine type pines for unobtainable woman, low-self image despite noble bearing and heart of gold. Vast evil powers threaten universe, and of course he's the only one who can stop it--you know, or not--but all for the sake of his one true love.

Which makes life difficult if you happen to be the ultimate blame-victim, the Antichrist. With a nicotine habit. And a fondess for kittens. And you work for a secret government agency. (BTW, with the release of *Hellboy,* the number of Secret Government Agencies now officially outnumbers those Agencies/Bureaus/Services the government does admit exist. How do these people file on their tax return forms?)

So there's nothing special here; some funny one-liners, some great CGI, a few physical humor gags (note HB's interactions w/subway train--a hoot!), the usual "Kiss her you fool!" romantic entanglements and inevitable resolutions.

But that's what we're here for, right? We can pull *Hellboy* up to our chins like a warm fuzzy blanket, slurp our $5 soda and just lean back and enjoy the ride.

And before I get the usual "stupid kid" flames, I'm old enough to remember how my heart stirred with the opening strains of the original Battlestar Galactica theme, and how I really, REALLY wanted to be just like Starbuck.

Galactica in 1978 was NOT a Star Wars wannabe. Sure, it used ILM effects and at $1.0M per episode was the most expensive show ever on television, and may yet still be if one accounts for inflation. But BG then was more Star Trek than Star Wars. Finally, here at last, was the vision of a "Wagon Train to the Stars" though hostile territory, surrounded by enemies in all directions. Cue Cylon attack and--horray!--Apollo and Starbuck save the day but only after disobeying a DIRECT order.

I loved it of course.

Today's BG is the same story, only more. And less, of course. No it doesn't use the original cast--SciFi didn't have Kyle Maclachlan portray Paul Atriedies, why have an age'd Dirk Benedict play Starbuck? No it's a new century and time for a new story, one less driven by "Gee whiz" ILM pyrotechnics and more by the human story behind any tale of conflict. Comparisons here are better with "The Winds of War," than anything else.

2003's telling of the BG story is more about the people and character development--not just dusting off an old model and swooping a Dykstraflex(R) camera around it. The pilot is slow and careful--not plodding--and I think it will view better with that in mind.

Come on folks, give it a chance!

What a great idea--the world of Olympic fencing is chock-full of drama and political wrangling. And with swords, no less!

It seems to me that, much as I love fencing, ANY sport-centered movie has about the same plot. The US cinema scene continues to churn out these formulaic box-office muffins, despite any real story being present.

"By the Sword" is rife with inconsistencies, bad scriptwriting and simply ludicrous scenes--the post-Sheena E dancing scene foremost among them. Folks, fencers simply do NOT do this...not even as a motivational exercise. Fencers do not WANT a regular rhythm, it's more of a weakness than a strength.

Blades breaking, blood drawn, sure that happens...but on purpose? At the *encouragement* of the Maestro? I don't think so.

If you want to see Mia Sara in a tight fencing outfit, this is your film; but for heaven's sake, don't expect to see fencing.

(And yes, I fence.)

I've seen many versions of tCoMC, and by far this is the most lethargic, torpid and pointless version of them all. In their efforts to remain true to the book, the production has removed all traces of life, and passion (for what is revenge, without passion?) from Dumas' immortal novel of love, betrayal, revenge and redemption.

At just about 6 hours, you'd think they'd find room for at least one good action sequence, but Depardieu, as usual, does his impression of a pithed John Malkovitch on downers the entire time. The sole supply of emotion in the production is from the Count's chef, who tries vainly to bring some life into a dreary existence.

When I mean lethargic and torpid, I mean it's slow. It opens with Dantes (Depardieu, Gerard) already at Chateau d'If, and the expository of the show is told largely in abbreviated, unannounced flashbacks--if you didn't already know the story, you'd be lost in a heartbeat. Abbe Faria is a tangential character at best, and we see none of his contributions to Dantes' character.

After Dantes' escape from Chateau d'If, the story plods along, mindlessly. There is no, I repeat NO action of any kind. Not so much as a pistol shot. In one scene Mdm. Danglars faints. We don't even get to see her fall. When Dantes scales a wall, we only see his (surprisingly slim) shadow. This effect is less interesting as being dramatic than it is at calling attention to the stuntman--who apparently couldn't be bothered to put a couple of pillows--climbing the rope.

Of course, it doesn't look all that great. But, for a 20-something comedy-romance about a guy who opens the movie with a Ferris Bueller litany of how to get his local Booty Girl out of bed in the morning, you'd think it would suck pretty bad. But it works. It flat-out works, the script is good and funny, the acting is good, and funny, and the story comes together 100% predictably.

Sure we know where it's going, and anyone who's seen any teen movie from the 80's (or at least "Not another teen movie") can tell you who's in love with whom from the get-go. But there are a few surprises along the way, and the movie winds up being a fun ride through well-travelled, familiar country. Got a slow night? Check it out--you won't be disappointed.

Is it too much to ask a film to have something vaguely resembling a narrative?

I've been to video art shows, and I've appreciated much of what I've seen and been exposed to at art-film showings. In Mulholland Dr. Lynch again proves his skills as cinematographer far exceed his skills as an alleged director.

The film is all of these things: visually appealing, intellectually engaging, thought-provoking, sexually arousing--how it got the R and not the NC-17 is beyond--and just fine with--me. However, like some other efforts of Lynch's, Mulholland Dr. is less an unfolding expository than it is a collection of more or less disjointed scenes with the same characters in them.

Or maybe I just don't smoke enough weed.

One would think it would be impossible to butcher Dumas' tale of romance, heroism and swordplay more than Disney's misguided attempt in the late 90's. Sadly, that has been proven not to be the case.

XXX's "wire-fu" acrobatics are poorly suited for this kind of swordplay, and as one who greatly appreciates fencing as the Science of Kings, I have to say it would have been nice if this film had any. At all.

"The Musketeer" is shot so dark, so murky, so impossibly moody that there is nearly no swordplay visible--and what little IS visible is lost among swirling capes, teetering ladders, and and apparently cross-eyed opponents. And not in a "ooh, cool" kind of way, either. I say cross-eyed because it's nearly the only thing that explains how five men with swords can miss one with only one--and he spread-eagled between beams on the ceiling of a bar. I'm not kidding.

It's also nice to see an actress as talented as Mena Suvari have an opportunity to take a break from actually acting. I'm sure she's earned the rest.

It's called "The Musketeer" because there is precious little time to the remaining musketeers. Porthos is a useless git, Aramis is less a lover and more a cardboard Mandy Patinkin-wannabe, and Athos gets two belligerently drunken lines.

I could go on but what's the point. I thought Final Fantasy would be the worst film I would see this year. I was wrong by an order of magnitude.

You may have heard about "harmonic singing" or "Throat Singing," in which the performer can isolate two-to-several harmonics on their vocal cords, giving the impression that more than one voice is singing. Such a description is like saying Shakespeare wrote a couple of plays.

Harmonic singing is endemic to the nation of Tannu Tuva, once a member of the USSR, now just Tuva. Brought to some notoriety by famous physicist Richard Feynman and his student Ralph Leighton, Tuva is a beautiful place, reminiscent of Montana--if Montana had been settled by the Mongol Hordes.

But throat-singing is an enchanting, mystical, unreal sound--and one that takes some getting used to. "Genghis Blues" chronicles the journey of a blind bluesman to Tannu Tuva, after he stumbled across a Radio Moscow broadcast of Tuvan throat-singing, his journey to Tuva, and the people he meets there.

Nominated for best documentary oscar (insert trademark nonsense here) for 1999, this film is a must-see for those who enjoy vicarious travel to places you've never even heard of.

Well, I watched it all. My rating: ho-hum. Too much CGI, not enough grandeur. Atreides, Harkonnen, and Fremen all fight like Euro-trash soccer hooligans. In the climactic knife-fight with Feyd and Paul, they tussle like high-kicking schoolboys. Actually, all the fights looked that way; barely-rehearsed mob scenes that failed to communicate any sense of urgency. The Harkonnen are bored and laid-back; a far, far cry from Herbert's (and I dare say Lynch's) over-the-top dissipated, jaded, schemers and plotters.

Paul's (Alec Newman) evolution is good; he starts out as a bored court boy with some sense, and becomes a battle-hardened leader by show's end...but he's cold, harsh and nearly cruel in a way I never associated with Muad'dib in the book.

Chani (Barbora Kodetova) was good, but largely ignored in segment III, until the very end. Stunningly beautiful, I expect to see a lot more of her--and I hope as something better than the next Bond Girl.

Jessica (Saskia Reeves) I think was the best. Clearly the strongest actor of the cast. Many of her scenes are so short, but you can really see her being Paul's Mother first, foremost and above all else. Her first moments on Arrakis establish her character as a member of the household, not the Family.

Stilgar just got to stand around and scowl a lot and occasionally let loose some ancient-sounding bon mot ("It is the Way; it is the Law"). YAWN.

Oh, I hear William Hurt was in it too. Not that you could really tell.

Princess Irulan was involved far too much; I know what the director was doing here (Hey, I read the interview), I just think it took away from the actual story. Herbert cast her as narrator, the reader's neutral view into the story, from the point of view of a pawn looking at the REAL power...not a player in her own right. Making Irulan a major character messes with the balance that Herbert struck, of Paul-Chani/Atreides-Harkonnen (If you don't mind me getting too Jungian here). However, her role was well-written, and the de novo scenes that she was in fit with the story.

Lighting was particularly poor...all the actors *always* looked like they were on a sound stage; they must have piled multiple tons of sand to get those dunes indoors. Frankly, STNG has better effects, CGI, locations (i.e., there were some) and sets. And actual acting.

One thing you won't hear me whining about is the screenplay; the director and screenwriter had to make some very difficult choices, and I think the scenes and lines included were good.

A final word: the eyes. I suspect this is the most difficult challenge, technically, for the production. Herbert's "Blue-within-blue" eyes has been a major stumbling block of both productions: how do you get people to have these spice-stained eyes and not have them look like some kind of mutant? Answer: you don't. You go for the mutant look, and let the viewers deal with it. The combination of CGI, contact lenses and lighting that the SF production uses makes everyone look like Bush-Babies...and strangely, not all Fremen have them. I dont' recall Herbert saying the eyes actually "glowed"...just that the sclera and iris were the same shade of blue. In some scenes, you could probably read a newspaper by the light coming off of Fremen eyes. This can't be an easy effect to accomplish, or it would have been done right, 16 years after Lynch's attempt.

That said, clearly a lot of work went into the production, especially realizing the art design. Palaces are beautiful, sets are elaborate and appropriate.

What a great idea--the world of Olympic fencing is chock-full of drama and political wrangling. And with swords, no less!

It seems to me that, much as I love fencing, ANY sport-centered movie has about the same plot. The US cinema scene continues to churn out these formulaic box-office muffins, despite any real story being present.

"By the Sword" is rife with inconsistencies, bad scriptwriting and simply ludicrous scenes--the post-Sheena E dancing scene foremost among them. Folks, fencers simply do NOT do this...not even as a motivational exercise. Fencers do not WANT a regular rhythm, it's more of a weakness than a strength.

Blades breaking, blood drawn, sure that happens...but on purpose? At the *encouragement* of the Maestro? I don't think so.

If you want to see Mia Sara in a tight fencing outfit, this is your film; but for heaven's sake, don't expect to see fencing.

(And yes, I fence.)

A truly miserable interpretation, both of Dumas' classic tale, and of French history. Depicting Richelieu as a womanizing lecher, lusting to paw Queen Anne, making his plans from his personal gondola while cruising the flaming canals under 17-century Paris borders on high camp at best.

Tim Curry was an inspired choice for Richelieu; but rather than the malicious dignity to be expected from the statesman who arguably saved France's bacon from the lassitudes of the crown, he's a scheming lecher, thinking only with his glands.

The script's attempt to modernize the story turns Rochefort the assassin into Darth Vader, and D'Artagnan into a less-than-competent Luke Skywalker (who does of course succeed in offing the bad guy).

For all the money put into this film, I truly expected something better than joke portrayed.

This is just a fun film. No Oscar (tm) nods here, but the cast is having great fun. The writers obviously are both sympathetic to the lives of Star Trek actors (at Conventions) and hopeful that there really are adventures to be had in deep space.

The feeling of the movie is best summed up when a young "Questerian" (having been told in no uncertain terms to Get A Life) is told it's all real and shouts "I knew it!!"

I felt the same way.

Badboy-11's comments not withstanding, anyone old enough to remember the show will fondly recall the cooperation and mutual respect between West and Gordon, none of which is present in this weak attempt at capitalizing on a great premise. The idea of blending SF, secret agents and the wild west was a winning combo in the 60's, and it should have been great today--but overproduction, an oversized CGI budget, curious casting and a weak script cripple what should have been a "gimme."

At least in the tv show, much of the gagetry was *plausible.* Sonnenfeld's WWW is a worst-parts bastard child of "Blazing Saddles" and your choice of any James Bond movie with Roger Moore. There is no sense of team work and they spend far too much time working against each other than working to save the Union.

Branagh clearly has a great time--he plays it to the hilt, and loves every minute of being the Southern-fried Evil Genius Bent on Ruling the United States as Revenge Against Those Who Betrayed Him. He's dignified and polite, thanking you for attending his "modest soiree" even as he kills you.

And someone has to say this, so it might as well be me: Much as I love and admire Will Smith, casting a black man as Jim West in 1869 makes as much sense as casting Leonardo DiCaprio to play lead in the "Shaft" movie now in production--folks, it just doesn't work! (Hey, please don't flame me about this--it's not a racial thing, it's an acknowldgement of history.)

And yes, I have just as much a problem with a steam-powered 80' ironwork spider--was there a problem with wheels? Or caterpillar treads? What a silly, unstable way to travel. I KNOW it's SF/Fantasy, but please!

In addition, just as with Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, the overt sexuality is inappropriate for the target audience. IN the case of WWW, there is the additional problem with sexuality being inappropriate for the time period--I mean a black man slapping a white woman's breasts in Reconstruction Era Louisiana, and living long enough to draw his next breath? I can only suspend disbelief for so long....

As an avid fencer, I understand the differences between modern Olympic fencing and the swordplay that was employed 300 years ago. Both these fine films (The Three Musketeers and The Four Musketeers were filmed simultaneously) are the very zenith of historic combat, in which chivalry and politeness are exchanged for a swift kick to the groin, if situation and advantage require it.

Richard Lester (A Hard Day's Night) directs the actors and the two films briliantly; as already remarked, historical accuracy is pinpoint-accurate, down to uniforms and the unfortunate emptying of chamber-pots (yick!). But most enjoyable are the characters and dialogue. In no other film does the word "repartee" come so easily to mind, both in physical and verbal fencing. Every performance is great--no phone-ins here. Heston is a pleasantly malevolent Richelieu, Christopher Lee is a scheming blackguard (perhaps the role he was born to play), and Michael York is the seminal Luke Skywalker, three years too early.

Though some consider the storyline misogynistic, and I am somewhat inclined to agree, the story is after all a product of the time it was written in, and makes no excuses for its policies, correct or incorrect.

See it for the action, romance and swordplay. Love it for the dialogue, acting, and brilliant costume design. Then learn to fence...you know you've always wanted to, that's why you like these movies in the first place!

I didn't like Uma Thurman as an actress. Being a scientist, the name of the movie turned me off as being contrived and lame (those who got the double meaning in the title would be unimpressed, those who didn't get it...wouldn't get it).

However, I was well rewarded for seeing GATTACA. I was impressed at Ms. Thurman's depth and breadth of character, as well as the explorations and implications of near-perfection in genetic counseling and therapy.

What the taglines and trailers don't tell you is that GATTACA is as much a murder mystery as science-fiction cautionary tale. The art is well created, and the set design is wonderful. I love a science fiction story that's about people first, and spaceships second.

Pre-Voyager Robert Beltran and the the often-maligned Mary Woronov are the real stars of this show about the meaning of love and honor among those who know little of either.

While that sounds really dull and serious, keep in mind that this is one of the "sideways" comedies of Paul Bartel, the man who brought us "Eating Raoul," and starring the usual Bartel suspects.

The script is funny, all parts are fully fleshed, these are real people...not anyone I'd want to know personally, for the most part.