Maverick-63

When reviewing a film like HELLBENT, it's important to rate it within the realm of its genre. The Godfather this film isn't, but as a horror movie it's top-notch, except for some minor issues I had.

I disagree with earlier posters who see this as an AIDS allegory and question, "Haven't we gotten beyond that by now?" I couldn't disagree more. This film, to me, shows how "mainstream" gay culture has become. It follows the formula familiar to anyone who's seen Friday the 13th and any of the sequels or imitators that followed: have sex, get killed; remain chaste, survive (more or less). I view it as a weird compliment that gays can now be killed in a slasher film, as main characters in a "pointless" film designed to scare the bejeezus out of you (and succeeding admirably).

So it shouldn't really surprise anyone by who lives and who dies. What is surprising, however, is how the characters -- who should have been mere cardboard -- turn into semi-three-dimensional people. I was most impressed with the role of guy in drag. There was a real poignancy to some of his scenes; his need for validation through sex.

Speaking of sex, the sexuality is highly erotic but not barrier pushing. The sex in this movie was more like a daytime soap or an episode of the old MTV show "Undressed" than a more overt display that's so commonplace in straight movies (of any kind) and that was such a big deal in Brokeback Mountain. To put a positive spin on that, then, this is a gay movie straight people will watch easily. Attractive, Beverly Hills, 90210-type actors in an effective slasher flick. No gross-out deaths, as seems to be the trend nowadays, but more of an emphasis on the suspenseful, which I find much "scarier" and certainly smarter.

The one issue I have with the film is the lack of motivation for the killer. I was waiting for a motive. The bad guys ALWAYS have a motive. But I can see the genius in NOT giving him a motive: the filmmakers were damned if they did, whichever direction they'd chosen to go. Motive would mean determination of the killer's sexuality, and a straight killer would mean this movie was anti-gay and about gay bashing. A gay killer would indicate to many that gayness leads to dysfunction, self-hatred, etc. (see De Palma's Dressed to Kill). This whole controversy is avoided, smartly, but it gives the ending a lack of something for me: gravitas, maybe, I'm not sure. And the very final image (I won't spoil it here) is SO cliché it made me groan. But again, this speaks of the mainstreaming of gay culture: gotta leave room for a sequel!

Had Stanley Kubrick not passed away before the release of Eyes Wide Shut, the reviews of this film would be much different. Out of respect for the man, and remorse over his passing, fans and critics alike have been far too lenient on this movie.

The only remarkable thing about the film was the way it was filmed (the very dramatic of color) and the way Kubrick so effectively re-created NYC on an England soundstage down to the most minute detail.

The most disappointing thing was the utter lack of incisiveness and depth in the storyline. This was meant to be a film that uncovered emotional truths about the fragile nature of relationships, jealousy, etc. But to me, at least, there were no revelations. Knowing that Kubrick filmed seventy takes of each scene and obsessed over minute details in dialogue. etc., makes the movie even more disappointing, because I see very little perfection attained here.

All in all, a disappointing film to end the career of an auteur like Kubrick. This film deserves no better than a 5 out of 10. All hype, little substance.

Jerry Maguire is one of my personal favorite films. Cameron Crowe's wonderful script and direction is full of nuances and subtleties that reward repeat viewings, and indeed gets better with each viewing.

Each scene of Jerry Maguire is so "perfect" that it looks like Cameron Crowe went to the kinds of lengths Stanley Kubrick did on that other Tom Cruise vehicle, the (awful) film Eyes Wide Shut. Of course Crowe did not try to achieve that kind of perfectionism, which leads me to believe his vision and talent were just so strong that he did not need to--he achieved as close to "perfection" as possible anyway.

Never has a role been more suited to Tom Cruise. And one realizes just how good Renee Zelwegger is when viewing her other performances (which are so utterly different from Dorothy Boyd), and seeing how she truly inhabits the character (I was convinced that Renee Z. was not "acting" and simply "was" a Dorothy Boyd-like character until I saw her other (mostly bitchy) prior roles).

I cannot give enough praise to Cameron Crowe's script. Jerry Maguire is such a true-to-life, three-dimensional character. I love that he does not always say the right thing. I have always found it slightly annoying that in big dramatic scenes, the main character always has the "perfect" line, retort, etc., whereas in real life we all know this rarely if ever happens. I love that Cameron did not give Jerry all the perfect dialogue--he fumbles and babbles, which for me kept him quite believable. (Until his "You complete me" line anyway.) God knows if this film had been written by the typical big-budget Hollywood "team" of writers, there would be no truly memorable lines like "you complete me" and "show me the money".

I love the Dicky Fox scenes dispersed throughout the main storyline. I wish the DVD version had indexed those scenes, because they are priceless.

The supporting cast is wonderful. Regina King is perfect (as always). Bonny Hunt as the older sister Laurel is delightful. Kelly Preston and Jay Mohr are brilliant and pitch perfect. And Cuba got an Oscar so nuff said there.

This is that rare Hollywood film with a unique artistic voice, and I greatly look forward to the next Cameron Crowe film.

This is one of the worst pieces of crud ever put on film. I can't decide whether the plot or the acting was worse. I have seen better production values on home videos of my family. My expectations were low in the first place when I rented this, looking for B-movie escapism. But since I actually sat all the way through it, I am only writing this to possibly save 1 1/2 hours from someone else's life.

eXistenZ, like many other of David Cronenberg's films, is one of those movies that people either love or hate. People either "get" his movies or do not. And looking over the many negative reviews here simply proves that point. I LOVED this film. I personally think the dialogue was pretty close to brilliant, as were the characters' names, the company and game names, etc. I still can't get the refrain out of my head, "Death to the demoness! Death to Allegra Geller!"

The Criterion Armageddon DVD is very good, some decent extras. I still question Criterion's poor lack of judgment in releasing the DVD at all, though, since there are so many quality movies that would more greatly benefit from a Special Edition Criterion treatment. As usual, though, the Criterion DVD is technically over-rated. The sound on the entire Extras DVD is extremely poor, and is just very hard to listen to at all.

More interesting, though, is that on a second viewing it becomes kind of obvious what a Republican manifesto the whole movie is. Michael Bay's gag reel on the Extras DVD largely consists of Billy Bob Thornton's stereotypical and offensive gay impressions. Greenpeace is portrayed unsympathetically early on in the movie protesting the oil drilling (is that even a real cause of theirs? Save the oil?). Bruce Willis, the hero, shoots his gun all over the oil well, like a crazed NRA member. Maybe I am way off-base, but some of these images (especially Billy Bob's meanness) made me upset. This definitely is not a liberal movie.

The best films, in my opinion, are those which challenge your conventions and beliefs and really make you think. Slam did that in Spades. I was completely lost in it. The cinema-verite style (the film was shot remarkably like a documentary) completely drew me in. Slam will stick with me for a long time to come.

Also, anyone who knows Washington, D.C. will recognize that this was a great use of D.C. as the setting for a movie. Usually D.C. is used as just a pretty backdrop, but in this movie you saw real sites like the Projects of Southeast and Capitol Hill's Eastern Market, and recognized that D.C. is a city of real people and not just a place aliens blow up.