Donny_Stay

Just got back. I'm afraid to say... I thought it was mostly enjoyable, but overall, not truly a great film. The film suffers greatly from losing Ishiguro's prose, and is largely reduced to a summary of events from the novel. As such, a lot of the moments lose their impact -- in fact, some of them threaten to become melodrama. Mark Romanek seems to be a competent director, and there are some affecting scenes, but he's not capable of overcoming the theoretical (shh, you know) aspects of the story. Those theoretical aspects will feel like the point of the exercise, and the emotional bits will seem incidental, especially for those who have never read the novel.

It must be said, however, that Carey Mulligan is brilliant in the film. She's possibly deserving of another Oscar nomination, and if this turns out to be a weak year, she's practically guaranteed one. All the actors acquit themselves well (especially the child actors), but Mulligan in particular is outstanding.

I dunno, I'm heavily biased, as I'm very fond of the novel, but overall I don't know if I can wholeheartedly recommend this film to those who haven't read the novel -- it might seem like flimsy science fiction. To those who have read it, you may well enjoy the film, but it is unquestionably an inferior experience.

It's a new show; it's still got some kinks to work out, and I don't completely disagree with any of the previous reviews. The characters aren't well developed (yet), and, yes, some of them are essentially caricatures, especially the promiscuous male neighbor.

However, I think the previous reviewers who dismiss Cox's character as a vapid, sexually charged woman have somewhat missed the point. The show is not really about love or sex; it's about women retaining their feminine identity despite society's insistence that middle-aged women are past their prime, and about dealing with the societal prejudices that come with being a middle-aged woman (some of which can be seen on this very board; more on that later).

Jules is recently divorced, and is suddenly plunged into the single woman's dating world as a 40-something. The show is attempting to capture (with admittedly middling success), the panic and confusion that accompanies the single, middle-aged woman, as she competes with women half her age for the same men. Love? Sex? Never mind all that; Jules would settle for having some fun -- and doesn't she deserve it, after being a mother and housewife for so many years? The show extracts its humor from the awkward journey middle-aged women must often traverse, from motherhood to single-hood, and through whatever else is along the way.

This is where the neighbor's one-note caricature becomes necessary, or at least makes sense. He exists to contrast the different societal attitudes towards middle-aged men and women. Men easily rejoin the dating scene, but women are met with harsh sneers and judgmental assessments. Even in the reviews here on IMDb, some of the people complained that Jules was a sex-crazed maniac, an idiot nymphomaniac, and whatever else, despite that she waited until the tenth date to have sex with her boyfriend. A woman who waits until the tenth date is sex-crazed? No, she just wants to have fun and feel desirable, just like the rest of us.

That brings us to the show's problems, and it has a few. Cox is far too attractive to be convincing as a desperate cougar, for instance. And yes, it would be better if the other characters were more interesting, and if neighbor were more than just a one-note cad. But the show is, in my opinion, still quite funny, and the characters are becoming more sympathetic, even Jules's do-nothing ex-husband. I think the show has a lot of potential, and I will continue to watch it.

As I recall, Courtney Cox's other show, Friends, was almost unwatchable in the first two seasons. But there were good elements there, and eventually they figured it out. I suspect they'll do so with Cougar Town as well.

I'm not an especially religious person, so I'm not much concerned about blasphemy, but the main flaws of this film have nothing to do with blasphemous content anyway. No, the problem is that most of the film comprises a biography of Jesus, and fails badly at it.

The accents are a serious problem; they're completely unbelievable in this context. Dafoe and Keitel never abandon their thick, urban American dialects; they sound like they're in an Abel Ferrara gangster film. I realize that this was intentional, since giving Jesus the traditional, vaguely beatific aura would defeat the point of the film. Nevertheless, this completely pulls the viewer out of setting -- I don't feel like I'm watching events of two millennia ago; I feel like I'm watching Brooklynite Christians put on an Easter play. The dialogue doesn't help: when Jesus asks, "Are you ready for me?", he sounds like a frightened patient in a doctor's office.

The end result is that the Jesus character is completely unbelievable as a person who attracts a loyal flock of disciples and followers. Is this guy the Son of God, or the head of a stevedore's union? I don't mind Dafoe as an actor, but he does not possess the sheer force of charisma necessary to convince us that he is the Messiah. As a result, the entire film is lost.

By the time the film reaches the controversial content, I've long since ceased to care, but since we're on the topic, it must be pointed out that the film has little, if anything, to say about Jesus Christ. In typical Christian teaching, by definition Jesus is a dual entity of God and Man that exists beyond the comprehension of mankind. Since God is by definition omnipotent, the Son of God, who is also God, is also omnipotent, and not fallible like a human, and therefore wouldn't have caved to temptation. The character presented in this film is therefore somewhat removed from the figure worshiped by Christians.

So. We have a film that is an inferior adaptation of a well-known story, and which does little to enhance our faith. What are we left with? Well, not much. I might say that the film is worth watching simply to see an example of Scorsese's middle period, except that the film is nearly three hours long. If you have that much time to kill, and you really want to see it, go ahead, but otherwise, you aren't missing much.

So, having seen the very first episode...

If you're one of those people who has seen every episode of Friends many times, and or collects Friends memorabilia on eBay, then you'll probably enjoy Joey just fine. This new show offers, once again, Matt LeBlanc in the eponymous role, playing the same goofy, amiable numb skull he played on Friends for, like, fifty years. LeBlanc hasn't missed a beat (after all these, uh, three months), and if nothing else, his performance feels comfortable and familiar: we know Joey, we like Joey, and even if the show isn't brimming over with rapier wit, the whole experience has a pleasant, anodyne quality.

Which is a good thing, because, not unlike the first season of Friends, the wit is in short supply. The script of the first episode felt like it was written in an hour, and some of the jokes were wince-inducing. What few laughs the episode produced were from LeBlanc's typically hammy performance, which, for some reason, I still find somewhat amusing. The rest of the cast, while seemingly capable, are stuck playing the same sitcom family stereotypes we've seen a thousand times. The poor Drea de Matteo is wasted as a sassy New Yorker single mom, a sort of cross between the wife on The King of Queens and Fran Drescher.

Overall, the experience wasn't horrible, and quite frankly, was more enjoyable than the first episode of Friends. If you aren't fond of Friends, you'll like this show even less, but fans of that first show may as well give it a chance.

When Robert Redford delivered this film to the studio upon completion, the suits weren't sure what to do with it. How does one sell a pensive film about Pyrrhic victory? Against Redford's wishes, the studio ultimately marketed the film as a sports movie ("See hottie Robbie in exciting skiing scenes!"), and confused audiences avoided the film in droves. Redford, frustrated with the experience, created the Sundance Film Institute as a reaction to his experiences with "Downhill Racer".

Today, it is for this reason that "Downhill Racer" is best remembered, but one shouldn't overlook the work itself. The film, the first in an unfinished trilogy of films about the price of success (the second was "The Candidate"), is a thoughtful study of competition and competitiveness. Gene Hackman shines as the impatient coach, but Redford gives one of the finest performances of his career as the brooding, singular-minded athlete. Redford's performance is reason enough to watch the film, but the skiing scenes are also quite entertaining, as they fully capture the excitement and exhilaration of Olympic competition. The dark, ironic story, while slight, is still effective enough to make its point.

I shouldn't like to call this film a masterpiece; it isn't. It's a decent slice of cinema that is very unfairly maligned by too many. If you, like those studio executives, prefer a straightforward sports story in which the underdog wins and gets The Girl, look elsewhere. However, if you prefer an intelligent investigation of the human condition, well, you could do worse than "Downhill Racer".

If Susan Sontag were to revise her "Notes on Camp" for the present day, the only work she'd need to reference is "Logan's Run."

As a serious science fiction film, "Logan's Run" fails spectacularly, of course, but that is precisely what makes it so enjoyable. Everything about the film is ridiculous, and I scarcely know where to begin. The Academy-Award-winning special effects look like a Lionel train set. The hilarious "music" consists mainly of blips, whirrs, and horrible squelchy noises. The story and script are amusingly awful ("Is that what... old people look like?"). And not least of all, Michael York and Jenny Agutter, bless their hearts, play their roles with such earnest, doe-eyed naivete that one cannot help but be charmed. What's not to love?

Obviously, "Logan's Run" is not in the canon of great cinema. But to dismiss the film as an overrated B-movie is to rob oneself of the pleasure of high camp. Watch, enjoy.

Yeah yeah, Kiarostami is a genius. Yeah yeah, it won the Palme d'Or. While I agree that the film is finely crafted, it still suffers one fundamental flaw: it's simply too boring to watch.

For the first hour or so, the film works beautifully well. The film has a slow, meditative style reminiscent of Terrence Malick, which is perfect for the film's profound subject matter. The protagonist's actions and conversations are all quite fascinating, at least at first.

But after the first hour, I just felt... bored. Minute after minute of the Range Rover driving across the bleak, barren Iranian landscape. Look, there he goes again. And there he goes again. Yup, he's still driving around. Oh joy, more metaphysical talk. Yawn. By the time the film reached its famously awkward conclusion, I was just glad to be out of the theatre.

This is not to say the film was poor. Some of it was quite thought-provoking, and all of it is very intelligently done. But if we view films as a form of entertainment, then at least for me, "Taste of Cherry" fails miserably. Did the film make me think? Yes, it did. But did I enjoy the film? Decidedly not.

If you've already bothered to read the IMDB entry for this film, you probably feel obligated to watch the film, out of some sense of film literacy. Go ahead, watch it, but be warned: this film is not for those with short attention spans.

Wow. Who knew that George Lucas, the king of Saturday matinée action movies, could make such pompous pap? This awful movie is everything I hate about bad science fiction: it's pretentious, it makes inane attempts at social commentary, and worst of all, its world is uninteresting and makes no sense. It's just painful to watch. (In fact, sometimes it is literally painful to watch, as throughout most of the film, every character is dressed in white, standing in front of white walls. My eyes were sore.)

The plot is the standard sci-fi refugee story. The hero, THX 1138, chafes against his oppressive society, then decides to flee, meeting other weirdos along the way. Meanwhile, robot cops who look and move like dancers from a Kraftwerk video try to catch him.

That is all you will remember about this film. Most of the time, ancillary characters are pontificating about society's laws, the nature of society, the importance of coriander in a good fish taco, blah blah blah. Never once are we really given a reason to care about any of this. Beyond that, the film consists of... well, that's it, really.

Except for the Ferrari 330P4 that was used as a prop in one scene, I enjoyed nothing about this movie. It was a pretentious version of "Logan's Run." It was a high tech B-movie based on Ayn Rand's "Anthem." Unless you are a Star Wars geek, avoid.

Most ardent cinephiles can claim at least one genre of film as a guilty pleasure, a genre for which we willingly tolerate mediocrity or worse, even when we know better. Some people like sci-fi action, other people like B-movie horror. Me, I like comic book movies, and all the negative reviews in the world won't stop me from watching and enjoying them. So when "Daredevil" hit theatres, I went, I watched, and I enjoyed. Happy day.

Objectively speaking, though, it was a pretty bad movie.

Successful comic book movies usually focus on the character's genesis. It is a pleasure to watch Spider-Man learning his powers, or Clark Kent struggling to adjust to life in Smallville. Daredevil's psychological and physical development seems equally as interesting, as he has both Batman's psychological difficulties, and Spider-Man's fondness for traversing the urban landscape. However, we are robbed of this pleasure, as the director inexplicably glosses over the creation story in favor of plunging us directly into supervillain battles. In fact, there isn't any kind of story at all, just a framework for constant fighting.

The lack of story wouldn't trouble me much (it's a comic book movie, after all), except that the action sequences weren't very compelling either. Visually, most of the fights were a dark, blurry mess, and often I had no idea what was happening, except that someone was engaged in a fight with someone else. When the action is actually visible, what we see is on par with B-grade Hong Kong cinema, wire-fighting and all. Unless Hong Kong action is one of your guilty pleasures (it certainly isn't one of mine), it just looks silly. During Elektra and Matt Murdock's initial fight in the playground, many viewers in my screening openly laughed at the fight's ridiculous choreography.

As for the actors, well, I suppose they were adequate, though mostly they just pranced around in sexy costumes (in which sense, Jennifer Garner gives an Oscar-worthy performance, heh). I don't see what all the fuss about Colin Farrell's performance was, since mostly he just hams it up, grunting and snarling to the very end.

But, it is a movie featuring Marvel superheroes, so of course I went. I even enjoyed it, kinda sorta. Comic book fans will probably enjoy this movie, but the rest of you should wait until it comes on cable.

Whenever a great master is in his final years, the public tends to forgive his missteps. We accept that creative wells eventually run dry, and we content ourselves with whatever further work he creates, hoping only for a glimpse of a once great talent, before it is gone forever.

Even that is asking too much of this film.

I always enjoy Rohmer films, because they are, at worst, intelligent commentaries on the human condition. Even his lesser works, such as the Four Seasons films, are emotionally insightful, so even if we've seen it many times by now, it's at least pleasant in a familiar, anodyne way.

In the case of -Lady and the Duke-, any such emotional insight was completely buried under Lucy Russell's insufferably whiny performance. Russell's Lady is not a strong, independent woman; she is a petulant, spoiled idiot. Her character is wholly unsympathetic, and I had difficulty caring about any of her moral concerns. In fact, I found her so irritating that I found myself wishing for her beheading. Probably not an emotion Rohmer was going for.

And I have no idea what Rohmer was going for with those digital effects. They are not wondrous and pretty. They are completely unconvincing, and just plain distracting. At their best, the effects look cheap; at their worst, they look like actors standing in front of a painting. A bad, faux-Impressionist painting. In any scene involving these effects, my mind was immediately pulled away from the film to thoughts of computers and blue screens. Again, probably not what Rohmer was going for.

It seems almost wrong to criticize Rohmer at this stage in his life, and perhaps that's why so few film critics criticized this film. He's sort of like a great ballplayer in the final year of his career: even though he doesn't hit 'em like he used to, everyone still cheers when he steps up to the plate. In the case of this film, however, he swung, missed completely, and struck out.

There seems little point in commenting on this film, its story, the acting, or whatever else. We've all seen it, and we've already made up our minds.

However, it must be said: There were moments during -Attack of the Clones- when I felt... bored. Never during any of the previous four Star Wars films had I ever felt bored. But whenever Anakin and Amidala were frolicking in the meadow, or snuggling by the fireplace, or slow dancing at the Jedi prom, I nearly fell asleep. God those parts were boring. You know, Han and Leia sorta just ended up in love with almost no courtship whatsoever, and no one complained. Why did Lucas bother this time?

As best I can tell, anyone who enjoyed this film simply enjoyed the sheer spectacle of it. The big, loud, expensive, visually impressive spectacle of it. There's nothing wrong with that; I like spectacle as much as the next guy. I like watching the fireworks on the Fourth of July, too. But that doesn't make it great cinema, and Attack of the Clones certainly is not great cinema.

I actually read the IMDB user reviews of this film before I saw it. Many intelligent users had little good to say about the film, even those users who were very fond of Baumbach's other work. Despite this, I watched it anyway.

All right, so it's not a masterwork. Yes, the film was poorly edited, and no, there isn't much of a story. But the Baumbach wit is still present, and there are many hilarious moments in the film, enough that I rather enjoyed it. Ultimately, isn't that why we watch film? -Highball- might not make a great statement on the human condition, but at least it will make you laugh.

"It's Like, You Know..." was an extremely funny sitcom that was clearly doomed from the start. The writing was always exceptionally sharp, but its humor was far too sophisticated for general television audiences. For instance, one memorable episode featured a documentary style, a French-speaking nun accompanied by subtitles, demographic pie charts, and repeated references to Lorrie Moore. Not exactly mainstream humor. (And all this in a single episode!) Most of the shows' jokes served to poke fun at the habits of Angelenos, and again, these are regional jokes that most people probably won't understand.

Hey, I loved "It's Like, You Know...," and I watched it every week. It was hilarious, and occasionally it was quite charming. But it hardly came as a surprise to me when the show was canceled. Seriously, there is such a thing as being too clever.

This movie had an mildly interesting premise: a zany guy goes on twenty dates and films the result, offering insight into the game of romance. Hilarity presumably ensues.

The premise is intriguing, but the resulting film suffers a fundamental flaw: the protagonist, Myles Berkowitz, simply isn't charming or funny enough to sustain the viewer's interest over the length of the film. Berkowitz has some funny moments, but his humor is of the smug, abrasive, everyone-is-dumb-but-me variety, which quickly becomes tiresome. By the end of the film, I found myself wondering how such an obnoxious man convinced any woman to date him, never mind twenty. Neither does Berkowitz have any insight to offer us on the art of love, ultimately concluding with nebulous statements like, "Love can conquer all; love is a strange magical thing." Stendhal he ain't.

2/5 stars. Possibly worth watching on cable if you're bored.

I cannot say enough about this film. I own this film on DVD, where it occupies a space between Bunuel and Kurosawa. No person can claim to be a true cineaste without having seen "Manos: The Hands of Fate." It was easily one of the most memorable cinematic experiences of my life, and I dare any filmmaker to achieve what Hal Warren has achieved.

I mean, really. If you think about it, it would be really hard to create The Worst Film Ever Made. Do you realize just how bad that is? Most workplace training videos are more entertaining than this film. Most home movies are more entertaining than this film, even the ones that are not of the Pam and Tommy Lee variety. Creating a work of lesser quality would require so much thought and effort that it would probably be easier to, you know, make something good.

Anyway, how can you pass up The Worst Film Ever Made. Come on, you're curious. I know you are. Come on, go see it...

This show was absolutely awful. I am almost irrationally fond of David E. Kelley's shows, but this inane drama deserved its poor ratings and the critics' savage reviews. The three leads were insufferably whiny, and were quite possibly the least sympathetic characters on television since "Melrose Place." I found myself rooting against the young heroines, who seemed more like spoiled brats than earnest young lawyers (or whatever they were supposed to be).

It was, I understand, primarily David E. Kelley's decision to cancel the show, so for once, Fox is off the hook. Anyhow, Kelley is still a great talent, and I look forward to his future projects.

I've noticed that most of the reviewers below have wildly diverging concerns about this movie. I will divide my comments point by point, thereby preventing you from having to wade through comments that don't interest you. You're welcome.

1) Faithfulness to the comic: The film does a good job of capturing the mythos of Spider-Man while adapting the story to the 21st Century. I seem to recall Spider-Man having a much smarmier wit, but otherwise the story is faithful to the comics. The filmmakers were very liberal about changing biographical details, but only the most rabid comic book fans will care. (Besides, we all know that the hardcore fans are going to see it no matter how awful people say it is.) Grade: A

2) The acting: Tobey Maguire is a perfect Peter Parker. He plays the geek-cum-superhero perfectly; the role is henceforth his alone. Kirsten Dunst is very charming as his love interest, but Willem Dafoe's cackling Green Goblin is tiresomely cartoonish, even for a comic book character. A+ for Maguire and Dunst, C for Dafoe.

3) The script/story: The script focuses on the genesis of Spider-Man. As the movie rehashes Peter Parker's oft-told story, the script predictably has a very mechanical, cookie-cutter feel. It's a superhero movie; what did you expect? The script is serviceable, and that's probably enough for this movie. C+

4) The effects: Spider-Man is probably the most difficult comic book character to render digitally. Hey, it's easy to make a woman call lightning or a gay Englishman control metal; Spider-Man's body must constantly bend the laws of physics and human physiology. The Green Goblin, for instance, looks perfectly fine. Still, the effects are very distracting. B for effort, C- for results

5) The romance: ...is easily the most charming love story ever found in a comic book movie. Maguire and Dunst are adorable as a potential couple, and their romance was handled more carefully than in Raimi's earlier film, -For Love of the Game-. B+

6) The action: Often seems incidental, and never feels exciting. There is never any doubt who will win any of the battles, and some sequences are almost boring. C

7) Overall: Film adaptations of comic books don't require much to succeed. Stay faithful to the spirit of the character, include the requisite effects and action, and voila! Instant blockbuster. -Spider-Man- accomplishes this, but succeeds further with a very charming romance between Spider-Man and Mary Jane, both of whom are portrayed brilliantly by Maguire and Dunst. B+