honkus

This is one of those films that is very good at fooling people into thinking it's brilliant. Yes, it has its moments, like when the on-stage chemistry of Phoenix and Witherspoon is at its most evident, but on the whole, there's just not much to it. It follows the rise-fall-rise format of just about every other biopic out there. (Johnny makes it big and is surprised and happy. Johnny gets too big for his britches and develops a drug problem. Johnny meets the girl who can bring him down to earth and give his life meaning again.) I was certain this movie had nothing new to offer when Cash went through the addiction withdrawal scene (shaking and grimacing in bed) that has become almost obligatory in this kind of movie. And the pacing! Oh, the pacing! This movie drags itself along like a two-legged dog. This is one of those films where the editor could have had a field day, and should have, but for whatever reason, didn't.

That said, what the movie lacks in direction and writing is almost made up by the outstanding performances. Phoenix and Witherspoon are obviously perfect for their roles and they do spectacular things with the material given them. In parts, Phoenix's singing voice is almost indistinguishable from Cash's. Witherspoon's is noticeably different than June Carter's, (lacking a bit of the country twang) but is still just a beautiful voice to listen to. And I was really blown away by the strength and vulnerable elegance she put into her performance.

The magnificent performances and the wonderful music save the movie, but the script is so predictable (even for a biopic) and the direction so lackluster (although there are a few very pretty shots) that you may get the feeling you're wasting your time. Or, as in my case, that you've seen this all before.

This is one of those movies that just gets better and better as it goes along. Each scene is more exciting and intriguing than the scene before it. Unfortunately, it does start slow, and the opening scenes could have been cut in half, if not more. But by the final scene (wow!) you will be glued to the edge of your seat.

The film is a metaphor for the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) policy of the Cold War, and like "Dr. Strangelove," it is quite successful in showing how absolutely insane that situation was, and how the personality defect of a single person in charge could lead to total annihilation. Richard Widmark, playing that "person in charge" in this movie, is absolutely enthralling. He at once makes you both fear and revere his character, the extremely competent but overzealous and unyielding destroyer captain. Sidney Poitier is the voice of reason as a reporter stationed on the ship. He provides the objective point of view necessary to see the danger in the captain's actions, and like any level-headed member of the American or Soviet people, is horrified by his leader's actions.

While not a classic, this movie is a well-directed example of the Cold War genre with superb acting. Just remember, if you need a bathroom break, try to take it in the first half!

This documentary is well worth seeing for one reason -- more than anything I've seen about the Iraq war, it gives the American soldier's point of view on fighting in Iraq. The news-bites and short glimpses of the war given the American public on television are filtered down so much by the time they get to your screen that you feel like you've seen nothing and gained no insight about what is really going on there. If you have a family member or friend fighting over there, you MUST see this film to better appreciate their perspective.

What this film does not do, however, is provide any sort of an Iraqi perspective on the fighting. Granted, there are interviews with Iraqi informants employed by the American military and and several shots of suspected insurgents being detained, but there is no attempt to show the average Iraqi's point of view about the conflict. In other words, this documentary is a very subjective and one-sided perspective, but it is still very worthwhile.

I went to see it with a friend whose brother is currently fighting over there, and she said it was remarkable how well it captured the soldiers' off-time activities and philosophies about the fighting. Her brother and his buddies had made some video footage of their own and it was very similar in that regard. What the documentary doesn't show, and what her brother's video did show, was the dismembered bodies, the hellish and disorienting firefights, and the horrified, screaming civilians. One should not go into a screening of this film believing that they will experience the war or see what it's really like. One has to be there to understand.

The weighty subject matter and emotional performances overshadow the film's flaws, which are numerous. Characters and events are not adequately introduced, leaving the viewer with a persistent, though not overwhelming, confusion. It runs a little long, and at times loses focus. But "The Song of Bernadette" has much to redeem it. This is true black and white cinematography, and Henry King uses highly effective lighting techniques to enhance his actors' performances. The bright lighting and soft focus on Jennifer Jones, for example, makes her angelic pose of peace believable.

One scene near the end of the film is utterly beautiful, and truly makes the movie. It takes place at a convent after Bernadette has been accepted as a nun. Sister Marie Vauzous, who has doubted Bernadette the entire film, stands over her in a pose of authority and accuses her of trying to get attention. Sister Marie is lit from an angle at sharp focus, which accentuates the lines and imperfections of her face as she asks for "proof" and laments about her own suffering. Meanwhile, Bernadette is lit straight on with a soft focus as usual, and the smoothness of her peaceful, humble face is perfect and divine. She agrees with Sister Marie that she is "a hundred times more worthy" than herself, all the while hiding the true nature of her own suffering. It is at this point that the Christian theme of salvation through suffering which has meandered its way through the film really makes its point, and it is a genuinely moving moment.

I was an anthropology major in college, and so was especially insulted by the field's infantile representation here. The idea that an anthropology professor could fool one person for one second with the ridiculous B.S. he makes up here is ludicrous. I believe this travesty of a movie has probably done irreparable harm to the field of anthropology. The overriding theme of anthropology is escaping ethnocentrism -- the belief that one's own culture is superior to another -- and by dressing up white kids in blackface and stereotypical costumes and having them run around chasing chickens, this movie is not helping. Now, all this could be forgiven if the movie was actually funny. Then it could be thought of as a comedic send-up of anthropologists, or whatever you wanna call it. But there are maybe two funny moments in the entire running time. Awful. Everything about this movie is disgusting -- From the bathroom humor to the cookie-cutter characters and formulaic script. Everyone involved should have turned down the money and stayed home -- no paycheck is worth being a part of this disgrace.

"Super Size Me" is a documentary in the same way that Michael Moore's "Bowling For Columbine" is a documentary -- a subjective point of view about the cause of a social problem (in Moore's case, America's culture of violence; in this case, America's abysmal state of health). However, its subjectivity doesn't mean it doesn't make a valid point -- it does, and it makes a point that won't be made by mainstream media, the government, school, or any other major source of information in our daily lives. And, like Bowling For Columbine, Super Size Me makes its point in an often funny and always entertaining way. If you're looking for objective observations about the fast food industry, you should read "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser, but if you're a fast food eater and clueless as to why you shouldn't be, this film is a good eye-opener. It's not preachy, it's just intriguing, all the way through.

This movie definitely falls under the "so bad it's funny" category. It is easily one of the most absurd Hollywood movies ever. Some of it almost feels like a Bugs Bunny cartoon starring SNL alums. The writer and director were either in the middle of a massive hallucinogen binge or had just gotten done watching like forty billion bad 1950s movies in a row.

Akroyd is mostly boring, but the look on his face when the ultra sexy Basinger puts the moves on him is priceless -- you can tell he's been in that situation before. The best acting in the movie probably comes from the dog, but as far as human actors go, Alyson Hannigan (the daughter) is an entertaining and refreshing break from the pouty, "my parents are so lame" cardboard cutouts found in most 80s and 90s comedies.

One of the funniest things I've ever seen comes at the party after the wedding. It lasts about a split second, but the band's keyboard player does the goofiest, most ridiculous 'pretending to make music' acting job ever.

Bottom line: the story and dialogue are so completely ludicrous that depending on how goofy a sense of humor you have, this will either be the worst or the funniest movie you'll ever see.

I had been waiting to see this movie for six months, after I missed it at the South by Southwest festival in Austin. Half a year later, it finally came to my town, and to say it was well worth the wait would be an understatement. I rarely find myself laughing out loud at the theater, but here I couldn't stop for almost the entire running time.

This is an entirely unique brand of comedy, utterly unpredictable. Each joke flows into the next while remaining its own separate and hilarious entity. Each character is well-developed and endearing, despite being so off-the-wall that their every action is funny. Although many of the events in the movie seem ludicrous and contrived, the audience is kept in the story by the realistic, down to earth setting. (All of the non-major characters look and act like normal people, and are funny just by being themselves.)

The most surprising thing about the movie, though, was the heartwarming message -- free of cliches, out-and-out moralizing, and condescension one sees in almost every family film. In fact, you don't even see it coming until a very moving moment at the end of the film, after Napoleon uses one of his many special "skills" to win over his fellow students. After bearing Napoleon's burdens through the entire film, the audience now gets an uplifting feeling of vindication and worthiness that is absolutely genuine. This and the PG rating (which adult viewers won't even notice because of the complete success of its clean humor) make this a great film for anyone.

A slightly less subjective documentary from Michael Moore finds the filmmaker's totally justifiable rage at Bush II being vented. Moore decided to back off on this one and let the subject speak for itself, although some of his own narration I think weakens the effort. The blaring gaffes of the Bush administration do not need any accompaniment to be utterly shocking. Nothing in the film was so "un-American" that it couldn't have been said in the pages of the New York Times, from the disillusionment of the troops in Iraq to the incestuous Halliburton-Cheney relationship. Moore does not overtly extrapolate the problems presented into any kind of class analysis, which I believe is absolutely essential in any critique of the oppression and exploitation which is exemplified here. However, there are a few guarded attempts to recognize the class issue, as when Moore stops back in his hometown and lets the oppressed, subordinated, and underprivileged people in Flint, Michigan question the rationale of fighting a war in Iraq when there is a very real war being waged on the poor of the United States. Also, there was the very powerful statement by a corporal who declared he would rather face prison time than to go back to Iraq to "kill more poor people." In this statement, all debate about the war is reasonably, succinctly settled.

If you're not moved by this film, you might need a heart transplant. Three of the greatest actors of our time (Sean Penn, Benicio del Toro, and Naomi Watts) take an extremely tragic script that could have so easily been turned into overbearing pretentious claptrap, and instead create an ultra-realistic, natural, and utterly heart-wrenching film. A lot has been made of the non-linear presentation, but although it may at first seem confusing and unnecessary (and it may not fit the plot as well as a non-linear masterpiece like Tarantino's Pulp Fiction), it soon becomes apparent that the emotional power of each scene would be overwhelming without timely breaks and setting changes. This and other fine stylistic choices from the director create a consistent mood that is inescapable and soul-shaking. But by far the strongest part of this film is the acting. I simply can't remember a film in which all of the major performances were so believably, stunningly, done. Each of the three stars threaten to steal the show, but I was most taken with Naomi Watts's work. She impressed me greatly in David Lynch's Mullholland Drive (especially the soap opera audition scene), but her performance here is nothing short of spectacular. Her reaction to learning of her family's death at the hospital is the most realistic reaction to life-changing loss I have ever seen in film. Coming early in the film, it was at this point that I realized I was watching a masterpiece. If you are a person who goes to the theater to be influenced and moved by art, as opposed to just having a good time, you MUST see this film. Of course, make sure you're in the right state of mind -- you have to drop your defenses, make yourself vulnerable to the film, let it in and scrape your insides out, and accept its heartbreak as your own.

Don't overlook this one. The formula in this film has been done better before, but probably not among the romantic comedies churned out by Hollywood in the 80s and 90s.

Corrina, Corrina is a mainstream Hollywood romantic comedy that unfortunately falls into some of the banal conventions of this often overworked genre. It is an overly simplistic, often implausible fantasy but is more than redeemed by its unorthodox (for Hollywood) direction, lighting, and acting.

Also, the soundtrack (made up of jazz greats like Bill Evans) is one of the best I've heard in a mainstream flick.

Oh yea, and Tina Majorino is spectacular.

Thoroughly entertaining performances from Richards, Theron, and Torn can't save this movie from its sub-par direction and formulaic predictability. Richards delivers his lines with the same quirky mannerisms that I found hilarious in Seinfeld, but if you didn't like it there, you won't like it here. Theron shows promise though she has to create her performance as she is given nothing by the material. Perhaps the funniest moment in the film comes when Torn tells his sob story after he puts himself on the stand. I got the impression Jeff Daniels wasn't trying very hard in this film, but you can't blame him given the tired storyline and studio-oriented vision. The script was most likely written by a computer, or more likely a desperate, soulless, sellout of a hack with a talent for gag suppression. For diehard Michael Richards fans only.

Boyz n the Hood is an important work. It is essentially the sociological meditations of writer/director John Singleton, with a decent plot mixed in. As such, the dialogue is at times incredibly artificial, and each charcter seems like a cut-and-paste device, despite strong performances.

That said, much of the film is quite beautiful when it avoids sentimentality. In particular, the scene in which Tre's friend is brought home shot to the shock and horror of his family is surreal and moving.

While not deserving of its high level of critical acclaim, Boyz n the Hood is a must-see. It was ground-breaking in its frank depiction of the much-ignored (at the time) suburban ghettos and their disadvantaged inhabitants. But as far as classic African-American films are concerned, Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing is a much better work.

This is the funniest movie I have ever seen. However, I have laughed harder at plenty of movies. This is because Best In Show's brilliance lies not in slapstick or one-liners, but in sophisticated and layered verbal wit. The improvised dialogue is is so quick that you end up laughing not at each individual joke, but only until after several jokes build on one another, each disarming your senses until the jokes climax and you can't help letting loose.

It's a well-shot film, but what makes it extraordinary is the acting. I was impressed on my first viewing, but when I watched it after having learned that virtually every scene is improvised, I was amazed. It was thoroughly enjoyable to see the comedians work off each other, build jokes out of nothing, and completely immerse themselves in their characters.

I imagine the golden days of Second City were like this.

187 is a well done, almost beautiful film that has some major flaws. First of all, it is nearly impossible to sympathize with any of the characters. Jackson's is an admirable man who goes psycho. His love interest's is not developed enough to have any kind of emotional impact on the audience. And all of the students are portrayed as ignorant, depraved, and downright evil.

The film perpetuates racial stereotypes and instills a fear of the urban poor, without offering any solutions or any deep investigation of the root of the problem. Also, some of the dialogue is a little trite.

That said, 187 is fun to watch. Jackson is always interesting, and the dynamic camerawork combined with the smoggy, yellow light of East LA creates a steady mood and eerie feeling. It's probably the best of the "dedicated teacher in a bad neighborhood" genre of the 90s. But that's not saying much.

This movie was recommended to me by a usually-reliable indie-film fan, so I went into this picture expecting a fun departure from the formulaic Hollywood film. I was quickly disappointed by the creeping realization that the movie, purportedly a farce satirizing Hollywood, falls into the same conventions it is desperately trying to make fun of. Tired jokes, a predictable script and gratuitous violence/ rock music made me fell stupider after having seen it. I know you posers are saying, "but that's what Waters was going for, man" but I prefer films you can walk away from having gained something, however insignificant. This painful satire left me with nothing but unrelieved boredom. Watch a David Lynch flick, leave Waters for "safely rebellious" teenagers.

She Had to Say Yes is a masterful expose' of a Depression-era America that was dominated by men. Exploitation, manipulation, and harassment of women is the focus of every scene. The film clearly casts men as the enemy, as every male role is a sleazy businessman constantly trying to trick a woman into sex or into making money for him. The only help for the female lead comes from her female friend, who helps her to gain some self-assurance near the end of the film.

Loretta Young is superb as the lead, maintaining a heartbreaking look of hope and innocence while suffering through terrible yet socially acceptable abuse from every man in her life. Also, Lyle Talbot gives a jaw-dropping portrayal of sleazy machismo and ruthlessness that lend to a truly frightening ending.

The film is quite depressing and the final lines of dialogue will leave your head spinning. Unfortunately, the film is not readily available, but if you get a chance to see it, it will blow you away.