DaveZ Reviews

Team America: World Police (2004)

sorry, but only 6 out of 10

[13 October 2004]

From what I've seen of South Park, I shouldn't have been too surprised by the content of this film. There are some interesting ideas, and some truly funny bits, but they are all subordinate to the filmmakers' need to make the audience say, "I can't believe they just did that!" Basing humor on shock value only amuses me for a short while. Likewise, the joke that "these are puppets doing this!" wears thin quickly. (By the way, I actually liked the South Park movie even without having seen more than 2 episodes of the TV show)

6 out of 10

Wet Hot American Summer (2001)

uh... no.

[26 April 2004]

When I hated watching the Weird Al Yankovic "classic" UHF the night before I saw this, it was because I thought the jokes were dumb; I knew what the jokes were, and I understood what was supposed to be funny about them, I just didn't find them funny myself. With this film, however, I am at a loss to pinpoint exactly where most of the jokes were.

I am confident that the filmmakers were making a comedy, and not a `very special' Afterschool Special about the cruelty of the teenage years. I was vaguely amused by some bits of the film, and the concepts of a few of the characters were amusing (the cook, the choreographer, etc), but the film seemed to have no idea how to complete the characters and do anything with them, plot-wise. The skylab debris subplot seems dropped in from another movie entirely.

Some of the defenders of the fill on IMDB.COM explain the film as a sort of meta spoof – it's a spoof of spoofs. In that case, MAYBE the point of the semi-graphic gay sex scene was `Look! We'll put a sex scene into the movie, but it will be a GAY sex scene! That's funny!' Ha ha. [And defenders, I think very few people would accuse me of not having a sense of humor.]

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)

disappointing

[6/10 · 29 December 2003]

I think it is considered a bad sign to find the `making of' featurettes on the DVD considerably more interesting than the movie itself.

I had read the graphic novel upon which this is based and found it somewhat entertaining, but nothing more. The movie drops even a step lower, because it does very little with the interesting concept of literary characters joining into a team; the movie ignores most of what makes these characters unique, and diminishes them into generic action movie heroes.

Visually, the film had its moments, but many of the effects seemed sub-par. The DVD extras informed me that what I thought were unconvincing CGI effects destroying Venice were in fact unconvincing model work. Perhaps the style of effects is the reason why (aside from the outdoor celebration in Venice) there never seemed to be anyone on the streets of any city in the film.

Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde (2003)

more of the same, only worse

[3/10 · 4 December 2003]

The original film was a live-action cartoon, with completely unrealistic characters and situations. It was also modestly amusing – at least if you put your brain on hold.

This film, however, is witless, no matter the status of your brain. It would appear that each characteristic of the first film which was even slightly "successful" was amplified and repeated, without necessarily understanding why it worked the first time. I see that a pilot for a TV spinoff has already been created; I shudder to consider the results.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - The Cradle of Life (2003)

zzzzzzzz...

[24 November 2003]

It isn't a good sign when I fall asleep during the climax of an action movie. How can a movie have this much action, and yet be so boring?

Maybe I approached this movie incorrectly – I expected it to be like a James Bond movie, with a fairly implausible plot that keeps you entertained as you suspend your disbelief. There may be many things missing from this movie, which keep it from achieving that Bond level. First and foremost is a sense of fun and humor (both for the audience and the characters); no one here seems to be having fun.

To a lesser degree, the music was an issue. Normally I tend not to pay attention to the music on a conscious level. Here, however, I did notice it, maybe because I was so bored with the visuals. Instead of getting my blood racing during the adventure, this music was almost sedate. Maybe I needed the musical equivalent of canned laughter to let me know when I was supposed to be excited.

4 out of 10

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)

6 out of 10 (at best)

[6/10 · 30 September 2003]

I didn't `get' The Gong Show, but I know I watched it as a kid. I didn't really `get' this movie, either, but I watched it, too. I can blame the lost hours watching the Gong Show on my youth; who do I blame watching this movie on – the critics who loved it?

The Chuck Barris of this movie is neither a hero nor an anti-hero – he's just a jerk. Who knows what the `real' Barris is like. The reality has been filtered first through his book and then through this movie's interpretation of the book. Do I think he was really a hit man? No. At best, the Clooney CIA character is Barris's version of the A Beautiful Mind hallucination.

Sam Rockwell looked more like Kramer from Seinfeld than he did Chuck Barris. I don't need to see another bare butt shot of him.

The behind-the-scenes information on the DVD showed how Clooney created `in the camera' special effects, doing all sorts of scene transformations `live.' This is cool in retrospect, but I'm not sure it did anything to enhance the movie.

Matchstick Men (2003)

enjoyed it more than the book

[23 September 2003]

When I read this book last winter, I disliked it, primarily because I saw the ending coming from somewhere around page 10. Oddly, when I watched the movie, even though I knew the ending even more surely, I enjoyed it. Granted, the movie script changed a number of elements of the book (primarily, the central `long con'), but the main story arc remained the same.

I have to think that what made the movie for me was the performances. Cage has played variations on this character before, but that didn't spoil the fun. Lohman is very good (and believable) as the daughter, which is even more impressive when you realize she is actually a 24 year old actress playing 15.

American Splendor (2003)

fascinating as a work of cinema

[23 September 2003]

I don't know that I would enjoy reading an American Splendor comic book, and I don't need to spend much more time with Harvey Pekar, but the film is excellent when viewed as a piece of cinema. It is fascinating watching the interweaving of footage of the real Pekar, the actor playing Pekar in the film, and various animated Pekars (not to mention a brief scene of a stage actor playing Pekar). The result is one of a kind – not quite fiction and not quite documentary.

One piece stood out strangely, however. There is actual footage of the real Pekar as a guest multiple times on the David Letterman show, but his final appearance is reenacted by the `film Pekar' and someone who doesn't look or sound particularly like Letterman. Why? Was the footage not available, or did it not actually occur like this film describes?

Bringing Down the House (2003)

Should I be more offended or embarrassed?

[8 September 2003]

The big questions running through my mind as I watched this was, `Should I be more offended or embarrassed?'

Almost all of the characters in this film fit into one blatant stereotype: ignorant hip-hop hoodlum (if black) or uptight racist snob (if white). I would like to give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt, and assume they did this purposefully in order to mock and destroy the stereotypes; there is however no evidence of this in the film itself. I was offended, but kept watching, hoping that the film would redeem itself. (It didn't.)

The embarrassment arose from watching two smart actors (Martin and Latifah) perform this mess. I can't believe they thought this was funny (and Latifah was executive producer, so she has no excuse). Having Joan Plowright smoke a joint and table dance only added insult to injury.

I can't decide whether the concept of Latifah always being assumed to be a servant (and actually being put into a maid outfit at one point – why did Martin have one around the house (in her size no less!!!)? ) falls into the `offensive' or `embarrassing' category.

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003)

SHOULD be throttled

[4/10 · 2 July 2003]

There is no rule that says action films must be totally logical and grounded in reality; in fact, that would be a bad idea, sucking all of the fun out of the genre.

This sequel, however, goes so far in the opposite direction from logic and reality that I began to wonder if it was actually a Naked Gun-type spoof. The rules of physics and physiology were apparently dropped from the helicopter at the beginning of the film and never seen again. Obviously no one intended for this film to be taken totally seriously, but as the film grew more and more ludicrous, I grew more and more frustrated.

Good actors like Luke Wilson, John Cleese and others are wasted in subplots that go absolutely nowhere. Was the kid added to the plot to enable us to see Bosley's family, or was Bosley's family added as a place to park the kid? Who knows and who cares?

I enjoyed the first film quite a bit. Have my tastes changed THAT much, or is this film just so much worse?

The Bourne Identity (2002)

suspense-free

[7/10 · 17 June 2003]

This is a well-made, well-acted film with plenty of action. However, what it lacks is any suspense.

Every time `Bourne' is up against some sort of obstacle (human or otherwise), he (and we) discovers that he just happens to have the skill he needs to effortlessly succeed. We watch a James Bond movie and know he will come out on top, but that is less frustrating, because (1) over many films we have grown familiar with his list of skills, and (2) we aren't expected to take it seriously anyways. I wanted `Bourne' to just once stumble across his own personal kryptonite or crazed industrialist with a laser.

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

for the true fan only

[5/10 · 16 December 2002]

The film was definitely made for the true Star Trek fan, with very little to offer the outsider (like myself). It started with an almost campy scene at a wedding, that seemed to be almost entirely inside jokes. Even after that point, I had the sense that most of the plot revolved around long-established motivations and character background. I tried to just go with the film and enjoy it on the surface level, but quickly grew bored.

Martin and Lewis (2002 TV Movie)

cliches from beginning to end

[5/10 · 25 November 2002]

The film is bio-pic cliches from beginning to end, but it reeled me in and kept me watching. There are definite parallels to the Jackie Gleason tv movie which aired just a few weeks ago (unhappy, womanizing, drunk makes good in 50's show business); ironically, Gleason shows up at the end of this story.

I was never able to stop seeing Sean Hayes as `Jack' (from `Will and Grace') instead of as Lewis, although that is not to say that he did a particularly bad job in this role. Jeremy Northam used a very strange accent as Dean Martin, which I found particularly distracting; he did a lousy job lip-synching to the songs, and for some reason, most of the remaining dialogue seemed dubbed, too.

I never would have guessed that pre-Martin Lewis was `doing Andy Kaufman' -- 25 years before Andy Kaufman did it.

Scotland, Pa. (2001)

might not stand on its own

[8/10 · 25 November 2002]

It has probably been over 20 years since I read `MacBeth', but I remember enough to recognize some of this plot. I'm not sure that this film, standing on its own, would be all that memorable; the humor (and interest) lies in the conceit of changing from control of a kingdom to control of a fast food joint. In fact, without that connection to `MacBeth', this is basically a `Fargo' rehash.

(7.5 out of 10)

The Others (2001)

deadly pace

[6/10 · 18 September 2002]

The key to a good ghost story is in the telling. The pace has to be just right – not so leisurely that the audience loses interest, but not so fast that the intriguing details are lost. There is a good, spooky story in this film, but the film takes too long to get to the resolution. The performances are very good (Kidman is plausibly mad), and there are some legitimate shocks; there is zero reliance on bloody special effects. Unfortunately, by the time all is revealed, I was just bored. This would have made an engrossing 30 minute Twilight Zone episode.

The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)

what were the intentions?

[6/10 · 9 September 2002]

There is not much of a plot in this movie, just inter-connected character studies of some very eccentric people. I think this creates an unintended distancing effect because there is no `normal' character for the audience to relate to. The film is always interesting to look at, and the writers and director may well have made exactly the film they intended – I'm just not sure what those intentions were.

Signs (2002)

raises more questions than it answers (not a bad thing)

[9/10 · 12 August 2002]

**SPOILERS** **SPOILERS** **SPOILERS**

This film raises more questions than it answers, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

* Why does everyone (including most in the audience) assume the aliens have to be hostile? Why is a random book on aliens taken by all involved to be gospel truth? Maybe the aliens are merely observing us. This would eliminate questions about why they don't break down doors, or why they come to Earth despite the abundance of water.

* Is the writer/director making a thematic statement by casting himself as the driver who kills Mel's wife? Creator as destroyer, perhaps?

* Was all of this the ultimate divine hoax, intended to help Mel regain his faith?

The two child actors give incredibly realistic and natural performances. The cinematography and music combine with the script to create a very tense atmosphere, where even the occasional cliched-haunted-house-movie-gimmick seems fresh.

My First Mister (2001)

first hour is highly enjoyable

[9/10 · 29 April 2002]

I think the first hour of this film is the most enjoyable thing I've seen in a long time. Great plot, characters and acting. Sobieski and Brooks make their characters real people, not stereotypes.

The last 45 minutes are a little melodramatic for my tastes, but by that time I was so invested in the characters, I stuck with the film. The ending is a little ambiguous, which seems much more plausible than a typical "Hollywood ending".

Gosford Park (2001)

a study of class structure

[9/10 · 13 January 2002]

Perhaps I was sitting in a bad seat and couldn't hear the speakers well. Maybe I was just not paying close enough attention. Maybe director Altman was careless. I had one heck of a time keeping the characters and their relationships to one another straight in this movie. Of the `upstairs folk,' who was married to whom, and who hated who why? Of the `servant class', who was a maid and who was a cook, or a valet or a butler? And which downstairs person `reported to' which upstairs person?

Or maybe that was the point.

Ultimately, I was much more interested in the class structure gathered in this house than I was about the specific history between characters, or even the murder of the lord of the manor. Of course, most of the characters didn't seem too concerned about the murder either, or rather, the SOLVING of the crime. You get the idea that while names and faces may change, this society will continue (or at least the characters THINK it will).

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

not bad

[8/10 · 3 December 2001]

I've never read this, or any of the books in the series, but I don't think that was an impediment to enjoying the film. The plot seemed heavy on exposition, but I suppose that is to be expected with the first film/book in a series.

My biggest disappointment was that the climactic battle was decidedly anti-climactic. I'm sorry, but it was over too soon (and too easily), and looked like an out-take from The Mummy Returns.

Also, some of the special effects were less impressive than my jaded eyes have come to expect. The graphics in the quidditch match scene looked more like those in the video game it is already likely to be.

Wild Things (1998)

beware the video cassette!

[8/10 · 1 December 2001]

The previous comments pretty much sum up the film. A very twisty plot (but not so over-the-top twisty as some recent films), and a couple of VERY sexy scenes.

I'd watched this before on video, but this time something became very apparent: this is the most blatant, clumsy pan-and-scan video conversion I think I've ever seen. The picture slides around so much you'd think it was filmed by the Blair Witch Project team. Probably the DVD allows you to watch it in letterbox, so take that option if you have it.

The Revengers' Comedies (1998)

did I miss something?

[4/10 · 17 September 2001]

This is a waste of 90 minutes, starring some excellent actors. What happened?

I think this was intended to be another quirky English comedy. Unfortunately, the supposed humor generally feels mean-spirited. I kept expecting the plot was all about a scam or practical joke, and that the dead folks would pop up and start laughing. No such luck. The ending seems arbitrary and abrupt. The narration is pointless (was it intended to "fix" a major re-editing?).

The other comments talk about this being a wonderful example of droll English humor. Yes, I realize the English tend to have a different sense of humor, but I wouldn't have considered this an example.

Cecil B. Demented (2000)

sorry, John, not this time

[5/10 · 12 May 2001]

John Waters most likely could make a film that looks as professional as any director. For some reason he persists in not doing so. Perhaps that was his point with this specific film (about guerilla filmmaking), but the overall effect is amateurishness.

Most of the acting is poor (and not just by the obvious locals used as extras). The plot has a kernel of an interesting concept, but that kernel is buried in sequences which go on too long (the countdown to the kidnapping, and the introduction of the gang members and their tattoos, for instance). The effects are typical of a video made in someone's back yard. I have no ideas whether the hip hop soundtrack was well done or not, but I certainly didn't like it.

If Waters want to make films for the amusement of his friends and the city of Baltimore, that's great. It doesn't mean, however, that they need to receive a national release.

The Tailor of Panama (2001)

Shaggy Dog Story

[5/10 · 22 April 2001]

** majors spoilers ahead **

Critics refer to Pierce Brosnan's character in this movie as being the "anti-Bond" because he is a slimy, unprincipled cad. I say the entire film gets credit for being an "anti-Bond *movie*" because it is so boring.

Plot-wise, this is a shaggy dog story: it takes a very long convoluted route to arrive at a fizzle of an ending. The jet fighters are called off. The spy flies off with some money. The tailor gets a "good talking to" by his wife. The end.

Presumably the Tailor goes through all sorts of internal anguish as he spins his stories, but it isn't particularly apparent because we never see what he is like when he *isn't* trapped in a web of spying.

I'm also amazed at the amount of completely gratuitous sex and nudity inserted into the film. It serves little purpose for the plot, and feels out-of-place (particularly the scene in the brothel).

Hannibal (2001)

an improvement on the book

[8/10 · 11 February 2001]

I was not particularly fond of this book when it came out. The style and plotting seemed inferior to Silence of the Lambs (which was a great improvement over Red Dragon), and the ending went against everything we knew and liked about the character of Clarice Starling.

The film is more successful. The story is streamlined, with characters and subplots jettisoned. Most importantly, the ending is changed, preserving the understanding of Clarice that had been established not only in the previous book, but also, earlier in the current book. Unfortunately, the streamlining eliminates most of the clues to characters' motives, and some of the subtleties of the story.

The gore factor in the film is not as high as I had been led to believe, but there is certainly plenty of blood and violence to go around. Consistent with the title, Hannibal himself is the predominant character by far, with even Clarice relegated to supporting status.