Ridiculously over-the-top, featuring dull performances and ludicrous action sequences taken to such impossible extremes that they lose any value they might otherwise have, WANTED wraps up with a massive action sequence that looks like a live-action version of 'Itchy & Scratchy'...though even someone making that cartoon would have stopped themselves when things looked like they were getting 'too unbelievable.' Funnier than any deliberate comedy this year, filled with overwrought comic-book fanboy angst and brimming with absurd action, WANTED will be forgotten in theaters before I've finished typing this review and really doesn't merit another line of commentary.
Reviews
17 Reviews
Comedy is apparently dead
14 November 2005
It appears that comedy is a lost art to Hollywood. Watching Ferrell and the rest of the cast flounder their way through this scriptless mess, it's hard to believe that this same Hollywood produced Blazing Saddles, My Favorite Year, Roxanne and a long list of laughers that weren't really made all that long ago.
This film tries, tries, tries so hard, but it's obvious that no one really had any ideas for humor before they went before the cameras. The basic premise is 'act stupid and the jokes will create themselves,' but, alas, they don't. Characters that are beyond caricatures are not a good place to start-- the only person who comes out of this mess with a measure of dignity is Christina Applegate, who at least has a character that seems slightly real at least part of the time. The rest of the 'characters' are just wigs and costumes and so horribly written that the actors can't do anything to fill the time, other than make faces and try to say things that show desperation rather than inspiration. The entire world depicted in this film is so senseless and ungrounded in reality that nothing CAN be funny, it's just Bizzaroland, and an unamusing one at that.
Funniest recent movie? Kung Fu Hustle. Maybe the Chinese can take over our comedy industry along with manufacturing. Hollywood apparently is no longer up to the job...
This film tries, tries, tries so hard, but it's obvious that no one really had any ideas for humor before they went before the cameras. The basic premise is 'act stupid and the jokes will create themselves,' but, alas, they don't. Characters that are beyond caricatures are not a good place to start-- the only person who comes out of this mess with a measure of dignity is Christina Applegate, who at least has a character that seems slightly real at least part of the time. The rest of the 'characters' are just wigs and costumes and so horribly written that the actors can't do anything to fill the time, other than make faces and try to say things that show desperation rather than inspiration. The entire world depicted in this film is so senseless and ungrounded in reality that nothing CAN be funny, it's just Bizzaroland, and an unamusing one at that.
Funniest recent movie? Kung Fu Hustle. Maybe the Chinese can take over our comedy industry along with manufacturing. Hollywood apparently is no longer up to the job...
The Starlost
(1973–1974)
Ellison's Folly?
3 May 2005
After many years of not being able to see this program, but only being able to hear the scathing opinions of others about it, in particular those of the series' originator, noted SF writer Harlan Ellison, I was anxious to actually see it for myself.
And when I finally did...? Well, I actually enjoyed the 10 or so episodes I could see. Yes, the production values were very small, but shows like 'Land of the Lost' or 'Doctor Who' (which Ellison has said he actually likes) have made very enjoyable, watchable programs on similar budgets. Frankly, an interesting story is the first requirement, and trivia like sets and special effects are, at best, secondary. Castigating the show for a low budget is easy. But the shows I saw were primarily enjoyable, and I liked watching them even with particular flaws here or there or a less enjoyable episode now and again.
How much of this reputation for the show is of people simply jumping on Ellison's bandwagon? He has famously trashed the series, and has every right to whatever feelings he has on the subject. But his opinion is formed on the basis of what he originally wanted, and the experiences he had while working on the project (which, as much as they are known, are simply HIS versions of events). What effect could that whole experience have had on his opinion of the show? And why should his opinion have any effect on mine, formed simply on the basis of the program itself? I wonder how many people have formed their perspective of the series based on Ellison's recounting of events and his own view of the series. How much of Ellison's opinion has built those of others? Does it have its flaws? Most certainly, sizable ones. And it is certainly a low-budget production with poor episodes. But is it the worst show of all time, as many people seem to see it? I don't think so. It is, in many ways, enjoyable.
And when I finally did...? Well, I actually enjoyed the 10 or so episodes I could see. Yes, the production values were very small, but shows like 'Land of the Lost' or 'Doctor Who' (which Ellison has said he actually likes) have made very enjoyable, watchable programs on similar budgets. Frankly, an interesting story is the first requirement, and trivia like sets and special effects are, at best, secondary. Castigating the show for a low budget is easy. But the shows I saw were primarily enjoyable, and I liked watching them even with particular flaws here or there or a less enjoyable episode now and again.
How much of this reputation for the show is of people simply jumping on Ellison's bandwagon? He has famously trashed the series, and has every right to whatever feelings he has on the subject. But his opinion is formed on the basis of what he originally wanted, and the experiences he had while working on the project (which, as much as they are known, are simply HIS versions of events). What effect could that whole experience have had on his opinion of the show? And why should his opinion have any effect on mine, formed simply on the basis of the program itself? I wonder how many people have formed their perspective of the series based on Ellison's recounting of events and his own view of the series. How much of Ellison's opinion has built those of others? Does it have its flaws? Most certainly, sizable ones. And it is certainly a low-budget production with poor episodes. But is it the worst show of all time, as many people seem to see it? I don't think so. It is, in many ways, enjoyable.
Network
(1976)
Alternately brilliant and Dull
23 November 2004
While a brilliant skewering of the vapidity of American television and the lengths to which soulless people will go in that industry, the film wastes significant time in the seemingly tacked-on affair between Holden and Dunaway. While the segments of Howard Beal's rantings are riveting, the film slows as we are forced to endure the mid-life crisis of Holden's character and his involvement with the thoroughly revolting character played by Dunaway. This seemed a needless distraction, perhaps inserted to keep Holden's character throughout the film and to pad it's length-- otherwise, there seems little need to waste so much time jumping from commentary on the media to character drama.
That said, Chayefsky's dialogue is always brilliant and savory, even when they may be more stagey than realistic. The humor is intelligent, even subtle, and there is no funnier scene in most movies than the communist revolutionary screaming "Keep your hands off my distribution deal!"
That said, Chayefsky's dialogue is always brilliant and savory, even when they may be more stagey than realistic. The humor is intelligent, even subtle, and there is no funnier scene in most movies than the communist revolutionary screaming "Keep your hands off my distribution deal!"
The Thing
(1982)
Blah.
18 November 2004
An ultimately bland, dull, and pointless exercise. As slow moving as 'The Big Chill,' John Carpenter's version of Campbell's classic 'Who Goes There?' is more faithful to the monster but ultimately as thrilling as a term paper.
While the Howard Hawks film re-wrote the monster into a simple marauding, though intelligent being, at least that film built a sense of menace and a hurtling momentum to its story. Carpenter's version is slow, talky, dull, and punctuated only by over-the-top silliness that shows his puerile obsession with gore-puppets. The 'paranoia' of people who may not be who they seem plays much better in 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' or 'Planet of the Vampires,' or even in Campbell's own story. This version is simply so slow, the characters so stilted, the story so jumpy and plodding that the final act of the film is a relief, not an experience.
While the Howard Hawks film re-wrote the monster into a simple marauding, though intelligent being, at least that film built a sense of menace and a hurtling momentum to its story. Carpenter's version is slow, talky, dull, and punctuated only by over-the-top silliness that shows his puerile obsession with gore-puppets. The 'paranoia' of people who may not be who they seem plays much better in 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' or 'Planet of the Vampires,' or even in Campbell's own story. This version is simply so slow, the characters so stilted, the story so jumpy and plodding that the final act of the film is a relief, not an experience.
The Seven Year Itch
(1955)
Marylin, feh, IT'S EWELL'S MOVIE!
16 February 2004
All the comments about Marylin Monroe for this film miss the point--the whole film is about Tom Ewell's character's wild imaginations and absurd twists colored by his constant immersion in his job in the field of dime pulp novels. If this movie moves at all, it's because of Ewell's performance as the husband who has been completely domesticated except for his uncontrollable imagination. Monroe's 'characteristics' drive some of the plot, but Ewell's fantasies are getting out of control before she even enters the film. It's a wonderful peek into that largely unspoken-of psyche of the American family man.
Popeye
(1980)
Why Altman?
11 August 2003
This movie tanked hideously at the box office, and for good reason...despite all the very good contributions from most of the production, Robert Altman's directing style (rough and verite, almost documentarian) doomed this to an unengaging set piece. With a warmer directorial style, one that involves the viewer rather than simply lets them remotely observe, would have better suited the comic strip material. Why on Earth did this project go to Altman instead of someone like Richard Lester???
Austin Powers in Goldmember
(2002)
Mike Myers is an untalented hack
5 July 2003
Not only does Myers have the habit of writing approximately twenty minutes of tepid material for every ninety minute movie, he also STEALS from people far more talented than himself!
For those of who who think Myers is a genius and the Nathan Lane bit in this 'comedy' was funny, go dig up a copy of AFTER THE FOX, starring Peter Sellers and written by Neil Simon. You will see that Myers theft of this gag is an absolute sham and less than a pale imitation. In the original, it's clever, surreal, and very very funny. In Myers', it's turned senselessly around, badly done, and in such a way that it destroys the entire premise of the gag! Does Myers even know how to write comedy?
Myers' best work was the first half of SO I MARRIED AN AXE MURDERER, he should have quit back then.
For those of who who think Myers is a genius and the Nathan Lane bit in this 'comedy' was funny, go dig up a copy of AFTER THE FOX, starring Peter Sellers and written by Neil Simon. You will see that Myers theft of this gag is an absolute sham and less than a pale imitation. In the original, it's clever, surreal, and very very funny. In Myers', it's turned senselessly around, badly done, and in such a way that it destroys the entire premise of the gag! Does Myers even know how to write comedy?
Myers' best work was the first half of SO I MARRIED AN AXE MURDERER, he should have quit back then.
Danger: Diabolik
(1968)
Stylish adaptation of a popular Euro Comic
18 January 2000
Another great visual piece by the great Bava, this film is a faithful adaptation of the popular European comic about the anti-hero master criminal Diabolik. Almost overdosing on intense 60s color and style, the film moves through comic-style adventures with considerable European flair and well captures the atmosphere of the original material and the time.
(Yes, I understand that this made the last installment of Mystery Science Theater 3000, and I'm a MiSTie myself. But Diabolik is a good film, whether it has riffing potential or not.
Say you never heard a thing about Batman (as so many seem to never have heard a thing about Diabolik)--if you saw the 1988 Batman film, you'd think it was pretty stupid and over the top, wouldn't you? Unrealistic? Stupid, even? Maybe even think that the main character wasn't much of a hero, so dark, so sinister? And if you think that a lot of 'stylish' 90's films with their music-video montages aren't going to look dated in twenty years, you're kidding yourself. I'd advise supposed 'reviewers' to stop being such contemporist snobs.)
(Yes, I understand that this made the last installment of Mystery Science Theater 3000, and I'm a MiSTie myself. But Diabolik is a good film, whether it has riffing potential or not.
Say you never heard a thing about Batman (as so many seem to never have heard a thing about Diabolik)--if you saw the 1988 Batman film, you'd think it was pretty stupid and over the top, wouldn't you? Unrealistic? Stupid, even? Maybe even think that the main character wasn't much of a hero, so dark, so sinister? And if you think that a lot of 'stylish' 90's films with their music-video montages aren't going to look dated in twenty years, you're kidding yourself. I'd advise supposed 'reviewers' to stop being such contemporist snobs.)
The Man Who Saw Tomorrow
(1981)
Who thought the future could be so funny?
29 July 1999
The next time you feel overwhelmed by apocalypse hysteria coming at you over the media, rent this film and sit back and have a good laugh--this film forcasts massive worldwide earthquakes in 1988, world war by 1994 (27 years of it!), apocalypse by 1999, blah, blah, blah....This is a magnificent illustration of how selling doom works as business, and having these predictions to watch from the comfort of the late '90s is a marvelous tonic against wild claims made by all manner of 'experts.' Have some high-cholesterol popcorn (with lots of salt), fire up the ozone-depleting air-conditioning, and let this film fill you in on how the world ended! Enjoy!
Pulp Fiction
(1994)
Is revulsion now entertainment?
21 July 1999
I personally find this film to be a milepost on the decline of American society.
This is a film in which paid murderers are our heros, who endear themselves to us with witty banter between their bloody exploits. It features such entrancing scenes as countless murders, S&M rape, drug overdose, and other fun things to watch (it's a wonder Six Flags hasn't opened a thrill ride to capture the whole experience). It features all manner of completely unredemptive characters doing cruel, inhuman, or brutal things to each other. Is this entertainment?
The last straw for me was when a young man was accidentally shot dead by our irascible heroes-- the big problem posed by this is 'how will we clean out the car?' What can you say about someone who views human life so cheaply (hit men or no)? What can you say about someone who finds such spectacle to be entertainment?
The characters here are completely dehumanized, uncaring about the horrors they inflict on one another, and ironically, much of the audience must be equally dehumanized to accept these characters as the 'good guys.' If Tarantino is the genius this film led people to believe, that would have to be his point, wouldn't it--that to enjoy this movie you would have to be, in some way, sick?
This is a film in which paid murderers are our heros, who endear themselves to us with witty banter between their bloody exploits. It features such entrancing scenes as countless murders, S&M rape, drug overdose, and other fun things to watch (it's a wonder Six Flags hasn't opened a thrill ride to capture the whole experience). It features all manner of completely unredemptive characters doing cruel, inhuman, or brutal things to each other. Is this entertainment?
The last straw for me was when a young man was accidentally shot dead by our irascible heroes-- the big problem posed by this is 'how will we clean out the car?' What can you say about someone who views human life so cheaply (hit men or no)? What can you say about someone who finds such spectacle to be entertainment?
The characters here are completely dehumanized, uncaring about the horrors they inflict on one another, and ironically, much of the audience must be equally dehumanized to accept these characters as the 'good guys.' If Tarantino is the genius this film led people to believe, that would have to be his point, wouldn't it--that to enjoy this movie you would have to be, in some way, sick?
Conquest of Space
(1955)
One of the classics of the 50's
21 July 1999
Intended as a follow-up to his previous success DESTINATION MOON, George Pal puts together a visually-impressive rocketship story that is largely successful, if a tad slow. While the first film used science-fiction author Robert Heinlein for its source material, this film uses the works of rocket scientists Willy Ley and Werner Von Braun. The difference between the two beginnings result in a little less characterization, and a little more emphasis on the hardware.
Some of the characters and situations are standard sci-fi fare, but the quality of the execution is remarkably high. Production values are top-notch, and show Pal's touch despite budget limitations. Some stock character relationships (the father/son turmoil, the commander's breakdown) fill in less serviceably, but the honest adventure works, far better than recent 'sci-fi' epics like ARMAGEDDON, which tread the same hackneyed stereotypes and cliches, but without the honest enthusiasm and optimism of the earlier, more innocent time. What results is still a superior product to most of the 50's SF pictures.
I can think of few other films with the stunning, vibrant color of this one--it's rather sad that Hollywood can't do these glowing hues and bright visuals anymore.
Some of the characters and situations are standard sci-fi fare, but the quality of the execution is remarkably high. Production values are top-notch, and show Pal's touch despite budget limitations. Some stock character relationships (the father/son turmoil, the commander's breakdown) fill in less serviceably, but the honest adventure works, far better than recent 'sci-fi' epics like ARMAGEDDON, which tread the same hackneyed stereotypes and cliches, but without the honest enthusiasm and optimism of the earlier, more innocent time. What results is still a superior product to most of the 50's SF pictures.
I can think of few other films with the stunning, vibrant color of this one--it's rather sad that Hollywood can't do these glowing hues and bright visuals anymore.
The Avengers
(1998)
Not great, but not the horror everyone else describes
6 July 1999
Frankly, when THE AVENGERS was released, I wanted it to bomb--I wanted Hollywood to finally get the idea that ripping off old TV shows is IMBECILIC and almost never successful. Thus, I was happy that the movie did poorly and closed quickly. (I also took a trip to London just as the movie was released, and if you think it was ill-received here, the British took it times TEN.)
Ironically, though, it isn't that bad a movie. Not great, but certainly not the despicable mess that most others seem to think.
It's been called ridiculous, slow, talky, surreal. Well, what a shock, so was the original series. I've recently viewed the entire 1967 season (bought all four boxed sets), and the show is all those things at times. It is slow, generally, at a very langorous pace throughout most stories. It is talky, since most of the charm of the original was in the dialogue between characters. It was surreal, even ridiculous (The Winged Avenger, anyone? Eeee-urp.)
Uma Thurman does a passable job as Emma--she's no Diana Rigg, but who is? She plays the character smart enough, although she doesn't quite capture Rigg's regal command of situation. Ralph Fiennes, however, misses the character of Steed quite a bit, playing him as reserved, without any of Steed's charisma. Steed always had a quality about him that made you feel as if he woke up every morning feeling absolutely smashing--Fiennes seems to miss that.
The problem the film faces is twofold: Those of us who have seen the original will always compare the two, and a copy can't hope to compare. Those who haven't seen the series have no grounds to assess it on--(see some of the above user comments which begin 'I never saw the original series...')and since I think this series is not exactly vividly-remembered by the majority of the population (particularly the 18 and under movie-goers, who don't have much grasp of the nuances The Avengers operated on). Frankly, The Avengers was probably just a bad choice to try to remake
(--LIKE ALL OLD TV SHOWS. Tell me one old-TV remake that has ever spawned a sequel (which Hollywood is always sure to do when something is a success)-- only THE BRADY BUNCH...point proven?)
Ironically, though, it isn't that bad a movie. Not great, but certainly not the despicable mess that most others seem to think.
It's been called ridiculous, slow, talky, surreal. Well, what a shock, so was the original series. I've recently viewed the entire 1967 season (bought all four boxed sets), and the show is all those things at times. It is slow, generally, at a very langorous pace throughout most stories. It is talky, since most of the charm of the original was in the dialogue between characters. It was surreal, even ridiculous (The Winged Avenger, anyone? Eeee-urp.)
Uma Thurman does a passable job as Emma--she's no Diana Rigg, but who is? She plays the character smart enough, although she doesn't quite capture Rigg's regal command of situation. Ralph Fiennes, however, misses the character of Steed quite a bit, playing him as reserved, without any of Steed's charisma. Steed always had a quality about him that made you feel as if he woke up every morning feeling absolutely smashing--Fiennes seems to miss that.
The problem the film faces is twofold: Those of us who have seen the original will always compare the two, and a copy can't hope to compare. Those who haven't seen the series have no grounds to assess it on--(see some of the above user comments which begin 'I never saw the original series...')and since I think this series is not exactly vividly-remembered by the majority of the population (particularly the 18 and under movie-goers, who don't have much grasp of the nuances The Avengers operated on). Frankly, The Avengers was probably just a bad choice to try to remake
(--LIKE ALL OLD TV SHOWS. Tell me one old-TV remake that has ever spawned a sequel (which Hollywood is always sure to do when something is a success)-- only THE BRADY BUNCH...point proven?)
The Mummy
(1999)
How dumb is DUMB?
11 May 1999
As an example of the obvious 'care' and 'thought' that went into this film: If resurrected, the mummy was supposed to gain the power of the Ten Plagues of Egypt, right? But the illiterate scriptwriter overlooks one small fact: the plagues visited upon Egypt were brought down by the GOD OF THE JEWS, not by any of the Egyptian ones, so what they are asking you to believe is that an Egyptian priest, cursed by Egyptians and buried inkeeping with their customs, somehow gets the power of a Jewish diety? Bizzare, and a good indication that thinking wasn't the biggest concern when they scribbled out this script ('Gee, we need something that uses a lot of special effects, cause that's all the idiots want....")... ....to say nothing of the stupidity of cursing the guy anyway, if he's suddenly going to become that powerful. Or didn't you 'think' of that??
The Big Chill
(1983)
Tedious
14 February 1999
A film that shows the Baby Boom Generation at its worst--self-obsessed, whiny, and childish. Alternating with moments of self-centered laments about the respective characters failings are scenes designed to be charming that fail miserably and come off as cloying and trite. Perhaps a great analysis of the biggest problems of that generation, although I think it might be an unintentional one.
Casino Royale
(1967)
Some People Just Don't Get It....
5 February 1999
When the Bond films hit big in the '60's, the only Ian Fleming novel that was not secured by the producers of that series was CASINO ROYALE, which was held by other interests. In an attempt to exploit this, those who held the rights tried to make a legitimate Bond film, even trying to seduce Sean Connery into playing Bond--he refused, and they decided to produce the whole thing as as spoof.
They blew out all the stops, making one of the wildest comedies ever made. If you're a Bond fan, you'll hate it for its irreverence. If you're expecting an adventure story, you'll hate it as well. But if you like simply twisted, surreal comedy, you will love CASINO ROYALE the more you see it. Don't expect a direct story (although there's one lurking there if you watch it enough times to find it). Just sit back, enjoy the wackiness, the tackiness, the subtlety, and the sheer, all-out over-the-top SPOOFING of so much of the spy genre and movie-making in general.
It's not perfect, perhaps a little slow in the last reel, but its all in fun and then some.
In particular, I love the music--jazzy, brassy, and as palpable a character as Sellers, Niven, Welles, or Allen.
They blew out all the stops, making one of the wildest comedies ever made. If you're a Bond fan, you'll hate it for its irreverence. If you're expecting an adventure story, you'll hate it as well. But if you like simply twisted, surreal comedy, you will love CASINO ROYALE the more you see it. Don't expect a direct story (although there's one lurking there if you watch it enough times to find it). Just sit back, enjoy the wackiness, the tackiness, the subtlety, and the sheer, all-out over-the-top SPOOFING of so much of the spy genre and movie-making in general.
It's not perfect, perhaps a little slow in the last reel, but its all in fun and then some.
In particular, I love the music--jazzy, brassy, and as palpable a character as Sellers, Niven, Welles, or Allen.
Star Cops
(1987)
Too good for TV?
5 November 1998
No matter how many times I think about it, 'Star Cops' is still quite possibly the greatest science-fiction show ever on television.
The premise is simple--cops in space, something that sounds like a recipe for schmaltz, but it's the execution that makes it rise head and shoulders above the capsule description. The characters, through the space of nine episodes, show more depth and range than a decade of latter-day 'Star Treks'. They have moments of irritability, seething rage, intense fear, mild annoyance and sheer terror, played out over plots that challenge the viewer to keep up. This is a show that improves exponentially with repeated viewings, with complexities opening up and incidental moments gaining significance as you become able to correlate them. The characters are often unlikeable, quarrelsome, and rude--much like real people.
Dialogue is sometimes cryptic, requiring another viewing for you to understand the joke or the significance of the remark. Often, characters speak over each other's lines, much like real people.
The plots, while often standard mystery fare, offer spins new to the science-fiction format, requiring a little knowledge of human nature rather than of physics or chemistry. It's never the science, or a simple whodunit--it's always the motive. The human element is always what is at issue.
And NO SF SHOW has ever been so firmly within the possibilities of REAL SCIENCE, requiring no long explanations or technobabble justifications. It is, without a doubt, the most scientifically probable program that has ever been on the air.
There are only nine episodes, and that's a pity. Blame the BBC for their infinite lack of wisdom. But at least there are NINE, and that's wonderful.
The premise is simple--cops in space, something that sounds like a recipe for schmaltz, but it's the execution that makes it rise head and shoulders above the capsule description. The characters, through the space of nine episodes, show more depth and range than a decade of latter-day 'Star Treks'. They have moments of irritability, seething rage, intense fear, mild annoyance and sheer terror, played out over plots that challenge the viewer to keep up. This is a show that improves exponentially with repeated viewings, with complexities opening up and incidental moments gaining significance as you become able to correlate them. The characters are often unlikeable, quarrelsome, and rude--much like real people.
Dialogue is sometimes cryptic, requiring another viewing for you to understand the joke or the significance of the remark. Often, characters speak over each other's lines, much like real people.
The plots, while often standard mystery fare, offer spins new to the science-fiction format, requiring a little knowledge of human nature rather than of physics or chemistry. It's never the science, or a simple whodunit--it's always the motive. The human element is always what is at issue.
And NO SF SHOW has ever been so firmly within the possibilities of REAL SCIENCE, requiring no long explanations or technobabble justifications. It is, without a doubt, the most scientifically probable program that has ever been on the air.
There are only nine episodes, and that's a pity. Blame the BBC for their infinite lack of wisdom. But at least there are NINE, and that's wonderful.
Tell Your Friends