Anaisnine Reviews

Troy: Fall of a City (2018– )

Troy - Review

[7/10 · 14 April 2018]

White folks really get pissed off at the slightest hint of brown in the classics don't they?

Never mind that the story of the fall of Troy allegedly happened tens of thousands of years ago BC and I would bet money most of the Greek and Trojan inhabitants at the time were more brown and olive skinned than the folks in the BBC series but LOL

I haven't seen so many white people crying about historical accuracy since Merlin cast a woman of color as Guinevere...mind you that was a series that featured a talking dragon ROFLMAO

Anyway as far as the show goes , once It it did a good job of fleshing out the story .

I mean , we all know the story , but what this show does is humanize the characters and make even the wretched Agamemmnon sympathetic , to a small degree

I can feel for Paris/Alexander , a man leading a simple life who all of a sudden is approached by the Gods and guaranteed the love of the most beautiful woman alive . Would that not make one cocky and feel they are blessed by the Gods or at least by a Goddess? Would it not make it hard to resist said woman , married or not, when you have been assured she is to be yours ?



I can understand Helen......as a beautiful woman of high birth she has always been viewed as a prize to be possessed . All her life she has been bid and broker for by men . Nevermind divine intervention, is it not tempting to indulge in the attention of a man who sees you as a woman to be wooed and not just a prize to be won? To finally have a choice in the man you want?

I can understand Hecuba and Prism welcoming back a cursed son because curse or not...he is still their flesh and blood and a long standing wound in their hearts that never healed



Imo, if anything the show underscores just what a tragedy it is for all players in the conflict . They are ultimately doomed by their very humanity and their views on loyalty, duty, love and forgiveness

Clearly the people down rating the series over superficial grievances have specious claim to humanity, but that is no surprise

7/10

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)

A character in search of a story.

[6/10 · 3 December 2011]

You are Steve Spielberg and George Lucas. You have created one of the best made films of all time. You have created a box office bonanza. You have created one of the most iconic movie characters of all time.

What do you do? How do you follow it up? All too often we see filmmakers fall into the deadly sequel trap, this trap of course being "take the elements and scenes the public really responded to in the first film, and ramp it up to 11"

Invariably, this approach always fails. Why does it always fail? Because this strategy is often pursued at the expense of the most important element of all- character development and a coherent story, which are the elements that made the original as successful as it was in the first place.

From the first scene of Raiders the character of Indy is carefully unfolded before us- he is a man who is driven, resourceful, intelligent, and not afraid of a good fight. But he is also has his weak spots( fear of snakes, which isn't even a weak spot because it enhances his character by showing he has some vulnerabilities) and can be a bad judge of character( the underling who double crosses him in the first 10 min of Raiders). These elements are developed and built upon as the story unfolds.

As for the story, again it is laid out carefully. We have Indiana's rivalry with Belloq who is Indiana's cynical foil, his willingness to fight against evil by seeking the Ark to foil the Nazis, his past relationship with Marion, and the unveiling mystery surrounding the ark. All of this is done in a balanced and measured way.

The characterization of Indiana and the other major characters is balanced with the telling of the story. Do we learn all of the backstory for each major character? No, but we learn enough about them to make them fully fleshed and compelling. Belloq is amoral and greedy, but like Jones he does have a love for knowledge and values artifacts, also he does at least feel human compassion for Marion- a tough nut, a woman who can fight her own battles and as the movies goes on you can see why a man like Indy fell for her. Sallah is a loyal friend to Indy with whom we can infer he has had some previous adventures.

Raiders was a great balance of characterization, story, plot, great action sequences, amazing FX and an iconic score. All combining to make one of the best movies of all time.

Sadly, Temple sacrificed the characterization and plot and just decides to make this simple one big action sequence with some gross out sequences to pander to the kids- Temple really went of the way to pander to the child audience( the character of short round, the plot of kids needing to be rescued, gross out moments etc). Was this an attempt to increase merchandising sales? I do not know. Even more disturbing, Indy's "love interest" this time around is more a caricature of the damsel in distress rather than a fully fleshed out character. We are not given insight into the motivations or desires of the villains other than they are Eeeeeevell. In the other words, the villains are just stock wooden characters there to be defeated by Indiana. Granted, its hard to create a better villain than Nazis, but at least Belloq had some charm and style.

But the most disappointing aspect of this sequel is..we don't learn anything new about Indiana. How did he become the man we saw in Raiders? Given that the film is set a year before the events of Raiders, it was a perfect opportunity to show some of the events that lead to Henry Jones jr becoming Indiana Jones. But in this film, we are given nothing to add to the aura or mystique of Jones, nothing to illuminate other facets of his character or his relationships that existed by the beginning of Raiders.

Some said the movie failed because it was too dark, or too violent or too gross and too much action. The movie failed because despite having a fantastic character to base the movie upon, it failed to tell the story of that character.

The Young Victoria (2009)

The 12 Faces of Emily Blunt

[7/10 · 27 March 2010]

What more can be said? I have not been this fascinated with a young actress since Cate Blanchett burst upon the scene over ten years ago. And although both Blanchett and Blunt have played Queens now( seems to be the benchmark for up and coming actresses), the roles are complete polar opposites.

Simply put if you are looking for high passion, compelling drama, and Machiavellian intrigue, this is not the movie for you. This isn't to say that the script or direction was bad, its just that the subject of the film did not lead too dramatic a life when compared to other notable royals like Elizabeth I, Anne Boylen, Henry VIII, Henry V, Henry II and Elainor of Acquitane. These are people whose lives were the stuff such as good soap operas are made of and whose policies and decisions altered the course of British ,and in most cases, world history. Victoria, in contrast, ascended the throne without incident, she quasi-governed a nation that was fast becoming a global power due to industrialization and the rise of the Navy, her State had a stable government led by competent and dynamic politicians, and she married young had a harmonious family life. The facts of her life are not the Sturm und Drag such as powerful dramas are made of.

The heart of the film, aside from the attempt to dramatize her stultifying upbringing and the machinations surrounding her throne, is the story of the one thing that was truly shocking and surprising about her reign- a love story. Marriage made for financial or political reasons is with reason not necessarily the place to look for world shaking passion, yet Victoria will always be remembered in history as being sort of a Patron Saint marital fidelity, happiness and ideal family life. Thus, central to the film is the budding love of Victoria and her Prince Albert. I was very taken with Rupert Friend's characterization of Albert whom he portrayed as a kind, patient, somewhat earnest and maybe a touch naive young man, looking to" do good in the world and help". In short, he is a good man with a good heart, not the most dynamic figure to base a drama around, but as that is not the point of the story, that does not matter. The heart of the character shines through thanks to Friend's understated yet earnest performance.

As for the Queen, well..Emily Blunt is sublime. Her beauty cannot be denied, but she is more than something pretty to look at; her face is like quicksilver because of her expressiveness. The slightest arch of the eyebrow, glance of the eye or slight wry smile delivers so much. Again, this is not a bombastic performance of heavy speeches and impassioned pleas, its not that kind of movie. But what Ms. Blunt does do with the role is show the simple humanity of the character with potent subtlety.

For example, we see the joie de vivre that has been kept in check by Victoria's mother ( Miranda Richardson) and her scheming adviser/lover Conroy expressed in the simple things like Victoria trying to sketch her dog. We see her delight and fascination upon first meeting Albert by her eyes being continually drawn to him. We see her nervous and overwhelmed when addressing Parliament upon her Ascension. And my favorite scene of all in the film- we see her nervous, happy, and hopeful as she steels herself to do what really most women never have to do in their life- ask the man she loves to marry her, a proposition so ridiculous for those times( and some would say now) that Victoria bursts out in nervous laughter before she can even say "marry me". Again, this is not a movie for over the top larger than life expressions, but more a study in the subtleties of a character and making the little things say so much.

So, overall, I judge the film by what it is and what it tried to do and as such I give it a 7. I felt that some of the politics could be better explained and that some very fine actors were wasted with little do and little character development, namely Miranda Richardson as the Duchess of Kent, and the characters of Conroy and Lord Peal. Again, the film need not have spent a large amount of time on those characters, but a little more exposition would have helped to explain the political environment. Also I would have loved to have seen more of the adjustment to married life between Victoria and Albert, but that may be just my greed for more scenes between Friend and Blunt.

In summary, don't view this film in terms of a historical drama but for what it really is, a love story between two characters that happen to be historical figures. I give this film a solid 7 for wonderful lead performances, brilliant costumes and scenery and the magnificent Victoria of Emily Blunt. And anyone who has any shred of romance left in them, you will be touched by the end of this movie. God save the Queen.

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

Too bad it will be televised...on cable.

[16 January 2004]

The Matrix trilogy is a very valuable piece of cinema. I think it should be required viewing in film classes around the world, by would be actors, directors and screenwriters. Every aspiring Hollywood executive out there should also be made to watch the films. In fact, an entire course should be created around it:

Film 101- How to ruin a perfectly innovative and intelligent movie by turning into a plot-hole ridden, cliched, self-refferential, commercialized, disaster of a trilogy. The Matrix Trilogy

As an addendum , the course should also include:

Marketing 101- How to dupe hundreds of fans into buying crap because you lie and tell them that in order to 'understand' all of your Trilogy, fans must purchase video games, animated movies, play online games, Happy Meals, decoder pins, etc. The Wachowski Brothers, The Heirs of Disney.

After the first Matrix movie, it seems as if the Wbros'(Wachowski brothers)only remaining creative ideas pertained to marketing. None of that creative energy was spent on the script, to the woe of nearly all casual Matrix fans and the dissapointment of many a fanboy and girl.

What once started out as a hard sci-fi cyberpunk action adventure story with heavy philosophical and eastern religious undertones and influences in 'The Matrix', devolved into a ridiculously sentimental, cliche war movie in 'Revolutions'. Gone were many of the coherent eastern-philosophy undertones and most of the issues of western philosophy. By the time Revolutions starts, the theme had gone from the free-will philosophy of Buddhism( with a sprinkling of christ references) to all out Calvinism in Reloaded, and culminated with The Easter Story by the end of Revolutions. That's progress?

Now, before I get to the rest of the film, let me give some of the few goodpoints. Keanu Reeves is still hot whenever he is in his 'Matrix' gear- the man can flat out rock tight black pants, a black t-shirt, and shades. The Attack on Zion was great, great CGI. Smith was good. Trinity called the frenchman 'Merv'- that was great.

As for the rest...where to start? Here's a point by point breakdown.

1) The MacGuffin- Maybe the Wbros are Hitchcock fans, because it seems as though half the characters in the film were nothing more than MacGuffins(look it up if you dont know). The 'ghosts' in Reloaded? No significance. The Merovingian( Merv lol) and his wife? No significance. Seraph? ( no real significance, just a bodyguard). The Kid? Just a gopher. The Zion PTA(Council)? Nada. So many conspicuously named characters, so much speculation, and it was all for nought. Nothing more than a giant Maguffin by the Wbros, meant to stimulate the mental masterbation of the fans, in order to..to keep them coming back for more( i..e movies, games, pop tarts, etc). Someone else put it excellently. The reason the Matrix films are popular is the reason why religions are as well- they tell everything and nothing.

2)Communication Breakdown-I was so sick of the dialogue by the end of Reloaded, and Revolution continued with more of the same. Not so much the content of the dialogue( although that was cheesy in some instances, usually in regards to general mifune). I was so tired of everyone having the same conversations. Here's an example:

"I don't know" "You will know in time" "How will I know?" "To know the why is to know the wherefore." "Do you know?" "I know as much as you know" " But I dont know so that means...." "I dont either"

Now, other than the non-sensicality of the above passage, the annoying thing is just the didactic structure. Every conversation, every single one, in Reloaded and to an extent in Revolutions is structured this same exact way. Now, giving the Wbros credit, maybe they intended the speech to emulate the sort of deductive logic used in philosophy. But even if that was their intention, it got really annoying, and is unrealistic to boot. Now wonder why all the characters are stale and lifeless- everyone speaks in the same monotonous and soulless way.

3) Deja Poo- Cliche Cliche Cliche. Now, Im not against film cliches. They are cliche for a reason- they are usually integral elements to certain types of stories. When used succesfully, the cliche can be very effective. But when used inappropriately, cornyness is the result. The best(worst) examples being- Mifune and The Kid aka Officer and a Gentleman. The Neofix- now religious types, dont get me wrong. Im not saying christianity is cliche, just the visuall allusions to it. All of Neo and Trinity's 'romance', especially hear death scene; all 20 minutes of it.

4) To answer your question..what was it? Maybe if they had called the film 'Matrix Resolutions', less people would have been disappointed. Not much was successfully resolved in this film, or at least, not resolved in the way people had hoped. Some answers were glossed over(ergo not really answered) such as- How can Neo have powers in the real world? How come the other humans dont get hurt anymore when they fight in the Matrix?

Other questions are a result of the of the films conclusion- Why should the machines keep the peace? Inst the peace just temporary? Wont the freed humans eventually want to be rid of the machines and vice versa?

Other questions ..hoo boy, these are the ones that made me want to throw my Sprite at the screen when I was watching. They are the result of the directors' idiocy such as: What did Neo do that was different from any other One?-the Matrix still got rebooted. What was the whole point of Mobile Ave?(aside from metaphor) How come the Machines can create Zion, and create a huge integral network like the Matrix, but they cant build a pole large enough that has solar panels on top that they could use to harness damn sunlight?!?!?!? What was the whole freakin' point to the trilogy if there was a clear atmosphere above what seemed to be only 3 miles of cloud cover, why even use humans at all?!?! How come the resolution of film 3 didnt match the implication at the end of film 1, is it just to leave the door open for more sequels? When did the Wbros turn into soulless greedy B****rds!? Where can I get a blue pill, I want to be plugged back in so I can forget I bothered with this movie.

A.N.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

A great big mess of a movie.

[7 January 2004]

*SPOILERS*- but, if you aint seen it by now, chances are spoilers wont really matter to you, but anyway........

Woooobooy! I finally got my pound of flesh delivered today by going to see the final installment of Fellowship of the Ring. As expected, the film delivered bigtime on the great battle sequences and cinematography, hoorah! And, as somewhat expected, everything else about the movie was dreadful.

Where to start, where to start! The first 30-45 minutes plods along at a horribly dull pace. First, we are given a superfluous flashback to the origins of Gollum. This must have just been something for the fans of the books, because I cant see any reason cinematically why it was neccesary for the movie. The second film pretty well established that Gollum is a twisted, psychopath obsessed with the Ring. There really was no need for the exposition, it did little for the plot in the end. Or maybe Andy Serkis wanted a chance to mug it up for the camera. Who knows, its a mystery right up there with who shot Kennedy.

After this lackluster intro, the film cathes everyone up to speed on where our heroes were left off from the first film. Thus, the next 30 minutes are much sound and fury signifying nothing- basically battle plan talk and speechifying, and slow motion camera work, and dreary violins in the background and overly sentimental moments contrived by Jackson. Geez, even though I never really felt either of the two previous Fellowship films were that well done, I was never outright bored with any of the movies til this one. The pacing that had been at least tenuously balanced in the first two films falls apart by the third installment. Its like watching something in the midst of its death throws- 5 to ten mintues of herky jerky action, then long periods of somnulence and dormancy.

And so Jackson establishes the pace for the duration of the film. Moments of action where the plot moves forward( Pippin and the bowling ball, Pippin and Gandalf going to Gondor,), then cutting back to scenes where the plot absolutely stagnates(scenes of speechifying, battle planning , and blank stares). These scenens are usually marked by 'otherwordly' choral music, violins in the background, and god help me, the slow motion camera. Someone should ban Jackson from *ever* using slow motion again. But I cant blame the man, he needed something that signalled to the audience 'look, this is the part where you feel sad!' or 'look, this is part where you feel happy!'. Since the screenplay wasn't strong enough to indicate this on its own( and since Jackson really is more a visual, and less emotionally in touch director), the solution to this was: milk the slow motion camera for all its worth! Hoorah!

But, its decisions like this that absolutely wreck the movie. Like its predecessors, this film was not much in the subtlety department. Everything about the movie is big and boisterous. There are never any moments of quiet dignity or real introspection. Maybe this isnt the genre of movie to look for things of that nature, but still, everything emotional is hammed up almost to the point of ridiculousness. Case in point, is there a law in New Zealand or Australia that people cant die quickly? This is the second '3rd' movie of the year where a major character takes exceedingly long to die. Note to directors- this is not the way to make a character memorable, it just annoys the audience and ruins the suspension of disbelief. Can anyone in the film ever just get on with it without delivering a soliloquy? Can Legolas every just say something without it being a sonnet, or useless for that matter? Where is the real, true emotion?

Actually, it does exist in some instances. Although the exchanges between Sam and Frodo are usually the worst offendors when it comes to milking the sentimentalist rag dry, some of them were actually quite effective and stirring this time around. Namely the scene on the mountain as Sam offers a piggy back service. Finally, a scene with true emotion that was not undercut by the sappy score. Also, I thought most of the battle sequences were pretty arousing, not just for the prospect of seeing carnage on screen, but some of the pre-fight pep talks were stirring. And there is just something about seeing men on horseback charging thats invigorating. To me anyway.

The biggest blunder to me seems that the great battle sequence is rendered a bit anti-climactic. Maybe its the fault of the book, but after seeing 20 or so minutes of great action, the battle ends and there is still an hour to go! And the last bit of it features the characters who, lets face it, arent that dynamic on their own. Couldnt Jackson have, say, instead of showing Gollum's past, made it so that the evil-dead army took care of the city, while the other human troops marched on Mordor? Yes, it is a rather Lucasian device, but as the previous film showed, it works to great effect to see numerous battles occur and resolve at once. You dont serve the steak and dessert and then save the salad for last, after all.

And speaking of saving the salad for last- oy, if you are going to have a 30 minute epilogue, at least have the decency to include an intermission. What happened to the lost art of the intermission? Are the movie companies scared you wont finish the film? I dont see why it should matter, seeing as they already have your money, but whatever. All I know is that by the time Aragon started to speechify at the end of the final, final battle, I was damn ready to go.

All in all, again, like its predecessors, the film is worth seeing for the cinematography and for the action sequences, but you have to wade through cold treacle before you get to these sequences, so be warned. I rank the trilogy as the best film being Two Towers, then Fellowship, and lastly Return of the King, which was painfully slow, sentimental to the point of annoyance, and felt like a big disjointed mess. In the sense that, alot of what occured in the film seemed to just 'happen' but not be especially related to anything that was occuring elsewhere.

Kudos to Jackon for attempting to film the unfilmable and on his new status a 9-figure millionare. Kudos to everyone involved, and thank god another so-so trilogy is over, only one more left.

A.N.

Shattered Glass (2003)

How to misrepresent and lie in journalism 101

[19 December 2003]

As a film commentating on the state of journalism and the ethical questions inherent therein, this film doesnt say much.

The film works better, and is better recieved for what it is- a great character or rather, characters story set in the world of prestige journalism.

The subtitle for the film should be called, 'My Funny Charlatan', because Hayden Christensen, as Steven Glass, really demonstrates( as well as openly dictates in the film) how to be a first class schmoozer and con artist.

In lots of the reviews, I hear people say how Peter Sarsgaarde, ( as Chuck Lane) is the tour de force performance, and yes he is very good as the low-key, but ultimately, driving moral force in the story. But really, the whole movie falls apart if Hayden isnt convincing, and humanized, as Steven Glass.

I have to applause Hayden for his portrayel of Glass and his interpretation of how a man could charm his way through life and be so convincing as to make some of the best journalistic minds in the country completely abandon common sense in relation to his journalistic output. To women, the draw is clear, he is charming, with boyish good looks, he throws compliments like confetti, he is flirtatious but without being overtly sexual. He is the journalistic equivalent of Cherubino- no woman can resist wanting to mother him.

For men, I suspect his appeal may be the fact that he is skillful, but at the same time, self-effacing, without the need to display any alpha male dominance. Talented, but assuming and always deferring, he is always ready with a pat on the back and an offer of beer, one of the guys. - He is like that mythical kid brother, looking upwards with respect , awe and hero worship to his elders.

But underneath that boyish facade of good looks, charm, wit, and 'aww shucks, who me?'ness, lurks a desperate and soulless character. And here is where Hayden's genius comes in(with some help from tidbits from the script)- you actually feel sorry for the bastard! Is he wrong for what he has done? Absolutely Did he deserve the disgrace that he engendered? Without a doubt. But all the same, you feel a sense of pity for this poor creature so desperate to be loved and accepted, so needy, so lacking in any internal sense of self, that he is compelled to lie and fabricate in order to perpetuate a sense of importance and most of all -acceptance.

I think fame for someone like Steven, like so many stardust blinded Hollywood wannabes that arrive in LA every year, is always what it has been: a need , a craving, something to fill that empty hole inside , that acceptance and unconditional love that somehow never happened in the formative years. So, while Steven's actions are to be condemned, if you can understand the motivation behind them, its hard to outright despise the man. Though, one wonders how any state licensing board would let him practice law( Steven Glass is an attorney now).

Mulholland Drive (2001)

"Love, only in my dreams..as real as it may seem..it was only in my dream.."- D. Gibson

[4 November 2003]

"Just a dream, just a dream... all our plans and all our schemes, how could I think you'd be mine...? the lies I tell myself each time."



Haunting, Beautiful, Compelling, Addictive, Heartbreaking.

Genius

The film is equal parts film-noir mystery, camp Hollywood parody, comedy, drama, and most of all a love story-Hollywood style.

Of course, then David Lynch takes all these equal parts, adds a heavy dash of surrealism and a bucket of acid to serve up a masterpiece.

The best way to describe M.D. is..lucent dreaming, or the kind of intense dreams you have when you have a fever- part hallucination, part dream, part fantasy. Sleepwalking in your sleep.

There is not one wasted shot or misplaced direction in this film; everything falls into place masterfully. Of course, some elements are more (or less ) concrete than others, but even vagueness has its place in a film like this and is not just confusion for the sake of confusion( or b/c the writer/director had no idea how to resolve a troublesome plot element). No need to emphasize the importance of symbolism and totems in a film like this.

Some art or artists can speak to your on a cerebral level and still manage to inflame the imagination. Some art or artists bekcon you with words and images that flout logical explanation, but speak to you on a more emotionally immediate level; a visceral jolt, an intuitive understanding, an emotive, primitive response- that compels you to analyze, deconstruct and as the 'Cowboy' says " Think".

David Lynch shows his genius with this film- he does both. - A.N.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Is there a glitch in the Matrix......

[20 May 2003]

Overall rating on a 1-10 scale: 7.0 Repeat viewing factor on a 1-5 scale: 1.7

SPOILERS THEREIN!!!!!

Let me keep this basic:

The Good: The rogue program characters were interesting..hope to see more of them. The WB's(Wachowski Brother's) treat the Matrix franchise as an opportunity to teach philosophy 101. In that sense, I liked the themes that were developed, although some were executed more smoothly than others. Causality- how much does anyone *truly* determime their destiny? Free will vs determinism. The Yin/Yang relationship of Man and Machine. I think the concept of 'purpose' though, as it tied in with causality and the free will themes, was sloppily handled. Even still, intellectually I was intrigued with MR; especially considering the Architecht's final revelation to Neo regarding himself and Zion and the questions they raised( is Neo human or a computer program?...is Zion 'real' or just part of the Matrix?). There is definitely enough unanswered questions to make MRev worth seeing...now the bad, and there was lots of it.

The Bad:

I.- terribly written dialogue in some scenes: As I said before, The Matrix movies in general conceptually are like a philosophy 101 class..unfortunately, the inane ramblings of the characters in this film often sound like the kind of stuff you might hear from a freshman in a 101 class. Even though the first Matrix film often could be guilty of the same things, namely being too hip or pretentious for its own good, the dialogue was tightly written to give you enough 'zen' to make the point and then move on. Unfortunately for MR, many of the characters ramble on past the point of prudence,(the Merovingian) or the points being made are handled badly by the script( the councilor's convo with Neo, any time Smith speaks) It felt like the WB had so many themes they were trying to establish as well as advance the plot that they were unsuccesful in structuring the dialogue in an efficient way. Ahh well.

II. Zion a huge letdown: I thought the Zion introduction was woefully underdeveloped. This was a challenge as at this point in time, the characters have all been to Zion before, so we(the audience) cant see it thru their eyes. This is how it should have happened: have the crew of the Neb be involved in a vicious fight with the 'squiddies' and if they dont gain access to Zion by x amount of time, they are toasted. This accomplishes many things, namely you get to have a kick ass action intro, it supports the theme of sentinels massing for an attack..and it heightens the anticipation of seeing Zion..so that when the Neb does finally make it to Zion, we feel the crew's relief, and our own 'awe' at finally seeing this haven for humanity. But..even if the movie had started the way I stated, I dotn think it would have helped much...Zion isn't much to loook at anyway, though logistically speaking, that isnt suprising.

III. Club Zion: whoa....who the hell greenlighted that scene? That was just so god-awful and cheesy. Not only that, it made it seem as if the WB were running out of good ideas and were copying themselves. Didnt we have a 'club' scene in the first Matrix that featured Neo and Trinity? And talk about featuring Neo and Trinity.....umm, best not to speak on it. But really, that dance sequence was just awful. Nothing but six packs and tits and ass swaying everywhere, it looked like something out of a Jovan Musk print ad or something. Look, I know this is hollywood, and all, but didnt they say in Matrix 1 that most of the people 'freed' were hacker types...you know, the kind that are either gangly or chubby who dodnt get alot of sun? (nothing against computer folks, I love ya but...) how did we go from freeing hacker geeks to freeing Tommy Hillfiger models? That scene was just awful and an insult to the spirit of the first Matrix movie. OY!

IV: Seemingly useless secondary characters: On the one hand, I am glad to see my peeps( afro americans) get screen time in a big flick...on the other hand, Niobe and Link were useless in this film. I really could care less about what happened to Tank and Dozer( you could always assume Tank died of his wound that Cypher gave him). Other than that Link was not an enthralling character. But he did have one unfortunate purpose, which relates back to another flaw of the movie...he was the 'greek chorus'. More on that later. As for Niobe, other than setting up some worthless back history on Morpheus ( and being a big deus ex machina in one scene) she seemed pretty useless too. But I assume she has a bigger role in MRev. I will say that at least the rogue program characters had some function in the film, and were used well...for the most part.

V. The (yawn) action sequences. Listen up and listen good WB. YOU CANT HAVE FIGHT SCENES FOR THE SAKE OF FIGHT SCENES. Unless you have CGI or choreography that truly *hasnt* been seen before, it will not do anything for the movie unless it is plot driven or has some dramatic tension behind it. Remember the first Matrix and how the action sequences blew you away? Why did they do that? Because they had dramatic tension behind them. We didtn know why Trinity could kick ass , but she could...we didnt know if she we would get out that phone booth alive. We didnt know what Neo was capapable of every time he fought. We actually feared the Agents who could kick butt and were pretty sharp shooters. There was danger, uncertainty...tension; the plot drove the action sequences. Not so in this movie at all. We *all know* exactly what Zionites can do in a fight, and its the same stuff from the last movie. We know exactly what Neo can do...which brings me to another point: ALL NEO"S FIGHT SCENES ARE TOTALLY SUPERFLUOUS! Neo is GOD-like in the Matrix. Is he omniscient? No . Is he omnipresent? No. Is he omnipotent? Damn right! Neo can manipulate the code to whatever he wants...why is he even bothering to engage in hand to hand combat? He could just as easily re write the coding and turn his enemies into ice cream cones. Yes, it makes for a shorter movie, but still, its non sensical to me. I would have loved to have seen him manipulate the Matrix to his will and just decimate folks..but instead I got overlong, overblown action sequences that did nothing for me. As far as the freeway sequence...good for one thing. How come the agents were running parallel in a car with Trinity and *still* couldnt shoot her? When did they become on par with Stormtroopers? Overall it was a good action sequence( and I did get a visceral reaction when Trinity got on the motorcycle) but it was nearly ruined with non-sensical execution. As for the most part, the CGI was cool, but it wasnt that big an upgrade from the first Matrix, and far less interesting this go around because of a lack of dramatic tension behind the fight scenes.

VI. Plot holes, inconsistencies and screenplay guffaws. The 'trinity dies and neo saves her' ploy was cheap. First off, didnt we have a 'near death' in the first movie? Why use the same thing again? Secondly...Neo is a GOD in the matrix. Was anyone really worried when Trinity 'died'? I was sitting there thinking 'ok,. just re write the code and rev her back up. As long as she was in the Matrix there really was little to worry about, so long as your boyfriend is 'the One'. Again, why make the Agents so inept this go around? You mean to tell me he cant shoot Trinity from about 35 feet away? Or even think to shoot out the tires of her car? The Twins are I assume old rogue Agents or something...you mean they know kung fu but didnt get the basic weapons training programing? Oy... The first Matrix's fight scenes were at least structured intelligently, this was a letdown. Here's what also let me know that there was some weak writing going on in this film- the presence of a greek chorus character. Movies should structurally sound enough that when a certain scene takes place, the audience should automatically be feeling whatever emotion you want to evoke...but when you have to have a 'greek chorus' in the background, you are in trouble. By greek chorus I mean a character whose lines do nothing more than echo the(supposed) thoughts and feelings of the audience, you know, lines like 'man, that was close! 'oh no! 'you saved us, whoopee!' The scene should be strong enough as written to make such 'observations' unneccesary, so when I see alot of this exposition going into dialogue, you know the scene isnt carrying its weight. And unfortunately, alot of these types of lines were given to Link: "its good to be home"( for the lackluster Zion intro) "I cant take this!"( when Niobe magically shows up to save Morpheus) "Yes!"(When Neo shows up).....not a good sign at all. And speaking of Niobe...how about a few shots of her hauling ass to get to Morpheus to make her entre into the scene seem less like Deus ex Machina? Sigh, this screenplay was just sloppy.

VII. Obfuscatorama: AS I said , I was intellectually( though not emotionally) drawn into MR. It raised some interesting points and had a few brain teasing revelations. But how much is brain teasing and how much is just being vague on purpose? Take for example the rogue programs. If the Merovingian has survived the Matrix from its 1.0 version, why is he so hell bent on Neo not seeing the Architecht and rebooting it? What does it matter to him, if he can survive 5 reboots, whats one more? If the matrix isnt rebooted and somehow the humans break free, thats the end of him, so why not help neo? This isnt so much obfuscatory as it is a screenplay flaw..why not show the attack on Zion, it would have drawn a nice parallel to Neo's return to Zion at the end, further contrasting Smith w/ Neo...unless the WBs are being obfuscatory about some other things; namely that Zion is part of the Matrix and that Neo is just a program that kicks in when its time to reboot the Matrix again.

Minor gripes and complaints. The obligatory ass factor: Well, I reckon someone complained that the Matrix wasnt 'sexy' enough, so the ass factor was increased in the MR. Ive already mentioned the 'orgy' in Zion as well as Neo's and Trinity's roll in the VR hay. But it didnt stop there...oh no, we had a VR crotch shot of one poor women( again, the WB's copy themselves...wasnt there a 'blonde' program in the first Matrix..interesting...), Hey, fair is fair...if we can have a VR crotch shot, how about a VR(virtual reality) sketch of say...Morpheus' package?............... Heh Ok, all that stuff about deja vu being a glitch in the matrix was kinda quaint...but werewolves and vampires..that was bordering on cheese to me. Why couldnt the rogue programs just have been rogue programs masquerading as humans.......When the TWins would 'ghost', that looked cheesy.

Anyways, there is my big steaming pile of a Matrix review. There were some things worth seeing, but overall it wasnt nearly as good a yarn as the first movie. This unfortunately, doesnt bode well for Revolutions which was made concurrently with MR. But, I will see it anyway to see exactly what the Matrix is and if the humans will overthrow it. Personally, I hope we just see the humans realize that they lost the war, and they are still pod people and the Matrix gets rebooted.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Portrait of the Tyrant as a Young Man

[13 January 2003]

Let's face it, there will be no capturing of lightening in a bottle twice. The Star Wars saga as we know it is just that, the one we knew. The films we have been given the past few years in the guise of SW films are new beings entirely, so we should treat and approach them as such. But even so, thats still no excuse George, for bad movie making. Onto the review.

When you build a house, you need a blueprint to start with, thus when you contemplate making a movie your blueprint is and should be the screenplay and script.....strike one against this film, right out of the gate. The script is ham-fisted and quite frankly seems lazy and thrown together. The dialogue is painful in many places and though it may lack the over-seriousness of other blockbuster film franchises in theaters now (cough), it is lightyears away( HAH!) from the dry humour and wit of the first SW saga and lacks all that saga's charm. The script does its job in that it advances the plot and storyline, but does it in the meanest way, lacking totally in any subtletly, structure and without the great character interaction that *made* the first SW ( e.g. Luke&Darth Vader, Han & Lea, Han and Lando's friendship, the mysteriousness of Yoda, R2D2 & C-3PO hell, even the Imperial pions were more memorable than some of the more prominent SW characters) George please, I'm begging you, put step away from teh keyboard and turn off the computer b/c you cannot write for s**t!

I do feel that much of the blame for the so-so performances in many stances can be blamed on the bad script. I think when people say that 's0 and so' cant act, what they really mean to say is 'we cared about and loved the characters in the first Saga, they got us emotionally involved, they made us laugh, cry, cheer and boo'. So when people say 'so and so cant act' what they mean is 'so and so didnt make us care' which really means that 'so and so' probably wasnt given the material to do so. So, the next time you critique Portman's or Christensen's performance, consider the source material. However, even truly atrocious lines can be ameliorated a bit by good acting, or the right approach. In this regard I think the standouts were Ewan McGregor who seemed more comfortable and was definitely convincing as the older, and more somber Obi Wan, den mother to Anakin. I also thought that Christopher Lee, who pulls blockbuster double duty, was also great as the tongue in cheek Count Dooku ( the scene with him and Obi on geonosis is hilarious). Natalie Portman was decent enough as Padme, but I feel for her b/c she had many of the worst lines in the film to try and deliver and make believable, which she did to an extent. I even thought she showed some real emotion in the 'confession scene' ( well, til she got to the line " I truly...deeply"...OY!) And yes, if you look close enough, her character did evolve from the first film, as she is no longer queen she is also not quite as stiff and distant, though still properly dignified, being a senator and all. So, kudos to Portman who looked fabulous as well in the film. Which leaves Hayden. Now, dont stone me but....I didnt think he was truly awful. Again, he had some truly horrible and nonsensical lines to say ( "I will even stop people from dying..." Huh?!) but still, he nailed some aspects of the future Darth Vader dead on. Simply put, the boy has great eyes, which he used to great effect to show Anakin's dark, brooding, surly and intense side. The only problem was, he wasnotficient enough in showing some of the boyishness of Anakin- the youthful exuberance and innocence,. The perfect performance would have been to combine the darkness which he displayed well with say....some mannerisms reminiscient of a young Luke Skywalker( think A New HOpe and the first half of Empire); after all, the apple dont fall far from teh tree right? As for the other performances in the film, again I think the actors did the best with what they had to work with, which wasnt much, so the best that can be said is that they are all professionals.

I'm ambivalent about the direction. On the one hand I think it did little to nothing to help the viewer connet emotionally with the characters( then again, with that script....). There were a few arresting shots here and there, but I think different choices would have made a bigger emotional impact on the film. For instance, I would have loved to have seen more of Anakin's rampage on the Tuskans, and I definitely think the clone battle could have been grander. So, once again, George gets bare marks for advancing the story. On the other hand, considering that most of the movie was filmed on bluescreen, its quite an achievment for George in combining all the elements together. Which brings me to my last point- the CGI. Now, I dunno, I think in theory an all digital films is fascinating, but so far in practice its less than stellar. Its too unnerving, and it ruins the suspension of disbelief. To me it also smacks a bit of laziness. The CGI colors are vita-brite, but then again, great cinematography gives the same effect. And its a bit jarring where every scene you see that subtle white outline around the characters that lets you know that they arent really 'there' but are on a blue screen...is it too much to make a set? George cant be strapped for cash. With all the great CGI characters in movies nowadays ( Dobby, Gollum) I have to believe George can do a better job than he did with Ep II ( I for that matter), and that gives me hope for EP 3. One final technical note...the cinematographer needs to be fired. Movie making rule 101- never make the actors look bad in a close-up, their faces should be shot to within an inch of perfection during a close up( see padme and anakin during the 'in the grass' scene). Whoever did the cinematography should be replaced with someone who can work with sunlight effectively.

Now, as flawed as this film is...I still managed to enjoy it somewhat. Basically, the film is eye and ear candy, and if you have a decent home theater system, you owe it to yoruself to experience it on DVD. Plus, ham-fisted as it was, I am a sucker for a love story and well....Ok, Im a female, I thought Hayden was a very good looking, and yes I found his eyes very sexy so there. I maintain the film is still irredeemable, but I like it despite flaws the size of a deathstar and it was ten times better than EP I so, I give it a solid 2.9 stars out of 5. AN

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Visually arresting, so-so on the scrpting.

[20 December 2002]

No doubt about it, TLOTR will be an epic franchise. Everything about the films is BIG- big landscapes, big battles, big score, and TTT is no exception. Its a big movie that impresses us with its grandeur. So, why so small on the script? The plot is fine as the movie starts off with the gang as each doing their part to help defeat the forces of Saurumom & Sauron. But I have to say, the flaws that I felt were in FOTR are still present in TTT- namely the heavy handed, over serious, stilted dialogue, and for the most part zero character development, and lack of character depth. Now, if you just judge LOTR as an action film franchise(along the lines of say Indiana Jones) then sure, its good fare. But for all those who claim these movies are(and will be-ROTK) the epitome of great filmaking, Im sorry but with flaws like these, that cant be the case. But I will say this, I did enjoy TTT more than I did Fellowship. TTT was better paced and more focused since Peter didnt have to bungle his way through the se- up of the story and character introductions. Second, the mood of the film is more desperate and intense, as all the major characters do their part to fight the forces of eeevil. And thirdly, the fight sequences are far far better this go round, better filmed and better directed. I gather that this is due in fact b/c the overall quality of the CGI is so much better that Peter can take the time to really let the scenes develop, and not just cut and slash his way through scenes so that the questionable cgi is just glossed over. Helms Deep just kicked major butt, as well as the Ents rampage. The only letdown I can see is the other cities of Middle EArth- if they are supposed to be the great human cities (Roham, Gondor) then maybe Saurumon is right to get rid of humans, b/c they looked like some backwater village. But, the character of Gollum made up for this, he was by far the best and most realized character in the movie....sad to think that, considering he is a cgi creation, but oh well. Overall, I think the tighter pacing, vast cgi improvements and epic battle scenes saved the film and I could enjoy it regardless of its flaws. So, I deem TTT( and so far the whole LOTR franchise) as a great action flick, great fantasy flick, decent bit of cinema- 3.5 out of five

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

I half of a really great film. *SPOILERS CONTAINED!!!!*

[17 December 2002]

IF the powers that be for the Harry Potter film franchise had combined the best elements of HP&S's S and HP&CoS, they'd really be onto something. The first HP installment was a charmer, the characters and more importantly, the universe of HP were introduced in an easy going way, but with a great sense of wonderment. The general humor of the first film also was spot on..not too cheesy and overbearing, but not understated either. The drawback of the first film though, I felt, was the general lack of suspense. The build up to the mystery of the S's S was a bit lacking and when time came for the three heroes to search the school cellar, I was a little bit less than riveted. Also, the final showdown between HP and umm.....that guy :) , I felt was a bit anti- climactic and a tad bit nonsensical( why even get within skin to skin contact rage w/ Harry? cast a spell and be done with it!). But still, the overall mood of the film was so enjoyable I could overlook these things and take it as it as: a serviceable and workmanlike presentation of a novel franchise, no more no less.

With the second installment, the director(and screenwriter) did a much better job in building up the mystery and mainting a sense dread, doom and suspense. Of course, the sadist in me would have loved to have seen or heard more references to student petrifications just to drive the point home..but they make these films mainly for kids so, its understandable. Even so, I felt the drama of the film was much more intense than the first installment which was to the films credit. The letdown was that the drama came at the expense of the picturesque charm established in the first film. Granted, as the director spent more time on plot than mood, its understandable but I felt it would have been a great balance to the otherwise dark mood of the film. Also, the acting the second go around was a bit dodgy. Standouts of course were Hermione, Harry, the hilarious Ken Branagaugh, and the actor who played Draco's father....very sexy, in an evil way *G*. But, inexplicably, the child acting, aside from Harry and Hermione, was worse the second go around. It wasnt even so much acting as it was pantomiming, and I grew tired of Ron's wide eyed looks of consternation, Draco's scowling and growling and the opera-chorus like reactions of the student body. Next time, tell the kids to tone it down a bit. Because the acting for many of the students was dumbed down , it made some of the attempts at humor seem more ham fisted than was probably deserved, but this was a minor complaint, because the drama and 'mystery' are what keep the film afloat. Two major gripes I had were the deus ex machina of the film, namely the car in the forest and the Phoenix at the end. Actually, there were more instances , but these were the two most glaring. I dont mind deus ex machina too much so long as a reasonable explanation is given, but none was given for either situation, so to me it deflated what were two of the best sequences of the film. And again, the final battle scene had a bit of the nonsensical present like....why would ole' voldy just stand there and let that Phoenix ruin his snake? Or why not keep that book out of harm's way if it was a danger too him? Ahh well.

AS always in films like this, the heavy handed sentimentalism (i.e. Hagrid's ovation at the end) cant be avoided, just borne, so again, Its not too major a complaint. But I still say, if the director and scrweenwriter had only been able to incorporate the action, drama, and suspense of film 2, and the charm, wit and personality of film 1 into both films, they really, really would have had a landmark trilogy on their hands. As it is, both films are equally good in their own right, but well short of classics. But, taken as they are, are very much enjoyable. 3.9 stars out of 5, 8 out of 10 on the entertaining and enjoyable scale. A.N.

BTW- I do think films 2 is better overall, but that for ambience alone, film 1 is more enjoyable.

Maid in Manhattan (2002)

Walking in cold rain is preferable...Pretty Woman, La Vida Loca style!

[15 December 2002]

I only saw this movie b/c I wanted to warm up after having walked in the cold pouring rain to see one film, only to find out that the movie I came to see had already started. Miserable as I was when I sat down to watch the 'Maid in Manhatten', I started to feel worse when the trite, cliche-ridden and mind-numbingly bad waste of celluloid they called a film started rolling onscreen. A film so useless that I decided to brave the elements once again and go home, even though I really was no drier and only mildly warmer than when I came in initially. But give me some credit, I lasted an hour!

Where to begin with this film.(SPOILERS!!!!!)

1)hackneyed story line- it was like a bad Hepburn and Grant screwball Cukor movie, sans the witty dialogue and great character acting. Romantic comedies are nothing new, but its all in the delivery, which for this film was lacking in every way.

2) outrageous plot contrivances - ok, how many ten year olds are well versed in politics and know anything about our system of government? What senator would be so charmed after a 3 minute conversation with any kid to let him accompany him on a dog walk? Oh yeah I forgot...the kid is so 'precocious' and'charming' that it works in this movie.....yeah.

3)suspension of disbelief totally obliterated- J-lo's character actually says at one point (paraphrasing here) 'my goodness, who would actually spend $5,000 on an outfit?!'..well, actually J-lo-you! LOL! How could my suspension of disbelief survive w/ constant references to J-lo's ass , papparazzi and and the vices of the 'rich'. I think the attempt at subtext was a bit of an ironic distraction.

4)cliche, cliche and more cliche- I dont think the script was written so much as it was assembled...OY! Cookie cutters anyone? WE had 1) the cute child, 2) the brassy, balsy best friend, 3) the slightly dim love interest 4) the doubting thomas best-friend of said love interest 5) the fiery, fiesty yet curiously self doubting heroine, ...did we miss anyone? Nah, I think the movie had them covered...sounds like the cast of characters from a similar movie that made a star of a woman in the early 90's...

In summary, only see this movie if you want your intelligence insulted or if you like horribly derivative, hackneyed, ram-the-plot-down-yer-throat ,movies. Or if you need to dry out after walking in the rain and have five bucks to waste. I give the film 2 stars b/c the theater was warm and dry. A.N.

Ghost World (2001)

A Condemnation of the Mundane

[14 March 2002]

First off let me preface this by saying that A) the film is not essentially a coming of age story and that B) its not outright comedy. Life often has many funny moments, but who of us is really willing to call their lives a farce? SPOILERS FOLLOW.

Then again....a farce is exactly what the director of this film makes of much of the mundaness of life. Case in point, the "blockbuster video' store clone...notice the stark, bleak, brightness of it. It is at the same time colorful, brimming with pastels, yet devoid of life and of vibrancy...of character. Again, this method of showcasing the plasticity of suburbia is employed at the new 'trendy' retro-50's diner. It is surgically pristine, shiny, flashy..and dead at the heart. It is uniform in its formica tabletops and shining chrome, lacking any spontaneity or subtlety...it is lifeless. The director does a brilliant job during these scenes in 'mundania' of at the same time submerging you fully in the environment while also creating a sense of unreality and seperateness...we cannot fully accept the truth of that diner or the 'blockbuster video' or of the high school graduation after-party...replete with the blase decorations and the bad music in the background.

The Champion in this film is character. Uniqueness. Originality. The heroes of the film are the underdogs of the life, the forgotten, the shunned. The idiot patron whom Enid says "rocks". The old man, crazy (visionary?) who waits for his phantom bus. The wheelchair bound man who scams for coffee everyday. This, these are the variations, the mutations, those slightly off the mark that make life flavorful and varied..that keep it from being mundane .

Into this dichotomy world of aberration and uniformity we find Enid, Rebecca and Sam. Two are just beginning their life's journey , one has already done so or really never started. Rebecca and Enid are drifting as friends do post high school..one clearly moving on to the mundane adult activities of earning money, finding a residence and furnishing said residence. Enid is hesitant. For her these decisions are not mundane. A job , a profession, an ideology is a direct expression of self. There can be no compromise, thus her disastrous attempt at employment at a movie theater. This lack of compromise is also highlighted in her struggle with the self involved, self-righteous art teacher. Time and again she thwarts Enid's honest attempts at self-expression and pushes her to have more of an agenda...but even so- called 'policital' art is just as trite when it is conciously contrived. This irony is reinforced by the fact that the one piece of art that the teacher appreciates is a picture she did not draw at all. So while Rebecca resents yet slaves away at a local 'starbucks clone' for her wage..Enid is content to remain in her cocoon a while longer...waiting. In comes Seymour, the catalyst. At first the brunt of the girls' self-aggrandizing mockery, Enid later comes to view him as 'one of her people'- weird, out of the ordinary, inept. A friendship develops on her end, out of parts fascination, diversion and dare I say, a sense of power...she recognizes her drifting from her friend and the lack of control in her life..at times like that its nice to be needed. Also, in Seymour she finds, she thinks, a Hero...the man who refused to ever surrender his individuality. One who never excuses his quirkyness. This sense of adulation is expressed by the direction. Notice the richness of the color and the intimacy of the setting during the scenes where Enid and Seymour are together...contrasted with the time one or the other spends in Mundania. Enid's room and Seymour's apartment are like shrines of individuality in the film..rich in color, variety and expression, to square against the soulessness of much of the films locale. Yet, for all Seymour's originality , it comes at the cost of ostracism and lonliness. He himself is even willing to compromise( the scene where he wears the jeans..and his dismissal of Enid, his symbolic self in the film) when love, or at least sexual favors , are on the line. Enid, terrified of having no one, tries to recapture her estranged friend Rebecca, but Rebecca senses her attempts and rejects her, which leaves Enid to initiate a seduction of Seymour, to stroke her wounded ego. Seymour, having found himself again, can now reject his all too ordinary lover...but Enid again, recoils from responsibility. Point blank, Enid is not at a time in her life where she is willing to be responsible to or for anyone , maybe not even herself. The film starts off her with having to go to summer school, she then dodges the apartment issue, outwaits her chance at a scholarship and finally re-nigs on getting the apartment and a job at a computer store (one gets the feeling her resistance towards the end of the film of Rebecca and the job is almost akin to a man chafing under an engagement). So finally we have the reckoning..Enid and Rebecca are still friends, though not as similiar as they once thought( the people Enid still admires, in one scene in the film ,are now just 'losers and freaks' to Rebecca, while guys that Rebecca would bang are 'posers and fakes' to Enid)..the moment when they hold hands for a few silent moments before Rebecca walks away sums it up nicely. Also, Enid makes her peace with Seymour..not willing to be his lover..his everything..but still in admiration of him, as she shows in her art book. Now Enid is at a moment of truth...no crutches to fall back on, no responsibilities( summer school being over) and no diversions..what will she do? She rejects it all...she leaves town. she is on a search for self, to preserve her self. She cannot commit and she cannot compromise and she cannot commit with compromise. She has no place in Mundania, thus she leaves. Its at the same time indecicion and decicion, truth and fantasy. Its a condemnation of the mundane. A Ghost World.

Chocolat (2000)

Left a sour taste....

[6/10 · 11 March 2002]

First off the good points: The chocolate looked wonderful, and anytime one can see Judy Dench onscreen is a reason to be happy. But thats where it all ends. In a word the film was cliched to the gils, trite beyond belief and consequently rendered utterly charmless. Now, it may be perhaps that I've been spoiled by other 'food' films like Eat Drink Man Woman, Babette's Feast(brilliant film) and Like WAter for Chocolate...but there was just something missing from Chocolate that prevented it from endearing itself to me. I think I know what it is...this film felt far too self- concious..as if the actors and directors went around with this thougt in the back of their heads " we are making a charming , sentimental film filled with characters tat you love to love and we will make you love us too". The film started out interesting enough, but once teh 'stock' characters got introduced, it was a barage of one cliche and one plot 'twist' after another . In the end it wasnt a question of how it would end..we all knew how, but rahter of which hackneyed method of execution of the given ending would be employed..not a good sign. In all, I felt this was a horribly contrived film, self-righteous and heavy handed in its 'french charm'. If I were french, Id be offended by this film , and then I'd go rent Babette's Feast again to see a truly moving, charming film..even though it did have a 'sentimental' plot. In a word..this film all a powder puff, and utterly empty inside.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

Please tell me it was a spoof....

[24 February 2002]

WEll...as I do every year, I make a late end push to see all the films with oscar buzz, thus I found myself renting Moulin on DVD. First the good points:

A) the technical merits were all stunning. The lighting, sound, cinematography,(esp the opening CGI shot), costumes(brilliant) and art direction were all world class. As I sat and watched the film I said to myself "this may give LOTR a run for its money in all things technical that arent CGI". So, kudos to the grunts who did the tech work

Now the bad parts.

Script, script, script. All of the above was ruined once the actors openend their mouths. Now, granted, I didnt walk into the theater expecting say the drama of Eisenstein..but still, for an oscar-touted film I expected some sort of ...I dunno....depth to the screenplay. Around hour three,(right around the time my rear started to really ache) I finally said to myself "you know...maybe its like a spoof..an Homage to the culture of the late 19th century fin-de-cicle Paris...maybe its intent is not to *really* tell a story as much as it is to paint a sketch of the time period..." I really hope this was the case. Any decent opera fan will have flashbacks of familiarity during the film. It is a combination La Traviata( doomed courtesan(whore-)with comsumption(Tuberculosis) gives up her idealistic(and dim) lover to save him and goes under the protection of a powerful Duke), and one part La Boheme( poor, penniless artists of late 19th cen paris[ Mcgregor and CO} live it up while their writer friend [Mcgregor] falls in love with a woman doomed to die of consumption[kidman]). So, with that pre knowledge of the genre and of the time period I thought to myself, maybe the director is giving an homage to these operas and the time period in general, and making them accesible to the modern viewer by using 'pop' melodrama instead of an original score to underline the story. Now, that idea settled better with me than the trite garbage that I sat thru for close on three hours. But still, even if it was the directors intention, its nearly a waste of good lighting and costumes. Now..I enjoy a silly spectacle as much as anyone ( I love Rocky Horror, hell, I even own a copy of Pirates of Penzance on VHS...but those movies had no pretensions of serious filmaking in either case nor the budget of Moulin)....but, I just found the whole film , while pretty to look at, trite and vapid. Granted, the storylines of the original operas arent that much better...but at least they had the brilliance of Verdi and Puccini to elevate the words and give them meaning...sadly, Madonna doesnt quite do that in this film.

In short....its a visual spectacle, but at the end, all I really wanted to do was put on my cd of La boheme and flush the taste of this movie out of my mouth.

Incidentallly, I also saw Hedwig and the Angry Inch that night, and by far that was the smarter, and better made musical....with original music to boot! However, Moulin did win on eye candy. But, I do think that maybe one reviewer on here had it right when he said this film was sort of an experiment, on just how far you can stretch a story with the soundtrack. Lets face it, the mark of movie lacking any real strong storytelling is the proliferance of the score to give weight to the 'emotional' moments of the film ( see Titanic, Pearl Harbor, LOTR,nearly any Speilberg movie etc) So, this movie takes it one step further, by incorporating the score into the actual storyline...I must say, judging by the result of the hoopla, MR. Luhrman may be on to something...and thats very sad to learn.

Anna Karenina (1997)

An Abridged abridgement of Tolstoy.

[23 January 2002]

I think perhaps some novels just do not work onscreen. Invariably when people set to adapt Anna on the big screen it gets turned into a period-piece overblown soap-opera esque love story. While it is true the passionate, doomed relationship between Anna and Vronksy is the central figure...it is by no means the ONLY story nor is the fact that they are in love the point.

The point of the novel is a critique of society via the problem of Anna and Vronsky's affair; the search for God, Self and meaning in ones life via Levin and Kitty, to a lesser extent; the function of family via the study of Levin's household, the Karenins, the Oblonsky's the Scherbatsky's and to a lesser extent the Vronsky's(excepting of course Anna and Alexei et all). And as a final issue there how to achieve and keep personal happiness(internally and via personal relationships) and at what cost via Anna, Vronsky, Levin achieve or try to acheive it. Now granted...thats ALOT to somehow show and convey on film..the intense psychologicl, philosphical, moral and religious views that are raised in the novel..and I havent seen a film yet to do it justice. Even the 'classic' film version featuring Garbo is a wash imo as it takes te common-denominator 'soap opera' route.

But, even with all this, I still went out and bought, sight unseen, the latest film version of AK. And sigh...I was still dissapointed. Once again, the base points are covered, and also so half-assed attempt to show Levin's struggle with his inner-self is thrown in..but really, this film is like puff pastry- pretty to look at and satisfying..but in an empty shallow way that leaves you hungry after an hour. As a visual spectacle the film is great- the costumes and sets are great..and give you a real sense of what life was like for memebers of a certain tax bracket in turn-of-the-19th-century Moscow and St. Petersburg. And cinematography is wonderful.very lively colors, very exuberant. But, all that is ruined once the characters open their mouths. Not that the dialogue was truly bad or stilted..but the film just felt glossed over..as if the movie wanted only to get from A-B, leaving the viewer with the feeling of connect-the-dots as the scenes were very disjointed and thrown together. And once again, the bare bones are covered..the Big Love affair of Anna and Vronsky..the scorned husband, the kid and a few tidbits thrown the Levin...if Tolstoy's novel is a feast the film leaves you famished.

All in all...as a movie its a 5...and that is only for the technical aspects...as an adaptation of Tolkein...a 1, and thats only b/c they got the characters names right. My advice: If you have read the novel,watch it with the volume off and just look at the purdy pictures . If you havent read the novel, rent it see it once, then read the book.

Dances with Wolves (1990)

Utterly Unwatchable

[7/10 · 17 January 2002]

Yet another movie in the litany of films I have dubbed 'Too Boring To Be Believed and Utterly Unwatchable' Congratulations Kevin!! You have now joined the esteemed ranks of such marvels as:

The English Patient: 5 yawns out of 5(still good to knock you out within the first 20 minutes....an all-time heavyweight in this list.)

Tron:2 yawns out of 5(though to be fair, I was 7 or 8 when I first saw it but...it has aged well!)

Sommersby: a yawing and pretentious 3 yawns out of 5( merchant-ivory at their somnulent best)

Titanic: 3 yawns out of 5( things do pick up after we meet the best villain of all-time: The Iceberg..but everything before that is Snoozeville)

Bringing out the Dead: 4 yawns out of 5 (Its almost a joke that Scorsese named this pic that, as It put me dead asleep)

Bowfinger: 4 yawns out of 5(just painfully bad)

Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon: 2 yawns out of 5 (well..maybe not unwatchable, but lets just say the desert sequence is always good for 20 winks)

Wyatt Earp: 4 yawns out of 5 ( IS there a pattern here?..Way to go Kev!)

Robin Hood: Prince of Theives: 5 yawns out of 5 ( The Trifecta is complete!..and to this day I still hate that Brian Adams song)

As you can see Kevin, you are in remarkable company. Keep up the good work!

This review was paid for and sponsored by the American Insomniac's Association. AI for short(what do u know..another yawner!)

Oliver! (1968)

Dickens would be proud...

[10/10 · 17 January 2002]

And I proud I am!!(my last name is Dickens). This is the movie that made me appreciate the author who shares my last name. It was that appreciation that drew me towards a love of books and becoming an English Lit major later on in life so, its not an understatement to say that this movie meant alot to me as a child when I first saw it. Quite simply, this movie works on all level: it is great fun and entertainemnt for an adult, and it is spellbiding for a child. It has a grand, BIG feel to it, which sweeps you away into 19th century Industrial England. The set designer really knocked himself/herself out, and the costumes are all great- you can see this especially in the 'Consider Yourself' number..the attention to detail on the different trades at the time and how they went about their work is just phenomenal.

AS for the adaptation, I have seen movies based on Oliver Twist, and this film,IMO, is dead on with the social commentary that more 'serious' films make. Yet, it also tries to show the movie, I feel, through young Oliver's eyes, which makes the whole thing so magical. So it has both, the dour social commentary of Dickens' original book and yet the lightheartedness of the eyes of a child, and of the muscial genre in general...sort of like the English version of Fiddler on the Roof.

As for the music, what can I say? A true classic. There is not one song that I dont enjoy in the film..and the musical numbers while they may not have the great dancing of say the usual R&H musical, but the genius here is the staging. Not only are they entertaining number..but they are also informative..showing you the way the workhouse is run, or what a morning in the center of London is like..or a typical morning in the 'posh' section of London..just wonderful. and this may seem weird, but the thing I always liked best about the music numbers is...they never stop the action. Most films after a huge number stop, then cut to a next scene, but in this film the action keeps on rolling along as if its the most normal thing in the world to have a huge musical number..I dunno, there is just something wonderful about that to me and it makes it standout to other muscials for me.

The actors..while none have gone on to be household names...this was their moment to shine. The Best: the young boy who played Dodger and of course, Ron Moody as the lovably-crooked Fagin..just great performance. Also a young Oliver Reed is great as Bill Sykes and his lady love Nancy is a standout as well. As Oliver well, the boy who plays him(sorry didnt look at the credits) evokes the pathos appropriate for that role.

So, in the final analysis..what more can be said. Just a great great shining example of the musical genre, and a brilliant bit of film making no matter the genre. Great songs, great numbers, great sets, great actors, great designs= Timeless classic movie. See it and treat yourself.

Meet the Feebles (1989)

Still Peter Jackson's best work

[28 December 2001]

Gawd I love this movie!!!!!! Just hilarious all round.

Wickedly funny spoof of the 'Muppets' show and dare I say...shrewdly hidden social commentary i.e.the quack celebrity doctor, the reporter fly who literally eats human excrement, the exploitative producer who traffics drugs and porn and makes a profit off of human misery/exploitation, the sex addicted 'rabbit' who catches The Big ONE etc. This movie is just great from top to bottom....gross out comedy yet there are some very sharp one-liners(usually uttered by the troupe director, the fox Sebastion...just brilliant!!!) Now its not great cinema..but I found the melodrama to be very effective when portrayed by non humans...allowing people to see how vapid and shallow 'show biz' can be...and how flawed are the people who put it onscreen. Yet, the movie was not without a heart...as the few caring souls in this company are spared 'the final curtain' But..deep social commentary aside, its just a funny, thoroughly enjoyable movie. I watched it 3 times and one day and never got tired of it once. Just brilliant and way better than the bloated Fellowship of the Rings.

Best Lines of the movie(they make sense if u have seen the film): Sebastion- "OH MY GOD!...Next!" Trevor- "Alright you fat slag, move your a**!" Daisy the cow"Oh god, not another panty sniffer, he's gonna want me to [unrinate] in his mouth next!!"

Sigh..such a classic.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Imagine the Mummy with delusions of Grandeur.(spoilers)

[1/10 · 27 December 2001]

Ok, I admit, I liked The Mummy movies. They are fun, totally unpretentious, have good CGI..are a good way to eat some popcorn...yet not what I call 'high cinema' by any means..but then again, it doesnt set out to be, so I enjoy it for what it is. Sigh...maybe Jackson really meant to make a Mummy movie. If thats true, then its a shame considering the source material he had to work with.

Don't get me wrong..the movie was good, worth seeing, very entertaining, and surely better than Phantom Menace- but only just so. While Phantom Menace only had Lucas' feeble literary talents to rely on, FOTR had (supposedly) THE greatest fantasy novel of all time, the template by which other series are based, the creator of 'fantasy' as we know(and love) it today. So why was the film so paltry? The reason is that Jackson like Lucas fell victim to the same faux pas...

Faux Pas #1-Assumption of prior familiarity: Lucas relied on the audience's past knowledge(and love) of the SW world to 'carry them' thru the film and supply all the emotion(not good). Similarly, Jackson's movie did the same. I was introduced into alot of characters in this movie and b/c of the frenetic pacing and abysmal screenplay, I only definitively knew the names of say 5 characters-maybe. I had no insight into who they were, what drove them, what their relationships to others were..nothing. Most of the characters, save maybe Gandalph and Frodo were limited to 2D, at best, rendering them mere props and not the grand characters I imagine they are in Tolkein's novels. Thus I had the feeling that had I read the book, alot of what happened would have made more sense and I would have cared what happened to the characters.I would have been involved and 'pulled' into the film. As it was..I was interested in what happened...but not horribly affected either way by what did happen, a few scenes aside.

Faux Pas #2-Ok granted...I say Lucas did better in this respect...character interrelationships. Quite frankly, I saw very little of what made the "fellowship' an actual fellowship other than the 'annointing' at Rivenden(another place I didnt know the name of til I went to chat after the movie). It seemed to me the reaction by the fellowship to Gandaph's 'passing' was amusingly exaggerated(eps with the violins in the background)..when you consider that half of them had only met the man (what seemed like) days ago. I saw nothing to hint at any nature of a relationship between most of the characters,excpet for maybe Frodo and Gandalph. The boys meet Strider..they go off with him for no apparent reason. Strider has a lady love..they have a scene for seemingly no reason as I was not given any back info to show me why I should care about them. It seemed to me that Arwen was a horribly contrived characer...her only raison d'entre being to save Frodo's life...Deus ex Machina to the nth degree. Then Gimli(another name I learned after the movie)utters the trite 'the felloship is broken' while the whole time I'm like 'well...its only been a few days..that was a quick dissolvement and besides...its not like they are chums anyway'. It just seemed to me that the movie threw conclusions at you, but gave you no reasonable build up or preparation. I mean..come on...we see them travel on foot on a mountain, but after that all of a sudden they have a horse named Bill that apparently is dear to them?!?Please.

Faux Pas #3 Too Many smoke and mirrors at the expense of storytelling-Here Lucas and Jackson both failed miserably. But...at least where Lucas did it, he did it well. I really cant beleive comments that say the visuals were breath taking. Yes some of the scenery was really good, and some of the CGI was grand. But the rendering in some of the scenes was just horrible-I mean..In Ep 1 I know everything was not real, but at least the parts that werent were not GLARINGLY fake..the scene with the cave troll was just laughable. The Balrog...good, but how can I be scared of this 'monster' when 9 character have just outrun 1000 baddies....and no the graphics were not 'groundbreaking' for it either. The cinematography during the CGI scenes too often seemed blurry...I felt sorry for the folks up front during those scenes. So, on the whole I felt the graphics were derivative and in some cases dowright bad. I saw better eye candy in Shrek and FF this year. But, so as not to seem to nitpicky Ill say this...the effects I can live with, as long as I get a good story with good characters..story was good but woefully failed in part 2 for me.

Faux Pas #4-this one belongs to Jackson alone...Condensation of an Epic Story. And no, I dont mean condensation in terms of what was or was not in the books b/c I havent read them. I mean in terms how...if this story is so epic, sweping and grand...how come it feels like it took 10 days? We are told how far it is to get to Rivvendale(i think?)..yet, three days later wham! here we are. Gandalph leaves frodo, journeys to a place seemingly 2 blocks away from Mt. Doom and comes back to the shire in what seems like hours. We are told the Fellowship are in for a long perilous journey..yet seemingly 2 days later, there they are in the mines, halfway there. Now granted...time is a concern..but surely they could have done something...some scenes of them 'on the road'(and not of them just arriving at the place they need to be), maybe some change of seasons.the only snow I saw was at the top of a mountain..yet, when they visit Cate Blanchett it seems sunny and warm again like it was when they set out.Or how about even some wear and tear on the characters..something, a voice over saying how many 'moons' had passed, something. Given the pacing of the movie I lost alot of the 'epic scope' Id hoped a film like this would possess. It made it feel horribly rushed like everything in between battles was just the set up to get to another battle....Like another movie I know...like The Mummy.-AN 7 out of 10 stars

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Is there something I missed....

[1/10 · 22 December 2001]

Ok..b4 we get into this let me preface by saying I'm a HUGE fantasy fan. As a child I read loads of mythology and as I got older I got into fantasy novels, and yes, I even enjoy a good sword and sorcery flick. When I first saw the trailer for LOTR a year ago my jaw hit the floor. I coulndt not WAIT to see this movie...and so a year passed. I came to the theater wanting to be swept away into the majesty that is Tolkein...I came wanting to be blown away and fall irredeemably in love with the film. Sigh...maybe I wanted too much.

Now the film is not bad, not bad at all..in fact in all honesty I can say that it is prob among the top 5 films released this year(which may not m,ean much considering what came out this year) Yet..I did not come away with a magical feeling..that warm feeling inside when u know u have had a truly good movie experience. I came away a bit fatigued(3 hrs is 3 hrs) and midly dissapointed.

The good: overall, I'd say the cast is very good. Id aways thought Viggo was a good actor and he finally got a role he could shine in. Ian Mckellar was great as a somewhat vulnerable Gandolph and Ian Holm was delicious as Bilbo...he made a hobbit actually seem creepy. And the guy who played Samwise(the boy from the goonies) was actually good as well.Even Liv Tyler was impressive(though tolkein purists will claim she had no business in the book) and of course Ms. Blanchett did her usual best(with a narroly defined role).

The bad: the script- I just felt( and still do) that if you have read the books( and mr.jackson was admitedlly a HUGE Tolkein buff) you got alot more out of the movie. I think maybe he assumed a prior knowledge and relationship w/ the characters cuz there was very little development of the characters and their relationships to each other. Thats why when a certain cast member died,..I really felt everyone was taking it a bit too hard on screen, lol. Secondly, the dialogue could be on the cheesy side. Now, I know its Tolkein..but at least let me fall in love with the characters b4 u get all cheesy and sentimental on me...at least the two bumbling hobbits were there for a bit of comic releif.

CGI- was it just me, or was the rendering horrible? Cgi is always noticeable even if done well..but some scenes were just embarassingly bad. Also, the cinematography was not very crisp..I felt like I was watching the movie thru a haze the whole time. Now granted..the technical failings of the movie dont really bear much on how much I enjoy the plot..but still, for all the money spent..I dunno, I would have thought at least the cinematography would be good.

pacing: point blank...when the characters weretn running for their lives..it dragged. Since the script failed to get me involved with the characters, I just was blase at best about any reflections they may have . This was especially apparent at the initial 'meeting of the fellowship' scene. Suddenly there are all these characters that have no discernable relationship whatsoever...yet, they all weep like babies when that certain cast member died...didnt make much sense to me. Now dont get me wrong...there were a few poignant moments( i liked the scene with sam at the end..touching....and Sean bean's charac too..touching) but to me..it was all disjointed...very little flow..I could never really sink my teeth into the film.

So, instead of being ravenous for the next installement when the film finally ended..I left like 'well..maybe the next one will be better'. Now, I will say, it was alot better than Phantom Menace..I was never just bored outright..but for all the hype and commotion..I was underwhelmed. Dont let fantasy/tolkein groupies lead u astry, its a good film..but not a great film and nowhere near as good as the first Star Wars trilogy. Sigh...everywhere that I go I read reviews of this nature..so much so that next week I shall see the film again and see if therw was somenthing I missed the first time-A.N.

Mommie Dearest (1981)

A Plea for Interactive Fun....

[8/10 · 28 July 2001]

umm what can I say...as an expose of mental/emotional cruelty , the movie is eye-opening.....but at the same time the Crawford family sure knows how to put the FUN is dysfunctional!!!!!!!!!! This movie, to me, is right up there with Rocky Horror Picture Show, its so over-the-top and outrageously campy, its ripe for parody and will endure for generations!!!!!..I thoroughly look forward to the time when on Friday nights you will see loads of people amble into small theaters dressed up in full crawford/40's regalia.....crowds of people who know every scene, every nuance, who will quote along with the movie and add witty snippets of their own, increasing the mirth. Frankly, this is an idea I feel who's time is due..all those in favor of midnight viewings of Mommie Dearest say AYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But...if that idea doesnt fly, the movie as AT THE LEAST, RIPE to be on MST 3K!!!!!!!