Change Your Image
Grand Wizard
Reviews
Mao's Last Dancer (2009)
Doesn't capture spirit of the book
Paint by numbers formulaic movie for the masses, Mao's Last Dancer fails to capture the poignancy and spirit of the book.
Pointlessly swapping between the US and China story lines, as well as plenty of inaccuracies from the book, the movies fails to deliver.
Characters are not developed in depth, many key moments from the book are not included. The intimacy and tightness with his family and his brothers, the wonder and awe of the trip to US, the conflict between capitalist west and communist east, the harshness of the communist regime, the intimacy with his fellow students at the Beijing dance academy etc are not explored. Overall, a disappointment.
If you read the book, don't bother seeing the movie.
The Business of Strangers (2001)
One of the worst movies of all time.
You get bad movies, like Johnny Mnemonic, which nobody in all seriousness is ever going to take seriously.
What makes a movie like Business of Strangers worse, is that people actually do take this piece of pretentious drivel seriously.
So what does this movie have going for itself?
The deep myriads of complexities and frustrations of corporate women living in a man's world. The delicate nuances of female relationships. Serious undertones of oppression and rape.
All sounds pretty good. Unfortunately this is all irrelevant. This is because the acting is so flat, the script so vague, the directing so lame, the backdrop so bleak, the context so contrived that the viewer is left thoroughly uncaptivated after approximately 10 minutes.
To sit through the entirety of this movie is an exercise in sheer willpower.
Julia Stiles's performance is so pathetically one dimensional (usual teen angst crap that she always does, eg 10 things, Save the last dance, ad nauseous). I vow never to watch another Julia Stiles movie again. As for Stockard Channing, I like her in West Wing but dunno... this movie just sucked so much that she just gets brought down with it.
How can people actually compare this with "In the company of men" on an EQUAL footing? I'd like to point out the fundamental difference between the two movies. ITCOF is actually good, while TBUS is absolute drivel.
Do yourself a favour and steer clear of this painfully painfully bad experience.
In case you did have the complete and utter misfortune to watch TBUS, take consolation and solace from this comment that you are not alone.
The Party (1968)
Absolutely pathetic
This movie was absolutely pathetic.
Do yourself a favour, and turn this movie off after 5 mins (the only two funny parts of this movie occur during this time):
1. Peter Sellers wearing a waterproof watch
2. Peter Sellers accidentally detonating the dynamite
But the actual party is one big long bore. I was having trouble figuring out if it was the waiter or Peter Sellers who was the main character (both were equally NOT funny).
How many times did the waiter actually appear? It was painful seeing the same gags overused time and time again (ie the one waiter strangling the other, or the lady of the house falling over the balcony into the pool about a 100 times).
The Peter Sellers flooding the bathroom gag was just plain bad. The whole party was just plain bad. The whole movie was just plain bad.
And as if it wasn't already intolerably bad by this point, chuck in a bunch of hippy kids with a painted elephant... horribly horribly bad.
I'm not surprised with the good rating of this movie, there are always going to be fans with typewriters who automatically assume anything with Peter Sellers is great.
However, the discerning film viewer would do themselves a favour by steering well clear of this farce.
Blood Simple (1984)
The movie has been butchered.
*** Spoilers contained within ***
First of all, I found this to be a stylish film noire, although it was a bit slow at times.
However, the original vision of the Coen brothers, would have made a far more powerful movie. On the DVD, we are indebted to Kenneth Loring, of the Forever Young Film Preservation Society, who was fortunate enough to be at the original screening; for doing a very venerable job of painting to us, the viewer, the original vision of the Coen brothers.
Originally, the PI was actually known as Zhivkov, son of the Bulgarian dictator, Todor Zhivkov. You may remember in the opening scene, the line "In Russia, they got it mapped out so that everyone pulls for everyone else", that somewhat incongruous reference to communist Russia; the line was originally suppose to be "In Bulgaria, Dad's got it mapped out so that everyone pulls for everyone else"... --- immediately we are intrigued, who is Dad?... and how did the PI end up a washout in Texas, after being presumably sent abroad for his education.
As the original vision of the movie develops, we are shown a flashback scene of young Zhivkov Jr, back in a Bulgarian classroom, whispering to a girl, "I love you Magda", but the girl doesn't hear, and by the time she is listening, the teacher has sent the son of Zhivkov to a detention room - we see the brave young boy singing a Bulgarian Red Army tune in a piping boyish voice. We start to sympathize with Zhivkov to some degree. At a later point, in a flashforward we see old Magda, queueing in the snow, a poor woman, waiting for some toilet paper. So we know her life hasn't been happy, her suffering and dignity adds depth.
If you pause the movie at the first shot of the lighter, and others later on, you will see the shot is obviously of a younger man's hand. This is because, originally, the "Loren" lighter, said "Todor", a reference to the Bulgarian dictator, Todor Zhivkov... immediately the connection between "Todor" and the opening "Bulgaria Dad" statement is made, and we become more intrigued by this Zhivkov Jr character, who he is, how did he get to become what he is now.
When Zhivkov loses the lighter, he panics, and races to the airport in his little beat up car; this scene being intertwined with Ray discovering the shot Marty. Zhivkov flies back to Bulgaria, through Checkpoint Charlie, whereupon his Dad instructs him to retrieve the lighter, which we can presume to be a precious family heirloom
Meanwhile, the characters of Abby & Ray are developed. We see them at a local fair, whereupon they arrive at a little stand, and Abby falls in love with a Walrus piggybank... which can be acquired by knocking down the milk bottles with a softball. Lo and behold, Ray wins, and turns down offers by the attendant of one of their more expensive prizes... insisting that he has the walrus piggybank --- you know how lovers are. Every time these lovers made love, they each put a coin in the piggybank. Other scenes of them show them riding a rollercoaster together and sharing a hotdog. We warm to these characters so much more.
We now find ourselves at the final "showdown", the two lovers arguing over the light switch, now so much more moving considering the history between them. Then, as the son of Zhivkov breaks in, we see him club Ray over the head with the Walrus piggybank (which is bereft of meaning in the recut release)... the coins rolling on the floor; such a poignant scene.
Then, as we find ourselves at the end, when Abby shoots the son of Zhivkov, you may recall, in the recut release, Abby says something like "I'm not afraid of you Marty"... to which Zhivkov replies "Well ma'am if I see him, I'll sure give him the message". In the ORIGINAL, Zhivkov says... "Madam, I am not your husband, I am Rodopi Zhivkov". This hits home like a fist to the stomach; we are hearing his name for the first time; humanizing him, realizing him in the moment his reality is extinguished.
The scene then dissolves to young Zhivkov, singing a Bulgarian Red Army tune in his native homeland, a picture of innocence... only to end in a bathroom in Texas. To add a touch of the cyrillic flavour, the credits had the p's and r's reversed; now, the credits have been replaced by a mundane regular font.
As Loring relates, of the people left in the theatre as the credits rolled, nobody moved. Stunned. Absolute silence.
How did it get that the whole Zhivkov and Abby/Ray stories got just literally hacked out of the movie? Due to the then executive of Circle Films, who felt the Bulgarian connection was too much for the general public to grasp. We are forever indebted to Loring for going on the record to reveal the name of this cretin, trying to justify his job, for ripping the humanity out of this movie... a certain Adrian Butts. Loring describes him as a "short, toady little man, round face, round glasses, hair quite wispy on top, front teeth sticking out and his tongue clattering against them with a quite disconcerting wetness when he's excited"... although no amount of description is capable of describing the appalling actions of this man.
Upon finishing listening to the commentary, I was left feeling so angry that the heart of this movie had been ripped out of it, by a stupid executive... for the sole purposes of "dumbing this movie down for the masses". It is a sad world we live in.
If possible, rent the DVD for yourself and listen to Loring's heartfelt commentary.
The Wizard has spoken.
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
disappointment
**spoilers within***
I was disappointed in Requiem For a Dream.
Just because the movie is original and has some cool directional effects does not mean it should shamelessly be branded "genius". The user comment summary on the main "Requiem For a Dream" page says:
"Killer Performances by Ellen Burstyn...Darren Aronofsky, Stanley Kubrik has called for you to pull up a chair!"
I mean, please, Stanley Kubrick, apart from being dead, has definitely not said anything about pulling up a chair. To lump Darren Aronofsky & RFAD with the unrivalled genius of Kubrick & The Shining/Eyes Wide Shut/Paths of Glory/Barry Lyndon... need I go on... is an unpardonable sin. Anyway, allow me to continue.
The movie has to grip you on a deeper level than purely superficial which me, my bro & my mate all agree it does not.
That does not mean I don't agree with the movies message, that addiction leads to a downward spiral of destruction, I just thought the movie wasn't that gripping or as interesting as I had hoped. I also do not think this is a "drugs are bad" movie per se, the movie is just impartially illustrating a case scenario of addictions on various levels.
The movie loses momentum, and the continual intermissions of cocaine snorting, pot smoking and heroin injections disturb the flow of the movie after a while. By the end of the movie rather than be shocked at how appaling the situation has become, I was just glad the predictable and inevitable ending was over.
A word from the wizard: "there's more to a good movie than original directing and shock stories".
Overall i was left disappointed by the movie, expecting more from it. 5/10.
The Cider House Rules (1999)
easy-viewing movie for the masses
****SPOILERS****
i was hoping for a powerful tour-de-force movie.
instead, i got an easy-viewing movie aimed at the dumb public.
it was predictable: boy leaves orphanage, gets chick, goes back to orphanage as doctor.
total easy-viewing movie, i was not at all gripped, i didn't care about anything that happened, because the movie had failed to suck me into it. way too long, it should be 90 mins tops.
if you want a happy-feel good ending, watch "the shawshank redemption", if you want an emotional tour-de-force powerful movie watch "the sweet hereafter".
2/10. peace out.
The Score (2001)
very average.
***spoilers within***
after doing a power search of all de niro films on imdb.com, i came across "the score"... it was new , so i hadnt heard about it yet... looked interesting... so i clicked on the link....
and robert de niro AND ed norton? awesome, i thought.
how wrong could i be.. the movie was bad.
it was very cliche, predictable and formulaic. i couldnt believe that both norton and de niro would accept to play their respective parts in this movie.
movie starts out with de niro at work, sets the scene, bla bla... moves real slow... then like.. they need the passwords, de niro calls his guy, bit of tension (oh im so on the edge of my seat) at the park, where they exchangee. etc.. some geek on his computer and his mom hacks into some copmuter and some IT admin chats him in a private chat room!! wow thats cool .... erm. one hopes you're familiar with the literary device known as sarcasm.
norton always just seems to know when to pop up near the start, walking into max's house, the nightclub etc.... the whole "one last heist" thing was very tiring.. boring, ya de dah, who cares, we all know hes gonna do it anyway, etc.. the whole girlfriend thing is tiring too..... relationships/women just clutter a movie =) i dont reckon de niro and norton gelled very well...
altho its not easy to gel with de niro... however, check out de niro & reno in RONIN... awesome team, awesome movie.
man i was SO disappointed in this movie.. as i'm so my fellow de niro and decent action/adventure lovers will agree.
stick to RONIN and HEAT.
BAD BAD BAD... BAD. what a let down.
Dog Day Afternoon (1975)
what a crap movie, what a let-down
*** spoilers contained within ***
7.9/10. #206 on imdb.com all time rankings. al pacino. these elements certainly seemed to point to an awesome movie. me and my mate spotted this movie at the local video shop and noted it for future reference, we hired it last night... and we were looking forward to a great movie.
i guess it was a bad omen right from the start, the unprofessional manner in which al pacino clumsily ripped his shotgun from his gift-wrapped box... it was disappointing the pathetic manner in which they held up the bank, unprofessional and emotional, unable to get the job done. lighting a fire in the bank? how stupid...
the actors were pretty crap, the fbi guy sheldon, and moretti too. at least the pizza guy offered some comic relief. another thing, we noticed that al pacino spoke different to usual, like a stereotypical gay guy... which was annoying.. when we found out he actually was gay, as was exemplified by a long boring phone call to his "wife" Leon, the PENNY DROPPED. listen to the way al pacino says "please put out that fire" near the start of the movie.. he sounds so pathetic. i did appreciate the bits where he manipulates the crowds .. when he steps outside etc, but overall i was disappointed in this movie.
i guess it was a hit in the gay community. i dont see why else it is so rated... it is long and boring.
also the dvd had no special features, and the picture quality left somewhat to be desired, with notable artefaction in the backgrounds.
after the gruelling exercise of watching this 119 min movie, i immediately logged onto imdb.com and gave it a 1/10, feeling thorougly depressed after hoping to be in for a great watch.
American Psycho (2000)
very bad movie
**SPOILERS CONTAINED WITHIN***
i can't believe how monotonous this movie was. after seeing so many action - drama - thrillers... a movie is going to require more than just cutting someone up with an ax for no apparent reason to enjoy... that type of stuff is no big deal.
needless to say, the movie did not offer any more... the 80s mundane setting alone is enough to want to go shoot yourself.... every scene is so bland, so boring, his (patrick batemans) apartment is so boring, so impersonal...
all the actors are boring impersonal greaseball yuppie schmucks with no personality and no life... you can't relate to this movie on any level... and the lead actor patrick bateman has a LISHP.... very annoying.
on a positive note, i did like the business card scene when they all took out their business cards and compared.
overall: 3/10. incredible waste of time.
Amores perros (2000)
Hardly a masterpiece
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** this movie focuses on 3 separate stories intertwined by a
common event - a car crash involving members from all 3 stories.
the movie starts off at a brisk pace, focussing on octavio + his brother + sister in law, and the dog fights...
however i started to lose interest in the movie when the 2nd story played: about a man who leaves his wife and kids to be with a supermodel.
the supermodel loses her dog in down a hole in the floor, and about an hour of the movie is devoted to dog .. called "richie", and his recovery... and the mundane relationship development betweent he supermodel and the man who left his wife...
you could snip that entire story out and the movie would be an hour shorter and heaps better.
the third story, regarding an old man who left his wife+kid to join the guerillas, and ended up spending 20 years in jail.. deals with his inability to let go of his emotional baggage regarding his daughter... etc... very touching, if you're still awake.
overall, 2 stories: man leaves wife + kids to be with supermodel, and the deadbeat dad, are 2 things we are all too familiar with.. big deal. the story with the hopeless octavio and the sister in law is the most interesting, and the final outcome regarding octavio/sis-in-law was pleasing ... and whether octavio high-tails it at the end on the bus... it was real, not contrived...
no this movie is NOT AT ALL pulp fiction... it has the chopping between scenes/going back in time etc.. but thats it.
some humour could have been interjected at points to lighten the mood. Also.. some more scenes of mexico city could have been interesting too. good actors, but far too slow paced.
6/10.