Change Your Image
mjl1966
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
A story that misses its own point.
Written by two experienced TV writers and a science fiction novelist, you would expect this movie to have more, well... character.
The only real story here is Spock discovering the value of his humanity, which is paralleled by V'ger's own identity crisis. Excellent grist for the mill. But the guys forget to turn the crank.
The reason many find it boring is because Star Trek TMP does not develop the core story nearly to the depth it deserves. Instead, we get very long sequences of spectacle which absolve Disney of all guilt for committing the crime of Spectacle First. And the spectacle does not age well. A lot of symmetrical optical camera work with some noticeable matte lines that ILM had figured out how to eliminate by then. But Dykstra was not part of ILM anymore and so he didn't get the memo. But I digress. Cool spectacle, but not a story.
The reason some fans defend this film is because there IS a kernel of a story which suits the Star Trek thematic aesthetic to a T. Who am I? Why am I here? Excellent thematic questions for a Star Trek movie. Explored by less than fifteen minutes of film. The rest is a long setup of two parties to a love interest clumsily attached to what little story there is, Kirk arguing with his younger XO, lots of Enterprise hero shots and Wormhole Follies. Yes, the end is climactic. But it is curiously uninteresting because they forgot to set up the story to its full potential. And it actually doesn't make sense in relation to the all-too-quiet story buried in all that celluloid.
I can almost hear one of these guys saying, "Hey fellas, we need to come up with 120 minutes of something for them to shoot. And we're running out of time." And what they came up was a bunch of filler that could have stuffed the memory of Lucas's EditDroid.
The reason it's lambasted: You had something here. Why didn't you do something with it?
The reason it's defended: You had something here. We'll just ignore the fact you didn't do anything with it.
For this Trekkie, it's a sad disappointment because I can see how grand this movie could have been. If only it hadn't missed its own point. Instead, we get a movie left in the shadow of Wrath of Khan, an archetype-driven western we all love but should have paled in comparison to what we could have seen here.
Last Sentinel (2023)
Tender, mysterious and thoughtful
I guess I'm of a minority that enjoys understated movies with a point presented in a way that makes you stop and go hmmm....
The last movie that really did that for me was Last Night (with Sandra Oh.)
The end of the world has come and gone. A crew of four stands fast on the last standing base between Them and Us, safeguarding a nuclear weapon.
When their relief crew is three months overdue, the pressures of isolation in an uncertain world slowly bring the crew to a boil, revealing a myriad of perspectives from people trying to find purpose in a world where there is none.
With an intriguing suspenseful pace, The Sentinel gives you enough time to think, rewind and try to work out just what is going on while exploring the broken psyche of those left behind after a global apocalypse.
What I like here is the intimate portrayal of normal people living in an abnormal world but still just trying to be... normal. Every character is a portrait of a broken heart in the wake of the apocalypse. Unlike most dystopian fare, the focus here is on the hearts and minds of the few left behind, not so much the adventure of surviving. Here, it is the soul that struggles to survive.
I found the film to be intensely cathartic, which makes it good drama by definition. It's probably one of those movies whose frequency you are either dialed into or not. If it speaks to you, it will do so deeply. If it doesn't, you'll probably wonder why I'm singing its praises.
Yes, the pace is suspenseful. It has to be to let things soak in and brew. But I was intrigued from beginning to end.
I think part of it, too, is that it comes from Estonia, a small country that has more than once been downtrodden by history. I senses a pensiveness here that most American films won't touch. (And that's really too bad.)
To me, The Sentinel is an oasis in a desert of mediocre (at best) film making that pervades the screen today. It was thoughtful and sincere without the saccharin preaching that comes with so many "artistic" movies these days. This one's the real deal.
Heroes (1977)
Blast from the past - it's hard to hear from so many years away
I know this is going to sound snooty or - what's the word these days? Oh, yeah, like a gatekeeper.
I saw Heroes when it first came out in the theater. We didn't have Internet, we had CB radios. We didn't have e-mail, we had telephones. We didn't have CDs, we had records. The world was real and you couldn't get away from it.
We were two years off the evacuation of Saigon and the country was haunted by a sort of mass PTSD because of the war and the economy. America was very much adrift. For the first time ever, we didn't know who we were.
And, honestly, I think you have to have been there to fully appreciate the zeitgeist of the film.
Jack is an ordinary man bludgeoned by extraordinary circumstances. Like the country, he's forgotten who he is and yet still fights for his place in the world. Joined by a civilian woman who also doesn't know who she really is, they embark on an accidental journey of exploration and hard answers.
In this film, America at large is bent, cynical and tired. This WAS America in the 1970's. When Jack spills a cup of coffee, an old woman tells Carol to clean it up and hands her the mop. America was tired of cleaning up messes. And, to a certain extent, didn't know how to clean up its own. It's little allegorical gems such as this that make the movie a particularly insightful drama of its time and utterly bewildering to modern audiences. You have to listen.
Unlike it's Desert Storm cousin, Courage Under Fire, Heroes refuses to be self-conscious. It is a hard-edged performance that sneaks up on you and refuses to pull punches. It's not fancy, clever or thoughtful. It is sincere, something film-makers have forgotten how to do.
If you've ever told a veteran "thank you for your service," this movie explains why you really shouldn't. American vets, whether their war was Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, face the same thing. They didn't serve. They lost a part of themselves they can never get back.
This movie explains that to a T.
The Miseducation of Cameron Post (2018)
Message done right
It's difficult to write about this film in the objective language of a review because it leans very heavily on its thematic core, but with an oblique angle that draws you into the story rather than beating you over the head with the message.
Here, we see young lesbian Cameron suffering as she gives reformation the old college try at a Christian youth camp. Setting aside the somewhat lazy sniping of Christianity, the perils of youth in a non-accepting world are deftly explored as lives are slowly destroyed by people who not only don't understand their students, but don't seem to quite know their own place in the universe. It makes for a compelling rendition of the question: Who are you to tell me who I am?
But there's more to it than that. The angle that moved me the most and made me stop and really think about what it must be like for somebody like Cameron was the simple fact that it's hard enough to find your identity as a teenager - it's even harder when the world tells you who you are is wrong, even as you don't quite yet know who that person is. Cameron is not a staunch in-your-face LGBTQ+ warrior and neither is this movie. On the contrary, Cameron is herself unsure of who she is, and we find her at a time in her life when she's just worked up the courage to explore her true identity.
And I think that's why this film is so moving... it says more than just, "Let me be me." Rather it says, "Can you give me a minute to figure out who I am?" That is a more important call for equity and one that gave this viewer considerable pause.
I also found it easy to connect with these characters because, even though they are drawn to be slightly askew, they are really just ordinary kids facing all the same angst as other kids. They're not banner-waving rebels vying for pride. They're just trying to breathe. And this makes them exceptionally human.
Sincere and thought-provoking without being preachy. Good stuff.
Mother/Android (2021)
I, Sophie's Zombies
A mash-up of stories oft told, Mother/Android, in addition to needing a better title, needs a better story.
Although covering well-trod ground conceptually, the premise is quite strong with a fresh take on an old theme.
The problem is the story doesn't properly anchor on the thematic voltage present in every scene - G's baby. The plot instead focuses on subplots between her and her husband and the weakly-developed machines-overthrow-their-makers trope.
If you're going to throw your hat in that ring, you actually have to try to tell that story with a fresh take. You can't just throw in the towel because it has been told so often. And yet that's what happens here - no real attempt is made at re-stoking the thematic fires of the robot-revolt concept. Yeah, robots. Oh, and they're revolting. Moving on.
What remains is somewhat weak melodrama and a few really good moments from Chloë Grace.
The end is poignant, but unearned. It could have been a brilliant catharsis. If only the story had stayed on point and gone deeper than the cliches of cameras and family moments.
The production quality is fine, with good directing, decent performances and solid editing.
The Orville: Shadow Realms (2022)
Zombies and ... well, zombies
Your first clue that something has gone terribly wrong with McFarlane's previously delightful lampoon of Star Trek NG is that it is no longer "Fox presents The Orville" but is now "The Orville, New Horizons." You can almost see it on his face: "If it wasn't for my contract, I wouldn't be here."
Clearly something has gone wrong. Seth McFarlane is an excellent writer and a superior story-teller. So why are we getting Alien Lite?
There are two basic elements missing in this episode: The Hard Twist and any meaningful character arc. Virtually every episode of Orville hums along in an almost predictable way and then comes along with an interesting payoff to a subtle setup in either the cold open or the first act. I kept waiting for it in this episode. The Krill show up to help save the day. Nope. Isaac puts himself in harm's way to save the Dr's first love. Nope. Dude of Interest still loves her so spaces himself as the Dr. Holds her hand to the glass not knowing it's already too late. Nope. It just plods along with zombies.
No character journey here either. No young Salarian forcing herself to face her fear of fire. Nor is there any theme.
And that is what's really missing here. Orville has always discussed a less-than-subtle topic in pretty much every episode, ensconced in top-notch story telling so you can forgive the Louisville slugger. This episode lacks both top-notch story telling and the Louisville slugger. (Science>religion? Meh. Not interesting enough.)
It may be coincidence, but this is The Orville subsequent to Disney's purchase of 20th Century Fox. It has put the Orville in it's subsidiary's spacedock (Hulu), and so far it doesn't look like they know how to get out of McFarlane's way and let him do his thing.
The only possible salvation is that he's lampooning the demise of TOS and emulating its third season of Monster of the Week episodes.
Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)
Underrated - give it a chance.
A classic - even if appropriated - return to Godzilla as a cultural icon of Japan's national catharsis in the wake of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The first clue is a nod to the genesis of Godzilla in the naming of Monarch's primary base Castle Bravo - that fateful and disastrous nuclear weapons test from 1954. Godzilla was, indeed, born in the shadow of nuclear fire. As Dr. Serizawa says: "Sometimes, the only way to heal our wounds is to make peace with the demons who created them." That line right there is worth the wait.
But it takes the movie a minute to get there. The first act is convoluted, confusing and disjointed with an over-accelerated pace of plot development that may leave you adrift at first. But once it gets on point, the story unfolds to reveal the classic Japanese tale of heroic sacrifice that is Godzilla.
Brutal and poignant, I found the King of Monsters to be the most heartfelt of the modern big-budget Godzilla movies. Even if they mis-stepped on the front end and you have to side-step a few OTN references to the evils of mankind, the crew behind this movie pull it together once Godzilla shows up. It ends much stronger than it begins, and I think it's worth hanging in there to get the powerful payoff. Dr. Serizawa is your spiritual guide in this episode, with an almost fourth-wall breaking acknowledgement of skepticism and cynicism by several other members of the cast. The writers lampshade the incredulity of Godzilla's spiritual prowess a bit too much, but still give the spiritual story behind the monster everything they've got. Almost as if to say, "We know some of you think this is trite. We don't care. We're going to do it anyway." You have to approach this movie (like any Godzilla movie) with the spirit of attending a magic show. It only works if you let it. For my part, I found it quite moving.
Long live the King.
Léon (1994)
Stunning first performance by Natalie Portman
Despite Ms. Portman later feeling uncomfortable about her role in this film, her portrayal of a violently orphaned 13-year-old is nothing short of astonishing.
After her dysfunctional family is killed by a rogue DEA agent and his cadre, young Mathilda seeks refuge with the affable hit-man living just down the hall. As she rings the doorbell, she breaks down and starts crying as it finally hits her that her little brother has just been brutally murdered.
And so begins a relationship of revenge, healing and mutual affection between two very lonely people. Besson pulls no punches in revealing Mathilda's emerging sexuality as Mathilda begins to fall in love with her reluctant guardian. But unlike the misadventures of an older man and young temptress from Nabokov, the relationship here isn't seedy, cynical or perverse. It is actually quite poignant as the simple-minded hit-man quietly contains Mathilda's amorous advances without withdrawing from her. He is genuinely fond of her and this is beautifully played out by Jean Ruso as he protects and guides, as best as a hit-man can, his protégé.
Ultimately, this is a love story between two people who can't have each other yet still protect each other in ways both dramatic and sublime. The love is awkward, clumsy and naïve in a gritty and tender way all at the same time. But it is genuine and heart-felt. Very few directors would be able to pull off this kind of story, so this is a bit of a gem -- I don't think we'll ever see anything quite like this again.
I just love this story and Mathilda is one of my all-time favorite characters. Natalie brings a sublimely powerful performance to the screen that you will remember for a long time.
I'm just sorry that she isn't proud of it. She should be. It's a powerful story. Yes, Mathilda is sexualized, but her character, as portrayed by Portman, is so much more than that. We get that. Honest, we really do.
Shadow in the Cloud (2020)
What happened here?
I love Chloë - loved her in Hit Girl, Carrie and Hick. Have wished for a long time that she would pick up more roles that let her showcase her talent.
And for the first half of this movie, I found myself saying, "Finally!"
Young Maude Garrett hitches a ride on a B-17 with a mysterious McGuffin package and a cheeky attitude. Through a long sequence where Chloë puts on a marvelous performance from the confines of a ball turret, the tension and intrigue ramp up nicely. We learn she has some kind of backgroung where she has aquired some interesting skills. She knows all about how ball turrets work. She has a gun. And everyone has strict orders not to mess with the package she's brought on board.
So, here we have a wonderfully ingriguing setup for what could have been a cool story about a mysterious woman on an important mission and who is obviously going to face all kinds of trials and tribulations along the way to demonstrate her prowess. The first half is a serious film that gives Chloë some killer scenes, including the use of various weaonry. Along the way, it's clear the writers ripped straight from (and I do mean straight from) Nightmare at 20,000 ft. But that's OK, because there is a deeper plot wrapped around the rip. Fine.
But right at the middle, either the writer started smoking crack or somebody seriously tampered with the script. Maude is nobody special, no cool back story and the McGuffin turns out to be important only to her. She is reduced from heroine to just another girl in one scene flat. Then the story jumps the rails, goes over the cliff, into the river and out to sea.
This COULD have been a good film and great showcase to refresh Chloë's career. Instead, everything that is set up in the first half is thrown away on a ridiculous plot and even more ridiculous theme. I felt I had been hoodwinked.
I'm pretty sure that the final result isn't what Chloë read, because she deserves the first half but has done nothing to deserve the sheer torment of the second half. It literally becomes laughable.
We also proceed to witness more rips from various films that are as lazy as they are unnecessary. I counted at least four. There are probably more.
I did like the cool totally analog film score. Too bad that, too, was wasted.
This was a movie that could have been and was carelessly thrown away.
Red Rover (2018)
Love conquers all
This is a story about salvation and the frailty of the human heart that is all too common with people who live in reality.
Not-so-lovable loser Damon desperately needs to find his place in the world and the courage to carve out a simple existence that he can call his own.
Living in the basement of his house where he can hear his ex-girlfriend having sex with her new boyfriend upstairs, Damon spends his days working a job where integrity is reviled in favor of marketing and combing the beach with a metal detector.
At first glance, the movie seems cynical, but it is only the corner of the world where Damon has allowed himself to drift that is replete with soulless beings that all losers seem to attract.
But when he meets a somewhat effervescent girl (Cara Gee) promoting a reality show based on contestants going to Mars, his life begins to turn around.
Here, the film becomes a tender-sweet exploration of love, courage and uncertainty as both Damon and Phoebe seek to find themselves - he as a potential Martian colonist, she as an aspiring song-writer.
I really loved this movie, both for the love story and for the thoughts on what it really means to be an explorer. Cara Gee steals the show as Phoebe and it is a real treat to see her play a character totally different from Camina Drummer. She deserves more roles and I really do hope the indy studios give her her due once The Expanse is done.
The First (2018)
Smart writing, slow pace and incomplete
The first season turns out to be a very good setup and I think Hulu was premature in pulling the plug. At the end of season one, their was some serious potential for a gripping story. They sure put in a lot of effort on the setup. Why not give them a season to at least try to give some payoff?
At first glance, The First is mostly a melodrama about the people who are getting ready to go to Mars. You have to listen a bit carefully to hear the deeper conversation.
Yeah, the pace is slow and I found myself saying, "get on with it," more than once. But the team behind this series wanted to take their time and really explain what all these people were up against.
The backdrop is a world that has turned its back on the dream of exploring space. After the Apollo missions, it was a foregone conclusion that we would go back. And we did lay the groundwork with ISS, but as time goes on, interest and patience have waned to where our culture is no longer looking to the stars. That theme comes through very clearly without them beating you over the head with it too much.
And yet dreamers dream...
The main focus of the first season is an intense melodrama that is at times poetic and at other times downright excruciating. It is an intimate portrait of personal and human sacrifice that is the price to pay for humanity to reach for the pinnacle of its existence. There is an allegory here: yes, we have problems at home. We always have. We always will.
And yet dreamers dream...
It's about sacrifice folks. No great thing is achieved without it. That is the conversation being had here. It's a bit uncomfortable, but it sure is honest.
I also appreciated the attention to technical detail. A lot of reviewers have complained about the lack of sci-fi scenery -- well, I imagine that was coming up on season 2. But we still got a pretty good dose and it was meticulously presented. Even the Hohmann transfer orbit was shown correctly. How often does that happen? My compliments to the production company that put this together. It all made sense and there was no fluff - everything was relevant without getting bogged down in too much minutia.
And boo Hulu. If you're going to greenlight a series that obviously needs a few seasons to tell its story, then let it run. Yeah, it may not be all that popular, but each individual show doesn't need to carry its own weight. Just do us a solid and let the complete story be told. If it's dragging in rating, well, tell the production company to get on with it and give us the shorter version. But don't just leave us hanging. I pay for my subscription, too. Is it fair to leave me hanging just because what I like isn't popular? You put it up there - at least let me see the whole thing.
I'm getting tired of being screwed over by streaming services that can't follow through on a commitment. You win some, you lose some. Screwing me doesn't help.
Cars 3 (2017)
Heartwarming and inspiring - old school Pixar
Now a car of a certain age, Lightning finds himself falling behind as the next generation of high tech race cars take the field.
Confronted with his inevitable decline, he reports to his new owner and a state-of-the-art training facility where he meets his new trainer, Cruz.
Annoying and chirpy, Cruz tries to help an old car regain his glory, but she doesn't know what it means to be a racer. Soon enough, Lightning is doing what he does best and strikes out on his own path. But if he can't win the next race, his racing days are over.
But there's more to Cruz than Lightning knows. And, as it turns out, there is more to him, as well. Together, they will help each other find exactly what they need to face an uncertain future.
If you are still young at heart and willing to let Pixar tug at your heartstrings, this is a very endearing story with a noble theme that victory is more than just winning. I honestly teared up at this one and found it to be as compelling as the first in the Cars series, perhaps even more so.
Well written with a lot of heart, this is what old school Pixar is all about.
And - there is a nifty inside joke for those who are into 3-D modelling. Lightning gets a repaint and it turns out that his old dialectric textures are enhanced with snazzy new PBR and metalness.
Phantom (2013)
A better Crimson Tide
A dramatic extrapolation of one of the four leading theories behind the loss if K-129 (whose secrets remain informally hidden by both the U.S. and Russian naval communities to this day), this is a well-acted, well-written and well-directed film.
The plot is very similar to Crimson Tide, but I think this movie does a better job with the basic premise of a mutiny aboard a nuclear submarine. The dialog is much tighter and the tone is more sincere. The underlying tension is ideological, not racial, which I think lends a more sobering experience.
I also appreciated that the actors didn't attempt any sort of accents. Instead, they focused on the human drama at the center of the story and really led Ed Harris knock out a great portrayal of an aging hero who must overcome a dark past to do the right thing.
And, yeah, it kind of makes you wonder - what the heck happened back in 1968 that nobody to this day wants to disclose the truth?
The only thing I find really odd is that I never heard of this movie until I stumbled across it on Netflix. I would have very much enjoyed watching this in the theater.
Why it only garnered 500,000 during an 1100 screen release is utterly baffling. There are enough of us naval grognards who still enjoy a good sub thriller to buy tickets. My best guess is that it simply wasn't marketed.
Star Trek Beyond (2016)
If you're going to do SJW, do it right
I am going to stipulate that I don't personally appreciate the infusion of social justice indoctrination into movies these days. There's just too much #MaleToxicity and clumsy attempts at inclusiveness while trying to preserve diversity to suit my tastes. Honestly, it's very hard to do. And most movies don't get it right.
Setting aside all the obvious and oft-cited reasons why this movie really wasn't a very god Star Trek movie, I want to talk about Gay Sulu for a minute. I would prefer the topic having not been brought up at all, but, as a writer, I see a missed opportunity in how it was handled. It could have been done better. Way better.
Let's harken back to 1966 and enter a world where a black woman held a line officer rank and sat on the bridge with white men and held a position of prestige and respect. In 1966, Lt. Uhura was the hot button topic of social justice proffered by Gene. SJW is not new to Star Trek. Not by a long shot - even when Kirk was womanizing the galaxy. Uhura didn't just say "hailing frequencies open." She offered opinions. She disagreed and on one occasion, at least, she stood up to unfair treatment at the hands of her captain, who then apologized. The white male captain of a starship apologizing to a black woman on the bridge - in 1966, this was revolutionary. And important.
Unlike sexual orientation, skin color and gender are pretty much impossible to hide. Uhura pierced the veil of ethnic and gender stereotypes to boldly proclaim that she was still a black woman and still a line officer in Starfleet. Both can be done at the same time. And this is the essential definition of inclusiveness and diversity.
Fast forward to 2017 and we see a quaint reunion of Gay Sulu with his family in a picture perfect moment that looks like they just met at Disneyland. A checkbox was marked off with a sideways glance to the Alphabet Rainbow, but the humanity of what this really means was completely lost.
Anybody who has been to sea knows that reunions are difficult. It is like meeting a familiar stranger when the sea coughs you back up on shore and thrusts you into the arms of loved ones. He's been at sea for two years. The proclamation here should have been, "I am Gay Sulu and I am a man faced with the same trials and tribulations as any family man returning from his ship. It is no different for me." There could have been a tense moment of uncertainty when he and his lover are looking at each other, wondering if they are still the same, if they haven't lost something to those years in space. He could have looked down at his daughter and said, "My, how you've grown." She could have looked back at him sadly and said, "You're still the same." And then they could wander off, uncertainty hanging over them like a cloud. Will this family survive the ardors of one of its members being a man at sea? Oh my, would you look at that? A meaningful subplot.
Instead, we get a very tasteful and subtle acknowledgment of Gay Sulu without exploring what that means in any way except to say something along the lines of "This is acceptable," which is an insult, really. It would be like telling Uhura that it's OK for black women to be line officers. Oh, really? Gee, thanks. Legitimize it by dramatizing it. Gay Sulu could have been controversial with meaning, not just controversial and trite. Seems to me the writers missed an opportunity at classic Star Trek social commentary. Instead, we got something that was less than patronizing.
Or, to put it in short form: Don't try to do risky social commentary (which requires a significant realignment of canon) if all you're making is Fast And Furious in Space.
The Twilight Zone: The Encounter (1964)
A fair and brutal discussion
This is a story of two men who are victims of a history beyond their control. When a disillusioned WWII combat veteran invites the son of a Japanese American who witnessed Pearl Harbor in for a beer, that history will devour them piecemeal.
A lot is mentioned about the themes of guilt and atonement. And there is a lot of (unnecessary and insipid) talk about the racial overtones. The racial overtones are neither thematic nor instructive. They are authentic and dramatic. Racial tension, guilt and atonement are symptomatic of a larger issue that Serling spoke of often.
The real message behind this episode is, quite simply, a protest against war itself as the two characters are victimized by its consequences.
It is very interesting, dramatic and thought-provoking in a way that is blunt without pontificating. The characters tell their own stories and it quickly becomes clear they are both victims of the same thing.
Changeling (2008)
A little heavy handed
Clint Eastwood has produced some brilliant work as a director. Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby come to mind.
But, as with Flags of Our Fathers, he here demonstrates a penchant for going over the top.
There were times I felt like I was watching a dystopian commentary on systemic corruption at the hands of the new world order rather than a period piece revolving around a humanly dramatic mystery.
Much of the acting is equally excessive as Clint lingers to jab a knife into our hearts in a way that is meant to be grueling but is surprisingly shallow.
Such are the consequences of the risks inherent in going deep with dramatic material. The effort is compelling even if the result is lacking in grace.
Part of the problem is the complexity of the material, which seems to drift between two different story lines, both of which are given equal weight even though they are barely related, as if one is meant to throw us off the trail of the other - which results in cheaply woven mystery and a plot that loses its way.
Grey's Anatomy: How to Save a Life (2015)
Somebody forgot what story telling is
***** SPOILERS ***** OK, this is what happens when a master story teller gets caught up in show running or executive producing or whatever.
The problem isn't what happens in this episode, but how we got here. Writing a character out of several episodes and then tossing him out without warning is not how this is done. A high school writer of short stories knows the word I'm about to say: SETUP.
Rhimes has an MFA, so I know for a fact she knows what a proper setup is. More importantly, she knows Poetics inside and out and one of the most fundamental rules is that what happens must follow a logical flow from one state of affairs to the next inevitable state of affairs. Part of what makes Grey's Anatomy such an amazing ongoing story is that she has done this with every other plot since day one. Even George's death made sense because she put him in an arc where it made sense.
After 11 years of watching this character struggle, we deserved a much better and more professional lead up to what could have been an amazing moment of catharsis.
Instead, we are treated to nothing more than an unexplained, illogical, senseless moment of pure shock that serves no dramatic purpose whatsoever. It was wasted.
Like I said, somebody forgot they were a storyteller and decided to be something else instead. And she knew better.
Meek's Cutoff (2010)
Why do directors do this?
I am so sick and tired of film makers who either don't know how to write and shoot a complete script, are too lazy to write and shoot a complete script or think that wasting my time with an incomplete story is somehow "artistic." The real life history of the Ridge family blazing the Meek Cutoff has PLENTY of material from which to construct a complete story.
Failing to end your story is not art: it is a fraudulent abduction of my time and waste of your crew's hard work. (And trust me, making this film was hard work.) And the sad part is that I actually enjoyed the setup. Yes, it's slow and ponderous, which captures the essence of pioneer travel in the 1840's and really immerses you in the isolation and uncertainty of what these people went through.
Would have been a great movie if they had bothered to finish the damn thing.
Rollerball (1975)
Timeless message more relevant than ever
I saw this in the theaters when it came out in 1975 and was far too young to appreciate not only its message, but its treatment of that message.
Thematically, this is an important film and joins the camp of several films from the time which used science fiction as a carrier for ideological discourse. Rollerball, more so than just about any movie I've ever seen, re-affirms the essence of the American ideology in a world where individuality has been neatly replaced with the perfect order of corporate utopia. (An interesting twist on the typical governmental utopia - but the idea is the same.)
The story development here is sublime, beginning with an adaptation of roller derby in an almost comical version with motorcycles that never seem to have a real purpose. But this sets the stage for a powerful allegory later in the film.
The real story here is the struggle of one man against the forces of society, all of which conspire to deprive him of the one thing he loves: the game. At first, he is bemused and doesn't understand, but as the movie progresses, we see him simply refusing to change as instructed while seeking the answer to why he is being asked to give up the one thing that gives his life meaning.
For those of us (myself included) who may not understand the message buried in the dialog, we are eventually told the simple premise behind the game itself, its role in a perfected (though far from perfect) society and the stunningly simple answer to the question as to why this man is being told to conform.
The dramatic development of the political theme and the characters make the actual game sequences meaningful and interesting, not because roller derby with motorcycles is in any way compelling, but because it brings the inherent struggle of the story to a pique and engulfs both ideas and characters that are extremely well set up.
I cannot help but think that in modern times, as we witness the (attempted) manifestation of many of the Utopian ideas presented in this film, that it is a timely reminder of - and a timely warning against - the essential forfeiture of liberty that seems more and more unavoidable.
This may be billed as an action film, but it's actually a thinking film and will challenge you intellectually even as those motorcycles which never seem to have any purpose race around the track.
Wizards (1977)
An old fable in a rebellious medium - gotta' love it.
I first saw Wizards when I was 11. In 1977, graphic animation was not nearly as prevalent as it is today, so its impact carried an unique punch that stuck with me forever. There was much to the tale that moved me deeply, but I wasn't old enough to understand why.
22 years later, I found a used copy of the DVD and grabbed it up without even looking at the price. It's Wizards. You don't ask, you just get it.
The same emotional mysticism I experienced in 1977 came to life again, a forgotten old friend and yet so very familiar. At the tender age of 43, however, the fable which eluded me at 11 was now very clear.
The setting of this film - Earth 1 million years post destruction, and its culture - is but an allegory. The medium of animated fantasy is twisted in a wicked clever way by Bakshi to deliver a message that is oddly anachronistic for its time. 1977 wasn't that far from the revolution of the '60's and still simmered in a pasteurized version where disco and sex remained as sentinels. When you consider the culture of the time, the harsh commentary of Bakshi was, if not novel, certainly bold.
The notion of magic vs. technology is not meant to be taken literally as the primary theme here. What he's really talking about is the futility of pacifism in the face of aggression, a lesson we still haven't quite learned. In one of the most sublimely moving scenes, we hear a child ask his mother, "Why can't we fight and win, Mommy?" "Because they have weapons and technology; we just have love," his mother answers.
For those willing to fight, there is the notion that good intentions are equally futile. Warrior elves are no match for tanks. Enemies, sometimes, have to be taken seriously.
There is also a very blatant comment about the fallacy of religion in the face of reality, which still carries a pretty hefty punch. Priests are no match for guns, either.
The most compelling message in Wizards, though, is the notion of personal will. Nekron 99 a.k.a Peace, reminds us that we may not always be able to control what we do, but we do get to choose what side we're on. There is also the subtext of Peace being secured by the will to perpetrate violence and that violence can be viewed in different ways depending on its motivation.
Along with all this, Bakshi is very quick to point out the ignorance and, ultimately, the cowardice of naked aggression. Without compromising his message of pacifistic futility, he paints war in a macabre light highlighting its intrinsic futility in achieving anything and its vacuous cruelty devoid of any real meaning. No glory in war is to be found here. The victims of war abound, on both sides, and in all roles. War makes losers of all.
For me, it is the fusion of these two ideas that makes Wizards what it is. War is cruel and useless. In the face of war, pacifism is equally cruel and useless. And yet, there is a way out. In a world of fairies and monsters, we are given Avatar, the wizard you might find running a Deli in the Bronx. It is easy to mistake his weary wisdom for indifference. Avatar is a realist. But that is not to say he is fatalistic. He's just a bit smarter than the rest because he knows that the personal will and sacrifice of heroes can still carry the day. As long as they are willing to kill the King. The most humane solution to war is to cut it off at its source.
The Aviator (2004)
Smear Campaign
One would expect a movie about Howard Hughes with Aviator as the main word in its title would be about Howard Hughes and his accomplishments in aviation.
And one would be wrong.
Spending far too much time on Hughes's eccentricities, this film appears to be an attempt to explore psychosis more than anything else. Depicted to the point of hyperbole, the man's difficulties are slathered over this stylish and vacuous portrayal.
Meanwhile, the tale of Hughes Aviation is relegated to stage dressing punctuated by a few instances of genuinely exciting feats.
If you have any knowledge of the history of Hughes Aircraft or the man behind it, you will be disappointed.
Perhaps most indicative of the lack of real interest this movie has in aviation is the simple failure to accurately depict even the most basic concepts of flying. If you throw the stick forward, the plane will not go faster, it will nose over and crash into the ground.
This movie throws the stick forward.
Memento (2000)
Almost clever
I don't like film noir for the same reason I don't like modern art. Modern art is cool because it is incomprehensible, providing the illusion that indulging confusion is somehow deep. I've always thought this sort of thing was a kind of joke where the artist laughs quietly at our efforts to inject chaos with false genius. Or maybe I just don't get it.
To be incomprehensible because of intellectual prowess may be admirable, but to be incomprehensible due to little more than obscure confusion is annoying.
The problem with this film is that the plot is simply not resolved. Whether or not this is intentional, I honestly cannot tell. We are given an explanation in the penultimate scene that is presented in a manner that simply invites us to ask more questions which ultimately go unanswered and leaves the audience to make up their own mind. If possible.
Honestly, this little trick was old a long time ago and has not become less annoying with age.
I will say, however, that the film is captivating. I desperately wanted my answers and enjoyed the highly experimental sequencing. But the director owes me an answer. He owes me a story. He owes me a conclusion.
And we never get one. Or maybe I just don't get it.
If you want something that's different and kind of cool in the end, watch The Sixth Sense or Fight Club. You won't lose sleep trying to figure them out because they actually have a conclusion.
The Last Samurai (2003)
Epic fable
The Last Samurai is a poetic story about redemption, honor, love and the inevitable death of all things. Ed Zwick weaves a simple tale against the romanticized backdrop of late 19th century Japan when the last vestiges of feudal Japan, and its ancient culture, slip away in the face of Western modernization.
The story begins with Capt. Nathan Algren, a cynical whiskey-soaked veteran of the plains wars hawking Winchester rifles to an ignorant audience. The depiction of Western society is vilified to the point of caricature in this film, which I'm not sure was necessary, as the prose of the Samurai culture sings well enough on its own.
We soon learn through various flashbacks that Algren is a soldier who has lost faith in himself and his country but still retains the passionate spirit of a formidable warrior. Spiritually, he is quite dressed up with no place to go.
When he is offered a job as a mercenary to train Japanese Imperial troops, he is thrust into circumstances which forge a destiny that finally fulfills who he really is: a warrior who needs something worthy of fighting for. Though duty may call us to sell our soul, we may yet redeem ourselves if but we find the good fight. Honor best serves that which is honorable, or, perhaps, that which we genuinely love. These things may be enough to define a life of purpose.
The storyline here is not all that clever and is in most respects, quite predictable. It is the journey of Algren's character within the framework of this yarn that is most compelling and is played to a T by Cruise.
This is a film that is definitely worth seeing. Though the plot is a touch thin on the ground, the writing is superb, with moral and spiritual questions explored in a thoughtful manner. The production is mesmerizing and Cruise is well supported by a solid ensemble well directed by Ed Zwick.
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)
Lost at sea.
I was really disappointed by this film. The reviews were good and the tomatoe meter was a solid 84.
I guess I just don't get it.
Things start off, quite literally, with a bang that promises us a captivating seafaring adventure.
Then there is a pause while the ship is repaired and we are introduced, courted by, and finally married to, a depth of authenticity that infuses this film with all the excitement of a Ken Burns documentary.
And the pause continues. After a while, I realized the pause was the movie.
The real problem here is that Peter Weir couldn't seem to decide what story he wanted to tell. Is it about the captain of a frigate, a simmering pacifistic naturalist and his protoge or the grain count of planks used in a frigate? The answer is: all three.
What it isn't about is a sea battle. There are times when the film seems to say to us, "Oh yeah, that sea battle thing, guess we better baste that a little."
Certainly lacking a sextant, compass and map, this movie just wanders around through a boring series of listless scenes occasionally punctuated by something exciting.
Oh, yeah, and there is a solid 15-20 minutes of screentime devoted to the ship in the duldrums. No kidding.
Wait for this one to come out on HBO. Or PBS, maybe.
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Much better
Like many who grew up privately indulging the mythology of Episode IV, I felt betrayed by Episode I. Episode II is a redemption of sorts, both artistically and technically.
Some have commented that Episode II is marginally better than Episode I. This is not true - Episode II is *much* better. I boycotted Episode II in the theaters and, having seen it on HBO, regret not being able to see it on the big screen.
The story and plot are actually interesting. There's some intrigue and suspense here that keeps your attention. Characters, both real and virtual, are actually developed and have depth and complexity. This, to me, was the most significant improvement. The acting was better, the dialog - for the most part - was better. I actually cared about these characters and their fate. Ewan McGregor in particular honed the art of acting opposite a non-existant player. Hayden Christensen plays Annikan as a young man struggling with a brewing conflict within. Fits of rage are matched by a valient struggle at reconcilliation as he slowly loses control to the Dark Side. Annikan arcs from benign mischief to agregious outrage - we know there is something seriously wrong with this boy by the time the movie is over. Compared to the cartoonish adventures of Annikan in Episode I, this portrayal is far more sophisticated and refined. There are no Oscar (copyright, tm, etc.) moments here, but this is a real movie with real acting and a real story.
The integration of the virtual environment has improved, as well. The environment manages to serve as a stage rather than a seperate character and it's much easier to believe that these people are in the environment rather than in front of it. It's less cluttered and old-fashioned cinematography and composition are taken more seriously this time around. The last 20 minutes or so are astounding. Curiously, the world of Ipisode II is clean to the point of being anticeptic - unlike the "lived-in" feel of the older episodes. At the same time, ILM still manages to indulge itself on occasion and we are subjected to some video-game sequences here and there. I really with they would avoid these.
Another major difference in Episode II is that George Lucas has taken his world more seriously. The world of Star Wars is still a bloodless one, but combat in Episode II is more brutal, more savage, more violent. People and creatures actually die. Warfare is not taken as lightly this time around, despite the insistance on comic relief interwoven during fights.
And, a sure indicator that Lucas really was listening and tried to improve: We have a lot less Jar-Jar. He's still there, but not as much and he talks even less. Jar-Jar has matured some, too. He's tolerable at least in Episode II.
As those of us who grew up with the Force have matured and moved into the real world, so has Star Wars as portrayed in Episode II. It's more mature. Some innocense has been lost. But the spirit is in tact.
While Episode I was written for my little boy, Episode II was written for me. I would have gladly paid 8 bucks to see the real thing. Probably twice.