Let me first note that I read the book before seeing this, so that is an aspect of my review.
The movie, as it was, probably earned a solid eight. Performances by the cast were I suppose not exceptional, but were up to the task. I particularly enjoyed Carrie-Anne Moss as the mom. The always charming Chloë Grace Moretz turned in a workmanlike performance in an extremely challenging role.
For those who don't already know it, the movie is based on the true story of Susannah Cahalan and her harrowing journey to find the cause of her mental breakdowns, seizures, hallucinations, and other symptoms, and the challenges her friends, coworkers, boyfriend, and family have of recognizing her illness and finding the right doctor. Once she reaches Doctor Kahn and, through her, Doctor Najjar, it plays like an episode of House as the medical team struggles to determine the root cause of her trouble, which proves to be an extremely rare and nearly unheard of disease.
I only gave the movie a score of seven because, like House, it basically ends at the point where the correct diagnosis was found and really glosses over all the challenges she still faced recovering from it.
Despite this flaw, it was still well worth the time to watch, and I'd further encourage anyone who has friends or family struggling with unexplained mental illness to not only watch the movie, but read Cahalan's book of the same name. Doctor Najjar's work, in particular, represents the cutting edge of 21st century medicine in this area.
Reviews
14 Reviews
Avatar
(2009)
Big Visuals, Small Story
21 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
First the good news. Avatar as a visual experience is everything it's cracked up to be and more, and the 3D is, at last, finally done right. Rather than the typically annoying habit of throwing things at you, Cameron's use of 3D really immerses you in the alien world.
WARNING: Spoilers ahead, sort of.
The bad news is that there isn't much to it beyond the admittedly breathtaking visual experience. The story, and here's your spoiler, is this: Soldier goes to alien planet, goes native, and fights to save the indigenous population from the evil, greedy, corporate and military bad guys who are raping the planet in search of - get this - "unobtanium." I said it was a spoiler - "sort of" - because you're going to figure out the plot, and quite probably the conclusion, within the first few minutes of the movie.
That said, I thought it was well worth the time and money to see in the theatre. You've seen the story before, but never quite like this.
WARNING: Spoilers ahead, sort of.
The bad news is that there isn't much to it beyond the admittedly breathtaking visual experience. The story, and here's your spoiler, is this: Soldier goes to alien planet, goes native, and fights to save the indigenous population from the evil, greedy, corporate and military bad guys who are raping the planet in search of - get this - "unobtanium." I said it was a spoiler - "sort of" - because you're going to figure out the plot, and quite probably the conclusion, within the first few minutes of the movie.
That said, I thought it was well worth the time and money to see in the theatre. You've seen the story before, but never quite like this.
The West
(1996)
The Truth Hurts
28 August 2007
Burns and Ives combine to produce a work that's very much up to Ken Burns' standards. As a viewing experience, it's everything you'd expect.
And then there's the content.
Much has been made about the supposed bias of Burns' presentation of the history of the west. A lot of time was spent on the way the US treated the indigenous populations, on the crimes of the US military, on the theft of lands, and the systematic attempts to eradicate native cultures. The loss of the age before white settlement is lamented.
Is this a balanced perspective? Maybe not, although I don't think it's as biased as other reviews would have you believe. The triumphs of the west are told as well as the losses. Not all whites are painted as evil, nor are all natives painted as innocent. Events are often just told as they happened, and the viewer is left to draw their own conclusions. A lot of the content doesn't concern native Americans at all.
More important that all of that, however, is that it's a story that needs telling. Americans have been indoctrinated with romantic fictions about the west for over a century. Giving Burns a chance to tell the other side of the story doesn't seem too much to ask. A few Hollywood movies that paint the indigenous people of America before westward expansion as noble savages - also a pleasant fiction, incidentally - does not make up for a century of bias, misinformation, and outright lies taught to American schoolchildren. What's worse is that for the most part, these fictions are still taught to American schoolchildren.
At nearly nine hours, The West is an experience that will take up several of your evenings, but it's nine hours that may change the way you think about American history.
And then there's the content.
Much has been made about the supposed bias of Burns' presentation of the history of the west. A lot of time was spent on the way the US treated the indigenous populations, on the crimes of the US military, on the theft of lands, and the systematic attempts to eradicate native cultures. The loss of the age before white settlement is lamented.
Is this a balanced perspective? Maybe not, although I don't think it's as biased as other reviews would have you believe. The triumphs of the west are told as well as the losses. Not all whites are painted as evil, nor are all natives painted as innocent. Events are often just told as they happened, and the viewer is left to draw their own conclusions. A lot of the content doesn't concern native Americans at all.
More important that all of that, however, is that it's a story that needs telling. Americans have been indoctrinated with romantic fictions about the west for over a century. Giving Burns a chance to tell the other side of the story doesn't seem too much to ask. A few Hollywood movies that paint the indigenous people of America before westward expansion as noble savages - also a pleasant fiction, incidentally - does not make up for a century of bias, misinformation, and outright lies taught to American schoolchildren. What's worse is that for the most part, these fictions are still taught to American schoolchildren.
At nearly nine hours, The West is an experience that will take up several of your evenings, but it's nine hours that may change the way you think about American history.
Best Potter Yet
20 November 2005
I'd hate to face the task of condensing a 700 page book into a movie - even a two and a half hour movie, but they've managed pretty well with this installment of the adventures of Harry Potter.
For fans of the movies, you'll find this installment a little darker, a little grittier, and a little more involving. The characters are growing up and are now facing more adult situations with more adult outlooks.
For fans of the books, you should find this adaptation a commendable reflection of Rowling's tale. Naturally, some parts had to be modified or cut entirely - there's no way to avoid that without making it a 10 hour movie - but the parts that were cut were either not critical to the story line, or will be easy to account for in the films to come. Unless you're an obsessive nitpicker about every last detail, you should find this a satisfactory film version of Goblet of Fire.
Goblet of Fire works well as a stand-alone film, as a film version of Rowling's book, and is in my opinion quite easily the best Potter movie yet.
For fans of the movies, you'll find this installment a little darker, a little grittier, and a little more involving. The characters are growing up and are now facing more adult situations with more adult outlooks.
For fans of the books, you should find this adaptation a commendable reflection of Rowling's tale. Naturally, some parts had to be modified or cut entirely - there's no way to avoid that without making it a 10 hour movie - but the parts that were cut were either not critical to the story line, or will be easy to account for in the films to come. Unless you're an obsessive nitpicker about every last detail, you should find this a satisfactory film version of Goblet of Fire.
Goblet of Fire works well as a stand-alone film, as a film version of Rowling's book, and is in my opinion quite easily the best Potter movie yet.
Corpse Bride
(2005)
Mystery, Suspense, Worms!
11 October 2005
Burton scores again with this charming story. Part murder mystery, part comedy, part tragedy, and part love story, Corpse Bride is delightful. There's just enough screwball antics and mayhem to keep the kids enthralled, and more than enough witty dialog for the parents.
The story moves along at a brisk pace (not surprising given the oh too brief length of 76 minutes), and so character development leaves quite a bit to the imagination. There's no backstory, and no subplots, but it doesn't take long to become enamored by the characters in Burton's love triangle of the living and the dead. Depp, Bonham Carter, and Watson all turn in laudable performances, and the stop-motion animation is not just truly amazing, but a refreshing break from the computer graphic trend that's become the bread and butter of animated movies.
I think I liked this better than my kids (but they loved it too).
The story moves along at a brisk pace (not surprising given the oh too brief length of 76 minutes), and so character development leaves quite a bit to the imagination. There's no backstory, and no subplots, but it doesn't take long to become enamored by the characters in Burton's love triangle of the living and the dead. Depp, Bonham Carter, and Watson all turn in laudable performances, and the stop-motion animation is not just truly amazing, but a refreshing break from the computer graphic trend that's become the bread and butter of animated movies.
I think I liked this better than my kids (but they loved it too).
Godzilla
(I) (1998)
Apparently NOT for Fans of the Old, Cheesy Godzilla
11 October 2005
If you're a fan of the old Godzilla flicks, with lousy special effects, obvious cheap lizard suits and poorly detailed miniatures, you're apparently not going to like this movie, because the special effects are pretty good, despite a rather patent disregard for some basic laws of physics and moments of absolute abandonment of logic.
However, if you're not a dedicated fan of the old, bad Godzilla movies, you might just enjoy this new, bad Godzilla movie. This ain't Shakespeare, folks, but it's entertaining nevertheless. It's a crazy, campy, rampage through New York, where the "good guys" do almost as much damage as the real hero of the flick, Godzilla himself. The dialog is over the top, but often witty, and occasionally laugh-out-loud funny. Matthew Broderick turns in an entertaining performance as the nerdy anti-hero, aided by the enigmatic "insurance guy" played by Jean Reno, and an assortment of variously goofy lesser characters.
Don't expect a great plot, but if you give it a chance you might just be entertained.
However, if you're not a dedicated fan of the old, bad Godzilla movies, you might just enjoy this new, bad Godzilla movie. This ain't Shakespeare, folks, but it's entertaining nevertheless. It's a crazy, campy, rampage through New York, where the "good guys" do almost as much damage as the real hero of the flick, Godzilla himself. The dialog is over the top, but often witty, and occasionally laugh-out-loud funny. Matthew Broderick turns in an entertaining performance as the nerdy anti-hero, aided by the enigmatic "insurance guy" played by Jean Reno, and an assortment of variously goofy lesser characters.
Don't expect a great plot, but if you give it a chance you might just be entertained.
12 Angry Men
(1957)
A Script, A Cast, and Some Film
8 October 2005
Twelve Angry Men is a testament to what a good director can do with little more than a good script and a room full of fine actors. Almost the entire film takes place in a single room - the jury room of a murder trial during deliberations. There's no need for spoilers here as the plot is obvious once you know the premise - the various characters try to convince the others as the balance ebbs and flows toward guilty or not guilty. You'll probably even quickly guess the final result, but as is often the case, the journey is more interesting than the destination. There aren't any gunfights, chase scenes, eye candy, or special effects bonanzas - just the dialog between the jurors. 12 Angry Men was made with 12 Fine Performances by 12 Exceptional Actors.
Better, but...
12 January 2005
The conventional wisdom that this is the best of the three is certainly true, but I still can't call this a great movie. Just like the others in the series, there's lots of style but just not much story. And also just like the others, it's a three hour movie that would have made a better two hour movie. The FX are remarkable, but the characters for me are still just not all that interesting. I'm not sure how it was accomplished, but Jackson managed to put over nine hours on film without creating characters I cared about (with the exception of a modest amount of sympathy for the long-suffering Sam). I enjoy sci-fi, fantasy, and adventure flicks, but watching this for me was more like an endurance test than a three hour escape into fantasy. I'm sure lots of Tolkien fans out there are going to be deeply offended, but I'm afraid there are some of us that don't find the stories all that gripping.
Here we go again...
6 January 2004
On one hand, it's an improvement over the first chapter. On the other hand, that is, unfortunately, not much of an accomplishment. Like most movies that run more than two hours (in this case, a LOT more than two hours), it would have been vastly improved by aggressive editing. Once again, we have wooden characters (although they are starting to show some signs of life), settings that suffer from a deplorable excess of styling, and a story that really isn't all that interesting or coherent.
In it's favor, we again have nice effects, but it still feels too much like Xena, Warrior Princess with a better budget, and probably less interesting characters. Maybe Joxer the Mighty will appear in chapter three.
In it's favor, we again have nice effects, but it still feels too much like Xena, Warrior Princess with a better budget, and probably less interesting characters. Maybe Joxer the Mighty will appear in chapter three.
Finding Nemo
(2003)
Great for kids, parents will like it too.
1 June 2003
Although it's probably not quite as entertaining for the adults as Pixar's Toy Story or Bug's Life, your kids will absolutely love it. Visually, it's quite stunning, with lots of great color and very realistic "underwater" animation, and there's enough humor in it to keep parents entertained while the kids are watching.
Dances with Wolves
(1990)
A Fine Epic
25 May 2003
Most films this long would be better if they were shorter, but this isn't one of them. Somehow the slow pace of the film - especially near the beginning - is essential to establishing the isolation of the outpost. Other than the generally simplistic Indian good, White Man bad attitude of the movie it was a great flick. Well worth the Oscar nod, I'd call it one of the top 5 big epics, and for me I'd say it was second only to Lawrence of Arabia, and not by much.
Spellbinding
14 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
...no, not the movie, but the response here. I can only hope that all of the fans of the books are projecting their love of the books onto what is at best a decent fantasy film and overall just better than average. How this got a top 5 ranking here is quite beyond my imagination.
ATTENTION: Spoilers ahead.
Now for those of you that say this is true to the book, I say fine but a movie has to stand on its own regardless of what it's based on, and here's what I saw when I watched it:
The performances were decent at best. Our hero and his graybeard mentor seemed believable. Those performances were good if not outstanding. The balance of the cast fell into the acceptable "along for the ride" category or the almost hard to watch "over the top" group. Count the chief villain in the over the top group.
The special effects were interesting but seemed to have reached beyond their grasp. Very few of the settings seemed real. For those book fans that would counter that they seemed true to the book, I again say fine, but they didn't appear real and to me that makes them poor. Well done effects should blend so seamlessly into the background that you can't tell them from the real thing by looking. For a setting, you should be wondering where they found that location, not saying "hey, that's pretty cool computer graphics work". The same goes for most of the FX characters - they just looked computer generated and to me that makes them poor even though they were interesting. They did a more realistic monster in Return of the Jedi almost two decades ago.
Like nearly all three hour movies, it would have greatly benefited from being only a two hour movie. Additionally, (and again I don't really care if it's true to the book) the ending was simply horrible. I was actually startled when the credits started to roll. I've seen many movies that were only one part of a multi-part story, but each has been able to stand on its own. This story was incomplete and I simply can't imagine sitting through another 6 hours of this to finally get to the conclusion - the story just isn't compelling enough for that. One three hour movie that got all the way to the finish might have been acceptable, but not three of them.
Finally, not to throw flames at those of you who loved these books, because maybe the movie wasn't completely true to them or maybe it was simply done much better in the book, but the story itself didn't seem all that well done either. We have these nine characters on a quest (at least one of whom was able to hop a ride on Big Bird for a while but apparently didn't think the same transport would work for this trip), at least three of them have no purpose but to get the others into trouble, and all of them together show no more camaraderie than the prima donnas at the last "Divas Live" show. A few of these characters are apparently pretty decent guys to have around in a fight given their ability to singlehandedly fight off literal swarms of blade wielding zombies, but frankly, I really didn't care who lived or died in this film (although I do admit I was sorry to see graybeard go down since his was the best performed part in the show).
I really don't mean to rip too hard on this movie, it was an OK flick for the genre and I though it was somewhat enjoyable despite its length. But - how it managed to snare a nomination for the Best Picture Oscar or get a top 5 ranking here is completely unfathomable. Anyone describing this work as a "masterpiece", IMHO, really needs to get out more.
I give it a 6 - just barely better than average.
ATTENTION: Spoilers ahead.
Now for those of you that say this is true to the book, I say fine but a movie has to stand on its own regardless of what it's based on, and here's what I saw when I watched it:
The performances were decent at best. Our hero and his graybeard mentor seemed believable. Those performances were good if not outstanding. The balance of the cast fell into the acceptable "along for the ride" category or the almost hard to watch "over the top" group. Count the chief villain in the over the top group.
The special effects were interesting but seemed to have reached beyond their grasp. Very few of the settings seemed real. For those book fans that would counter that they seemed true to the book, I again say fine, but they didn't appear real and to me that makes them poor. Well done effects should blend so seamlessly into the background that you can't tell them from the real thing by looking. For a setting, you should be wondering where they found that location, not saying "hey, that's pretty cool computer graphics work". The same goes for most of the FX characters - they just looked computer generated and to me that makes them poor even though they were interesting. They did a more realistic monster in Return of the Jedi almost two decades ago.
Like nearly all three hour movies, it would have greatly benefited from being only a two hour movie. Additionally, (and again I don't really care if it's true to the book) the ending was simply horrible. I was actually startled when the credits started to roll. I've seen many movies that were only one part of a multi-part story, but each has been able to stand on its own. This story was incomplete and I simply can't imagine sitting through another 6 hours of this to finally get to the conclusion - the story just isn't compelling enough for that. One three hour movie that got all the way to the finish might have been acceptable, but not three of them.
Finally, not to throw flames at those of you who loved these books, because maybe the movie wasn't completely true to them or maybe it was simply done much better in the book, but the story itself didn't seem all that well done either. We have these nine characters on a quest (at least one of whom was able to hop a ride on Big Bird for a while but apparently didn't think the same transport would work for this trip), at least three of them have no purpose but to get the others into trouble, and all of them together show no more camaraderie than the prima donnas at the last "Divas Live" show. A few of these characters are apparently pretty decent guys to have around in a fight given their ability to singlehandedly fight off literal swarms of blade wielding zombies, but frankly, I really didn't care who lived or died in this film (although I do admit I was sorry to see graybeard go down since his was the best performed part in the show).
I really don't mean to rip too hard on this movie, it was an OK flick for the genre and I though it was somewhat enjoyable despite its length. But - how it managed to snare a nomination for the Best Picture Oscar or get a top 5 ranking here is completely unfathomable. Anyone describing this work as a "masterpiece", IMHO, really needs to get out more.
I give it a 6 - just barely better than average.
Casablanca
(1942)
Classic Hollywood Done Right
30 July 2002
Every now and then, everything just comes together right in a movie - the cast, the story, the script - and this is one of those times. I've seen this movie more times than I can remember and I still can't walk away from it. It's that good. If I had to name my all time favorite movie, this might just be it.
Titanic
(1997)
Better than average, not as good as it's box office take.
17 July 2002
It seems like nobody thinks this movie is good. It's either "this is the greatest movie that ever was or ever will be made" or it's "you mean somebody actually paid real money to make this trash." To me it's a decent movie. The love story leading us all through it is hokey and it's far too long, but it is captivating. Winslet was decent, Leo was marginal, and Zane was way over the top - could any real person actually be that annoying? The effects were mostly good and occasionally stunning. Overall, it wasn't a bad flick. Had Cameron put half the effort into the romance story and the characters that he put into the effects it might have earned it's 11 Oscars. On the other hand, you have to hand it to him for being smart enough to know that there are millions of women out there that'll drag their boyfriends and husbands out over and over to see the charming and handsome DiCaprio drown for the love of a woman (and husbands and boyfriends that are secretly not complaining about having another look at Winslet or the cool FX).
Tell Your Friends