sioenroux Reviews

The Man from Earth (2007)

A great couple hours of talking

[9/10 · 22 January 2010]

If you can't handle people talking, you probably don't want to watch this film. On the other hand, if you're brain isn't so damaged or dysfunctional that you require constant car crashes, explosions, chase scenes or gunfights in order to stay awake and alert, then you might really like this movie.

I preface my brief review that way because as interesting, complex, smart, funny, tense and intriguing as this movie is... it also is nothing more than a roomful of people talking the whole time. There are no convenient flashbacks or cutaways to illustrate some of the issues they discuss. You get to use your -- wait for it, wait... -- imagination for that part. Plus, it's necessary to the plot for you to remain in uncertainty.

This is a great piece of science fiction, and a fun ride through a thought-experiment-made-real for this character's group of friends. Give it a try, if you're capable.

Invictus (2009)

Clunky, chunky, cliché... I had to turn it off

[2/10 · 22 January 2010]

I didn't begin watching "Invictus" with any hopes of seeing something unique, edgy or original -- after all, a bare sketch of the plot tells you this is another of the "Can-the-sports-team-make-it-against-the-odds? Oh-it-will-be-tough-but-in-the-end they'll-all-be-better-people-because-of-the-struggle" genre.

I had hopes that with Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon, it might rise above the cliché formula. No, it didn't. They are both OK, but not nearly OK enough to save this clunker.

The level of Hollywood formula is off the charts. Every camera angle, every scene, you can predict with startling accuracy. That doesn't necessarily have to doom a movie (although for me, it pretty much does, because I hate nothing so much as predictability, especially scene by scene), but here it's just so pat you wonder if Clint Eastwood was sleeping through the whole thing.

What really sunk this film for me, though -- I mean, I rarely ever turn off a movie, and I could only handle this one for 20 minutes, after which I used FF and skimmed a few scenes along the way to see it through to the 'exciting' conclusion -- was the incredibly awful dialogue. Awful. Stilted. Ham-fisted. Sounded like a bad Hallmark afterschool special writer had come up with it. Really really bad.

I like Morgan Freeman a lot. In fact, in the past, I had jokingly said to friends that I could listen to him read the telephone book because I like the way he delivers lines. I am reconsidering that joke. "We must (pause) work together (pause) if we are (pause) going to (pause) rebuild our country." Repeat that line about 80 times in the first 15 minutes. With the same awkward pauses. Maybe this was Freeman capturing Mandela really well -- I don't know. What I do know is it was awful to try to watch.

In any case, let me submit for your consideration that you save your time. If you read the plot synopsis and look at the poster, you'll already have as full an experience as this movie is capable of delivering.

The Hurt Locker (2008)

A popcorn action flick pretending to be an intelligent human drama

[6/10 · 10 January 2010]

Going into "The Hurt Locker," I was expecting an Oscar-worthy couple hours. Sadly, I was disappointed. This is a somewhat enjoyable film, but only if you remove the lenses of reality and treat it as a popcorn action movie that desperately wants to be more than it is.

At first, I liked the treatment of the Iraq war in a neutral way -- showing the gritty awfulness of war without descending into the political maelstrom surrounding the U.S. invasion. But with time, it just became more and more problematic for me. The Iraq war isn't neutral, and much of the reality was lost with the superficial stereotyping of both sides in an attempt to steer clear of controversy.

The bigger problem for me, though, was the ridiculousness of the squad's behavior. I have no military experience or family or friends, but this just looked all wrong right from the beginning. Reading many of the comments on here, it seems actual military folks agree. No bomb squad works this way, and most of the "tense" scenes were terrifically unrealistic. They also had zero suspense for me, as the filmmakers telegraphed what was going to happen every time.

Where I thought the movie worked was as an abstract piece of human drama. Jeremy Renner gives a great performance, as do his co-stars. And if you let all the realism problems go and watch the movie for what it appears the filmmakers were trying to say -- that the ugliness of war creates both an adrenaline need and a fatalism that allows increasingly dangerous risk-taking -- the movie is kind of enjoyable.

I find that theme fairly flaccid as a real commentary on war, though -- and especially impotent as a portrayal of the Iraq war, of all things.

There are great war movies that reveal the horror and human drama of war while being realistic, acknowledging the truth and lies in foreign policy and still avoiding polemics. This is not one of those films.

Beautiful (I) (2009)

Engaging, atmospheric twisted tale

[8/10 · 17 October 2009]

Just want to write a quick note to combat the other comments on here a bit. First, this movie isn't TRYING to be "American Beauty" or "Donnie Darko" -- and it certainly isn't trying to be David Lynch. To compare this to any David Lynch film shows you don't understand Lynch at all.

This is an atmospheric thriller. No, the plot isn't ridiculously tangled and doesn't have countless twists, like many Hollywood thrillers that seem to feel obligated to throw dozens of red herrings at the audience so that they feel sufficiently fishy when they leave the theater.

But neither is this movie trying to be an over-the-top freakfest like a Lynch film. I love David Lynch's style and the effect his films have on me, but this is quite different.

This movie was slow and calculated, with plenty of scenes to build atmosphere -- and thereby deepen the sense of character and environment. No, every scene does not advance the plot. Yes, you can tell most of what's going to happen in advance.

But for a strange story about a demented youth for whom everything goes terribly wrong, I thought this was wonderful. All the actors are top-notch, and the cinematography is delightful.

A more accurate frame of reference than the above-mentioned movies would be "Heavenly Creatures," Peter Jackson's tale of the disturbed fantasy life of two girls that explodes into violence. I felt shades of that story throughout "Beautiful." If you want a fast-moving, keep-you-guessing thriller, don't look here. You'll be disappointed. But if you want to see a nicely shot, atmospheric tale that slowly spins out of control, this is well worth your time.

Children of God (2008)

Nice, understated approach to a tough subject

[7/10 · 30 August 2009]

As this movie began to unfold, I was fearful. Homeless kids scavenging for change and food on the grounds of a Hindu temple on the banks of the Baghmati River in Nepal -- this isn't going to suddenly get happy.

And it doesn't, but the filmmakers' light touch with the subject matter allows for glimpses of the joys in these children's lives as well as their suffering. Bits of upbeat humanity are strewn throughout the film, so that the viewer isn't left with the sense that all is hopeless, just that something needs to be done. There are moments of laughter, and outrage, and desperation, and hope.

Next to the temple is a medical clinic, and the filmmakers spend some time there, as well, so that we get a more complete picture of the hardships of being poor in Nepal and a fuller sense of the circle of life and death. Seeing the boys hunting for food alongside tales of families who are watching their sick loved ones gives the film a bit of plotting and moves the action along.

All in all, a delightful film that deserves a wider audience.

The Informers (2008)

Classic, delicious Bret Easton Ellis

[9/10 · 12 August 2009]

"The Informers" is vacant, isolated and angst-ridden. Much like the '80s, it has lots of placid exteriors, broken interiors, hot bodies, vast wealth and the search for meaning.

As is usual for Ellis characters, though, no one has the equipment to find any meaning. From the beginning, it's obvious the hunt will be fruitless. These people have been so badly socialized by their alienating culture of wealth that they often can't even find an emotional response to their inability to properly feel.

Also par for the course is the easily placed blame. Parents so wrapped up in themselves that their children's existence barely registers are hardly fit to bestow morals or wisdom or emotions or anything else. Privilege has its costs. When anything is attainable, meaning evaporates. Everyone is adrift, and it's everyone's fault.

This is a movie that will likely anger, disgust or bore those not familiar with Ellis' milieu, although many of us who lived through the '80s know what he's on about. It doesn't lead anywhere, just like the characters' internal compasses. A couple of times the dialogue felt like it was trying too hard to get the point across, where if you weren't getting it, you're too stupid to be worth telling. I don't remember the book banging you on the head that way, but maybe it did.

This is not a pleasant movie, so don't make it a date night. It is a lovely, enchanting cultural study of detachment and amorality. But again, it also is everyone's fault. Self-indulgence isn't attractive and doesn't engender pity. When Graham pleads, "I need someone to tell me what is good, OK? And I need someone to tell me what's bad," you can't feel anything for him.

He's lost, they're all lost, there's no hope.

Synecdoche, New York (2008)

Touching and true and strange and compelling

[9/10 · 12 March 2009]

Like others writing about this film, I find it difficult to explain fully the ways I was affected by Kaufman's work. He showed us truth, without the boundaries of reality, by exposing what we are and how we live it, in a vision of real life unencumbered by the artifice of narrative linearity. Sort of.

This is a tale of how life is, of what we are all doing in this ridiculous dance, of how shared the experience is, of how beautiful the pain is, of where we find ourselves at the end, which is also the middle and the beginning.

Told through the disjunctive story of a theater director who thinks he's dying (but then he is, as we are all, no?) and out of ideas, the film goes on a bendy, twisty, story-in-story path -- similar in some ways to a David Lynch film, except here there IS easily gleanable meaning in the twists -- that lets us see an entire life, many entire lives as they interweave and affect each other.

A short speech by a preacher at a funeral late in the movie sums up much of what the point is; I won't ruin it except to say that our lives can only be one thing, even though many opportunities present themselves, and it isn't worth sitting around and waiting.

Most importantly, I was so deeply moved by this story... that I don't know what more to say. It makes me want to contact everyone I know and unburden myself to them, tell them how much I love them, etc. Which I won't do, because doing that after a moving film is like drunk-dialing an ex. But it will help me live more fully and honestly. It showed me something real, and goddamnit, that's art.

It's not ordinary storytelling, but it's also not as much work as a Peter Greenaway -- so I recommend this to everyone, if they'll suspend their disbelief a little and leave their hearts open.

Primer (2004)

A difficult, intelligent, sharp sci-fi thriller with depth

[9/10 · 7 January 2009]

I've watched "Primer" twice and am eagerly anticipating the next viewing. I still haven't figured it all out, especially the ending. I think I know what happened when and where that led, but maybe I have it wrong.

After all, with a time machine, anything seems possible. Who knows what could happen when. Or if it could be undone later -- or would that be earlier? Those ideas are the basic plot mechanics of "Primer," a dense and provocative thinker of a thriller. And I don't much like using 'provocative' unless I mean it.

The movie, however, isn't about time machines. It's about morality and friendship and personal histories. But those threads are so tightly woven into the plot via the increasingly crazed structure that it can be difficult to tell which part is about what.

For me, that was the joy. I was stunned that a movie could be this watchable and still be so thick. Unlike some David Lynch films, my mind didn't wander away for a second.

I was riveted to the story, AND trying to unravel the plot at the same time I was struggling with the characters' dilemmas. That must be the definition of good film-making.

Beautifully filmed, intensely psychotic and a lot of fun -- as long as you're one of those people who enjoys working for it.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

A pretty good Hollywood epic romance

[5/10 · 31 December 2008]

This is certainly a sweeping, aiming-for-grand tale of a man's life and times. The script brings together romance, heartbreak, humanity, the small touches of drama in everyday life that make it so affecting. Ultimately, though, it gets a bit treacly and predictable, and other than Brad Pitt and Kate Blanchett's performances, I don't get the award buzz.

Brad Pitt really does deserve credit here: He doesn't mug and he doesn't preen, even when it would be so easy to do so. His affectations, especially when he's young of age and old of body, are nearly perfect. Kate Blanchett likewise pulls off a lifetime of nice moments, even if the dying woman seemed a bit forced at times.

In some ways, this movie reminded me of "Atonement." Broad, sweeping, romantic, human... and then, predictable, melodramatic and sappy. Both had wonderful production values; costumes, settings, props, sound, all were top-notch.

Both also had hunky actors and lovely ladies, though I did find myself torn about whether I would have preferred James McAvoy to Brad Pitt: McAvoy has those dreamy blue eyes, but I suspect this part required the fullness as a man and an actor that Pitt has.

As far as treacly, I really did not need the story-telling framework of the two characters in the hospital. It added a layer that felt forced and cheap -- without character development, I did not care about the daughter.

This movie would be a wonderful choice for those in need of a good cry. It is appropriately bittersweet and loving. And I'm not saying I didn't enjoy it -- it was much much better than "Atonement," which I felt cheated for having sat through, ultimately.

This film was worth seeing, and it definitely made me want to read the short story. But it was just so... usual.

The Wrestler (2008)

A wonderful study in desperation

[8/10 · 31 December 2008]

First, let me join the chorus and say Mickey Rourke is a treat here. Wow does he look different, and it helps him fully inhabit this character: A run-down, washed-up, mostly broken former pro wrestling star. Marisa Tomei plays a similarly past-her-prime stripper, also carrying some baggage.

Together, these two characters inhabit a beautifully grim world, painted by Darren Aronofsky in the pallid tones of desperation he used so perfectly in "Requiem for A Dream." There is no redemption here, just the fumbling about of people destined to the second-tier heap of humanity.

If I make it sound too much of a downer, rest assured the script doesn't let it become depressing. A light touch and bits of humor (playing a wrestling video game against Rourke, a pre-teen neighborhood boy cracks you up when he utters under his breath, "This game's so OLD") keep the story engaging and entertaining.

I almost ended up rooting for these people, if only because they seem to be trying so hard. In the end, though, this movie packed nearly the same punch as "Requiem": When you're on the wrong side of your fate, there might be some fading glory, but there is no way out.

Body of Lies (2008)

A good if unassuming spy caper

[7/10 · 27 December 2008]

First off, this is a Ridley Scott movie. Expect him to telegraph plot twists, provide a few action-y sequences and generally live up to Hollywood's bland reputation.

That said, this is a pretty nice spy caper. Despite being able to see what was coming, watching it unfold was entertaining, helped along by Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Strong turning in strong performances. DiCaprio seems to be recapturing a bit of the sense of acting he had when he was young and acclaimed. Strong is just superb.

Scott attempts to be even-handed in his approach to the Islamic situation, but really it only comes off that way because he runs roughshod over every ambiguous or difficult moral issue with DiCaprio's hard-boiled, know-it-all attitude. It's not so much moderate politics as it is seen-it-all ennui. Still, it's nice to see a film that doesn't take a blatantly for or against approach to what is a much more complex world.

All of that hangs in the background, though. Mostly, it's just a spy flick. Pay attention to who knows what when, and you'll easily see where it's headed. Then enjoy the pretty decent ride.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)

Entertaining but I'm not sure what the award noms are about

[7/10 · 27 December 2008]

Woody Allen gives us a slight, unassuming treatise on love. One of the title characters recently finished a 12-minute film about love, we are told early on, and it felt like that was to be a mirror of the larger story.

Lust, passion, love, desire, betrayal, pride and fulfillment are all examined from a variety of viewpoints and with a variety of outcomes.

Interestingly, though, I never felt like Allen was attached to the action in the movie or passing judgment on it: None of these approaches to love is presented as better or worse than the others, none of them has the impact of "the right way to love." Because of the detachment, some viewers might feel adrift -- as it is, I enjoy movies that just show me stuff without telling me what the author thinks is right.

As nice as it all was, I don't get the award buzz. The movie wasn't superb or terribly memorable, and everyone was good but not outstanding. These weren't unique or even all that interesting characters, and the actors gave them only the depth they deserved.

Still, if you like romance, this has some nice scenes and is a bit playful and enjoyable to watch.

Milk (I) (2008)

A gorgeous conventional biopic paying homage to the movement and the man

[9/10 · 26 December 2008]

Surely, Gus Van Sant was aware that Harvey Milk's life and the gay rights struggle were not his to play around with, cinematically. They are public property, and Van Sant handles them as such.

As a result, he has made a straightforward (as straight as a movie about Milk could be) and easy-to-follow movie that is sure to please any audience who doesn't hate the gays. No sudden twists or turns, no lingering shots (although "Gerry" is still tied with "Drugstore Cowboy" for my favorite Van Sant film) -- just an action-packed life story. I found myself repeatedly wondering how the director was able to stuff so much into one film.

The atmosphere of 1970s S.F. is amazing; I'm too young but felt like I remembered it anyway. Many scenes look like shots from my parents' rolls of film when I was a child.

But the star of this movie is Sean Penn. He is in nearly every scene, nearly every minute, and so he has to inhabit Milk, not just "portray" him or "mimic" him. And he pulls it off amazingly. I was convinced he was Milk. An Oscar-worthy performance if I've ever watched one. The look in his eyes, the wrinkle of his smile, every tiny thing feels genuine and human.

I only have one complaint with the film: the formal structure of having Milk reading his story into a tape recorder. I guess it made it easier to jump around in time and to put the story together the way Van Sant wanted or needed to, but it felt clunky and unnecessary. It also led to Milk reading the lines of his famous speech instead of giving them to a crowd, which I would have preferred, but I guess I see the reason (without making it into a spoiler).

As others have pointed out, the sad ugliness of this film is that it documents a struggle from 30 years ago that is still happening today, in much the same terms. It is shameful that America has moved forward so little.

It is shameful that pastor Rick Warren could have told a crowd in Uganda in March 2008 that gays are unnatural and don't deserve full human rights -- and that he would still be invited to speak at Barack Obama's presidential inauguration.

It is shameful that people would still wonder whether the "all" in "all men are created equal" would apply to ALL or not.

It is shameful that gays are still beaten and killed in America, just for existing.

Perhaps this movie will help inspire a new generation of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning and intersex people to stand up and demand human dignity. I know I'm ready.

For me, the film made me cry a bunch, and it certainly accomplished what Milk demanded in his most famous speech -- "You gotta give 'em hope."

Pride and Glory (2008)

A tough cop drama, but predictable

[7/10 · 26 December 2008]

Others have compared this to "We Own The Night," so I will, too. I'd say it was about the same enjoyment, overall.

The story here might have been a little better, a bit more complicated and possessing more ambiguity -- but only maybe. Don't let people tell you this film has amazing shades of moral complexity. Bad cops are bad cops, and the people who are considering whether to reveal them might have all sorts of pressure heaped on them, but the point's the same. Bad cops rot the whole fruit and undermine the very pinnings of society -- no matter the reasons for their corruption.

Here, what made the movie shine was the performances, by all four main leads, but especially Ed Norton and Noah Emmerich. Colin Farrell was pretty good, as was Jon Voight, but then so were Robert Duvall and Mark Wahlberg in "We Own The Night," but neither did they shine.

It's a classic bad-cop, tangled-messy-crime-scene, one-guy-uncovers-the-truth and what-will-he-do kind of story. Well plotted and paced, and nicely directed to keep the story moving and tension building all the way through.

If you like this kind of movie, as I do, here's another one for you to enjoy. If you like Ed Norton, as I do, he won't let you down here (although I happened to see "25th Hour" for the first time a few weeks back, and I have to say, the character here was remarkably similar).

Religulous (2008)

Hilarious, delightful, frustrating attack on superstitious nonsense

[9/10 · 26 December 2008]

How do people believe utter fiction when it is so obviously nonsensical? That's sort of the question Bill Maher attempts to answer in this movie, but it's not a stodgy documentary. It is instead a funny, in-your-face, well-reasoned examination of how religion is still possible.

The answer? People turn off the part of their brain that works when they engage in religion -- as Maher shows us again and again with his various interviews. When confronted with reason and rationality, every single one of his subjects has to resort to utter nonsense. You can actually watch their eyes glaze over as they fall into the repetition of ridiculous double-talk they have been taught as answers. And the frustration on Maher's face as he continues to run into these walls of inanity makes it all the funnier.

There's not much more to say. This is a great Friday-night date movie, a wonderful comedy about human nature, and more. It asks the big questions and then makes you realize we don't know the answers.

Perhaps we should focus on things we do have answers to -- like getting along together and reducing suffering.

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Delightful pacing, an engaging emotional story and Dev Patel

[10/10 · 25 December 2008]

I hate to gush, especially when a movie hits the formulaic notes of sappy heartstring-pulling...

but this one is worth it. Boyle moves beyond the formula -- not a lot, but enough to keep you smiling and interested and saddened and everything else that comes with the story of one of the billion or so people from the world's slums. He has captured a gorgeous depiction of India and a lovely romance.

There are some weak points: The romance is nearly entirely left up to the viewer to provide, unreasonable coincidences must be ignored, and the tragic but happy ending is obvious from very early on.

There are worse flaws, though, and here, they make sense. This is a bigger-than-life picture befitting a bigger-than-life locale and paying homage to Indian cinema. The dance scene during the credits is a tiny added pleasure.

Go see this to feel good and be entertained.

Up the Yangtze (2007)

Nicely done narrative about a poor family -- the rest is backdrop

[7/10 · 14 September 2008]

Don't think that at the end of this film, you will understand the complexities of industrialization and modernization of China. Don't think it will lay out for you the ways in which trade and capitalism exploit (or help, depending on your view) the world's poor.

This film isn't that story. Instead, what we get here is a beautifully drawn and complicated portrait of one poor family, and their ambiguous relationship with the Three Gorges Dam project.

I would argue that the opening quote is very telling -- Confucius offering the three different ways of learning wisdom -- as the film then shows you that the Chinese people are apparently going to have to learn about the wisdom or not of modernization (at the expense of fulfillment and connection to nature) for themselves, rather than reaping the benefits of others' experience.

But that's my take on it, based on my value judgments as a person. The joy in this movie is that you can decide how the Confucius quote applies for yourself. The story isn't simple, and the filmmaker doesn't hit you over the head with some narrowly tailored point. Instead, it shows that the real world is interwoven in ways that don't always make easy moral judgments.

And ultimately, this is a movie about a family. It's a human narrative, and all the other themes are simply woven in as a beautiful backdrop.

The Dark Knight (2008)

I loved it. It was much better than Cats. I will see it again and again.

[8/10 · 18 July 2008]

Best. Batman. Film. Ever.

My faith in the Nolans was amply rewarded. After "Batman Begins," I was concerned that Hollywood had more effect on them than they had on it.

But this film had a much better story than the first one, not quite as Hollywooded-up as the first one, darker than the first one, and Heath was achingly good. After every one of his scenes, I found myself doing a nervous, creeped-out laugh because of his chilling portrayal of madness.

The action sequences were chaotic, poorly choreographed and boring, except for a couple of times when they focused on clever maneuvers by Batman (good idea, as that's all we really care about, not a bunch of random violent punching and kicking nonsense). But the good news is that there were not as many action sequences as I expected -- the story turned on plot, not on what happened with stupid car chases and explosions.

I actually wondered, by the end, if the Nolans weren't a little bit making fun of the genre with the way they handled the action. It was a caricature of itself, overblown, impossible to follow and really boring -- and yet the movie was freaking incredible anyway. It kinda shows you that a good superhero film doesn't really need action sequences.

Back to the important stuff: the story. The moral tangles that unfolded were smart, just a little bit complicated and very nicely handled. Not as much macho-crap bravado and "honor" nonsense as the first and more actual dilemmas about the consequences of our behavior, both good and bad.

The focus on morality combined with the strong story turned what could have been just another good superhero movie into a piece of cinema history that transcends its genre -- this is a three-act opera, a tragedy of epic proportions and a dark, nasty comedy.

Overall, bravo! And thank you, Nolans. I'm glad you did better than "Begins."

War, Inc. (2008)

A funny, silly ride

[7/10 · 7 May 2008]

Don't mistake "War Inc." for a sharply chiseled satire or a brainy comedy full of inside jokes for news buffs. It isn't.

This is an old-fashioned screwball comedy, with ridiculously coincidental plot twists, stock characters (given some depth in fun performances by John Cusack, Joan Cusack, Marisa Tomei and Hillary Duff) and a straightforward approach to the political content.

You see, the filmmakers' political points are things nearly all of the country already knows are true. Yeah, we understand that the corporations profiting off the war are corrupt, inept pigs, the political leaders in charge of it are even more inept buffoons, and American imperialism has never looked crasser and more out of touch than it does right now -- but none of that is the point.

Here, all of that noise is the setting that they lampoon -- sometimes in genius ways -- as the backdrop for a silly romp, as John Cusack's character (the hit-man with a heart) tries to change his life with the help of the do-gooder journalist who doesn't trust him (Tomei) and the young Middle Eastern starlet who wants to call off her marriage (Duff). Cusack's sister, Joan, plays his assistant with an almost cartoonishly enthusiastic quality. Ben Kingsley seemed to me wasted in his smaller part as a ruthless CIA boss.

That's all, and it works. It's simple fun, but if somehow you can't see reality and you think the war is going well and everyone involved with it is doing a good job and there's no corruption and people in the Middle East wish our Western culture would supplant theirs, then you might not find it as funny.

For all the rest of us, it was a light comedy with a political edge.

Meet Bill (2007)

Light fun with a surprise or two

[7/10 · 7 May 2008]

I'm not much of a comedy fan, mostly because in recent years they've strayed too far into smart-ass one-liner dumb-formula potty-humor cardboard-cutout territory, which is fine if you like that sort of thing, but I don't.

This, though, is an old-fashioned comedy with heart. Can Bill make his life better with the help of a precocious teen? Sure he can. But the way he gets there isn't just the standard formula, and that makes it a fun watch.

It also helps that the technical work is all top-notch, and the supporting cast is pitch perfect, from the staid father-in-law to the somewhat manic doughnut franchisers.

This isn't a movie that will make you guffaw and belly laugh for an hour and a half, but it does make you feel inspired and offers a few chuckles along the way. In that regard, it reminds me of "Charlie Bartlett," "Juno" and "Rocket Science."

I'm glad this style of comedy didn't die out because of the Farrelly Brothers' success. Their kind of comedy is redundant and dumb -- this type leaves you happy for a while. And Hollywood should do that more often.

80 Minutes (2008)

Don't waste any minutes of your life

[3/10 · 29 April 2008]

I wasn't anticipating much (although you never know when you'll stumble upon the next "Run Lola Run"), but this failed to meet even greatly lowered expectations.

I only got 40 minutes in, to be honest -- and even that far was because I was generously hoping that the poor dialogue, punchy acting, stilted directing and uneven plot pacing would somehow start to turn the corner and redeem itself. It didn't, so I turned it off.

The story is simple: Dumb dude owes a mean guy money, so the mean guy injects dumb dude with a poison that will kill him in 80 minutes if he doesn't cough up the $15,000 he owes. Action-y hijinks ensue. Sadly, it wasn't well-conceived or written.

The camera work was nice, images sharp, lighting appealing, etc. The rest of it was 40 minutes that no amount of money can give me back.

Delirious (2006)

Cute, sweet fantasy

[7/10 · 11 April 2008]

I love Michael Pitt, which is the main reason I gave this a chance. I'm glad I did, because it was a sweet, very light romantic comedy with a fantasy-type touch.

Some of the scenes of Pitt are astonishingly beautiful, and the story, although straightforward and predictable, takes a backseat to the storytelling... lush, frothy and warm.

I'm not as gushing as some of the other commenters, mostly because some of the dialogue was stilted and a few of the scenes fell flat (especially the more "personal" moments between Steve Buscemi and Pitt), but all in all, this is a light-hearted romance that leaves you feeling good inside.

Shouldn't we want that from movies sometimes?

There Will Be Blood (2007)

Hugely overrated, though Daniel Day Lewis is always a star

[4/10 · 1 March 2008]

First, let me say I enjoyed watching "Blood" if only to see some of Lewis' tightly woven intensity after too long away.

But wow, this film is a meandering, steaming pile of Figure Out Where You're Taking The Story Before You Release The Movie.

I was alternately lost, confused by on screen developments, bored -- and occasionally mesmerized by a tight, powerfully done scene.

Sadly, those powerful moments, which hold up very well upon repeat viewings, are sandwiched in and around a story going only somewhere sort of, with a purpose that is difficult to discern.

Is this a parable for America's growth, or simply a slice of one part of the ugliness of it? Is there a story being told here, or just some atmospheric scenes being strung together to build a mood? Is the "battle" between Plainview and Eli really a plot, or more a distraction? And would those violins please stop that noise already?

Any one of these answers would have been fine, and might have made for a really enjoyable movie. Unfortunately, I never got the feeling Paul Thomas Anderson knew the answer.

A good director lets you know what part is for plot, what is for character and what is for atmosphere. The great ones, however, tell a story where all three work together more or less seamlessly. Here, I was never sure which was which, and they created no whole at all.

Or as a friend said to me, it seemed like the parts were greater than the sum of the whole.

Those individual scenes are great for trailers and retrospectives -- just don't watch the whole thing.

The Unknown Trilogy (2007)

Much, much too awful to watch

[1/10 · 10 February 2008]

I'll be honest: I am in no way connected to or know anyone having the slightest thing to do with this movie.

And this movie sucks. Also being honest: I did not watch it all, because life is too short. It's not the production values that I mind -- although they were very low budget. It's not the threadbare dialogue, delivered by actors with all the skill of B-grade porn stars -- although they were awful. It's not the overdone and stilted narrator who appears to be reading from cards -- although he...

wait a minute...

yes, it IS all those things that I mind! They suck, this movie sucks and you would be wasting your time to watch it, much less pay to watch it.

If you are one of those rare people who enjoy poorly written, edited, directed and acted video releases, then I guess... I would ask you, what's wrong with you?

This movie sucks a lot! Don't be tempted!

Slings and Arrows (2003–2006)

An absolute delight

[10/10 · 31 December 2007]

I know the comments are full of gushing praise, but this show really is that delightful.

The more you know and like Shakespeare, the more there is to see and tease out in the play-within-a-play structure -- but if you're not an expert, just watch it for the fun, behind-the-scenes soap opera of a theater festival in the midst of chaos.

Paul Gross is utterly compelling as the off-his-rocker but committed-to-his-craft artistic director, but he is surrounded by a wonderful ensemble, all of whom make the dialogue snap and these characters come to life.

Truly a quirky, fun treat of a show.