Change Your Image
david-2011
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Dolly Parton's Heartstrings: Jolene (2019)
Wholesome lessons, three-dimensional characters, saccharine explication
Structurally the characters and plot are satisfying. Every character has more than superficial motivation for who they are and what they do. The episode takes time to show that everyone has understandable reasons for the things they do, even if the things they do hurt others. No one is made out to be a complete villain and neither is anyone a blameless saint. ..Except for budda-like wisdom-dropping Dolly, but that is to be expected. There is enough character development and small turns to the plot to keep interest for an hour.
Unfortunately, the delivery of this otherwise structurally sound story is so saccharine and obvious, that it felt painful to watch at times. There are obvious moral lessons throughout the story, and characters make it even more obvious through ABC Afterschool Special-level moralizing.
In many ways this whole endeavor was a relief from standard rom-com plot stupidity, where absurd and terrible things happen to buttress a plot which wouldn't otherwise unfold if characters would communicate with one another in a semi-realistic way. "Jolene" in some ways addresses this, either implicitly by showing people's motivations for what they do, and explicitly and heavy-handedly explaining how they could do it better.
Finally, the story has an overarching theme of personal agency and responsibility. Every character at some point in the story is forced to look inward when considering their particular predicament. The characters themselves had a depth that is absent from many overall better TV dramas or movies.
Didn't hate it. Didn't love it. Can't fault the apparent motivations, and Dolly is a gem.
Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)
Snoozer
The lack of a plot, predictable "surprises," and completely flat, unlikable characters makes this family drama an unexploded dud.
Oh, yes, there are monsters too, and enough special effects budget to feed and shelter a large city's homeless population for a year. This is important because the destruction wreaked by the Titans -- Godzilla and his ilk -- will put millions in what's left of the streets. The monsters are undeniably big and powerful and a handful scenes cast some truly memorable images of giants slugging it out.
Still, the monster combat is for the most part linear and suspenseless. And I couldn't help but wonder throughout at the inconsistencies in their destructive power. The monsters seem to have no problem leveling an entire metropolitan downtown area -- either by marching through buildings like matchsticks, or by generating F5-level tornadoes by simply flying over it -- yet when the protagonists' vehicle it struck by one of the monsters, the worst they suffer is a cracked windshield.
Which leads me to the main characters, an estranged combat-scientist couple who vie for the attention of their plucky adolescent daughter. This movie would have you believe that their little family drama is the most important thing going on against the backdrop of cataclysmic, extinction-level events threatening the human species. Inexplicably, world government organizations tasked with the study of the monsters and the preservation of human life in recognition of their existence diverge from their mission, on multiple occasions, to help this trio of protagonists, while presumably millions of others are being massacred.
Is it worth it? If you love Godzilla, this is another film in that series, so queue up. If you enjoy plot, suspense, character development, or even inventive onscreen action, the best part may be the end credits.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018)
Dazzling special effects, no plot
This movie made no sense. Characters run from one special effects display to another, and say nonsensical lines which do nothing to shape or advance a plot line. There is no structure or continuity on what the characters do. Most characters exist to explain some piece of action or back story, but none of what they say has been supported by anything that precedes it. Effectively, every thread spun by dialog is a red herring, because it is never woven into a coherent story.
The special effects look cool. Newt has a way with creatures. Movie sucked.
Love (2015)
Love and lust, decline and fall
Mild plot spoiler (and like any Noe movie I think you ought to just ignore any synopses or reviews and simply see it for yourself): this is the story of two lovers, how they meet, how their romance develops, how they learn about each others desires, their past relationships. Sex is a drug, and these characters are junkies. The first hit draws them in, and as they chase the dragon with each other, trying to make each hit as momentous as the last, their relationship evolves, blossoms, and suffers.
The movie, set in Paris, moves non-chronologically through Murphy's (an American film student) recollection of his relationship with Electra, a French artist, both of them in their early or mid-20s. Scenes are strung together like jumbled photographs, pieces of each recalling or referencing another memory. The film is told from Murphy's point of view, and yet he's not a completely likable character, displaying huge streaks of jealousy and hypocrisy. Electra is mysterious at first, then we learn more as we go deeper into Murphy's memory.
This is a visually beautiful movie. The lighting is dark but expressive, the framing of the scenes is exquisite, and scenes cut in and out like the blink of an eye. The opening scene is bold and erotic, but at the same time, tender and intimate. There is a lot of sex in this movie, but it's not there to be gratuitous. Each sex scene is different, portraying the desires and moods of the characters involved.
Like many of Noe's movies an underlying theme is that of a stranger in a strange land. In Enter the Void, the characters are Americans in Tokyo. Here of course Murphy is struggling with his ability to handle a relationship with a French woman with more open ideas of commitment. It's not absolute though; her world is changed too by Murphy's interpretation of the very fluidity she seems to be encouraging.
A particularly poignant part of of the movie has a sympathetic French policeman lecturing the hot-headed American Murphy on his aggressive and destructive attitudes about sex and relationships. At this point the officer is voicing a key part of what I think Noe's philosophy about love and sex. Murphy and Electra decide to take the officer's advice, but it doesn't quite work out as planned, and it's seems like Noe is saying, "here is how I think it ought to be, and yet I could still be wrong."
At one point, Murphy asks a character what the best thing in life is, and the response without hesitation, is "Love." He follows up by asking what the second is. And without hesitation, the answer is, "sex." This movie is about love and sex, how they influence one another, and how they can destroy one another.
There's a sense of humor running through the movie, which is expressed in several mild in- jokes about the director, and one particularly shocking (yet delightful: the audience at the screening I sat in erupted into happy cheers) use of 3D. It's not a movie for everyone, nevertheless it is quite a movie.
Why We Fight (2005)
A framework of understanding: Why We Fight compared to Fahrenheit 9/11
I was disappointed with Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. As someone with deep concerns about American foreign policy specifically and the direction of American culture and discourse generally, I thought that movie generated more heat than light. It did not spark conversation; it extinguished it. Yeah, I think Bush and his cronies are doing indelible harm to America, but I felt like I was being asked to swallow large gulps of rhetorical kool-aid and endorse a somewhat histrionic script in order to appreciate what Moore was saying. It turned off a lot of other people too -- people who might have been able to come away with some new perspective on current political dynamics, but for a tone befitting Fox news (in reverse) were unable to see past the Bush-bashing.
Why We Fight is everything that F9/11 is not. Where F911 told, WWF explains. Where F911 ridicules, WWF allows items of fact speak for themselves. Why We Fight makes the assumption that its audience is educated and capable of examining multiple facets of an issue without resorting to unnecessarily polar characterizations of people or ideas. Just to be clear: WWF's take on these issues is unmistakable, but if F911 is a declaration, WWF is fundamentally a question.
Why We Fight asks its audience to consider Eisenhower's presidential farewell address, and amount of it he devoted to warning against the rise of the "military-industrial complex," coining a new phrase.
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society." (1961)
Viewers of Why We Fight are consistently returned to this warning as they are reminded of the last fifty years of American military conflicts.
We are introduced to an ex-NYPD cop, Vietnam vet and father of a 9/11 victim who wants revenge on the bastards who killed his son. We meet an Air Force Lt. Colonel who resigned her post in intelligence at the Pentagon when political urgencies began to warp and distort her work of 20 years. The pilots who dropped the first bombs on Baghdad in 2003 talk about their mission. We hear commentary from think-tankers Bill Kristol and Richard Perle, and candid reservations about American military power from Senator John McCain. All have something valuable to say about the conflict in which the United States is engaged.
Fundamentally Why We Fight asks questions of involvement and influence: who are the players, what are their interests, and what are the stakes? It's not about one man, a group of men, or a political party. There are no conspiracy theories; merely a serious question. How much military might is necessary? Given the amount of money spent on defense, the number of jobs the industry provides, the numbers of congressmen in office due to contracts being brought home to their constituents, should we be concerned how the business of war drives the politics for war? Are the needs of a defense corporation different than those of humans? Who is in control, and how much power should they have?
On the surface, the movie is about how we got into Iraq. Deeper, it is asking what the future holds: American military supremacy? For how long? How long did the English or the French or the Soviets hold on to their hegemonies? Just how did we get from Iranians, Jordanians and Frenchmen proclaiming "we are all Americans" in the days following 9/11, to being seen around the globe as the single biggest threat to peace in the world? Can we ever get back?
Richard Perle makes a statement I found chilling largely because I find it hard to disagree. He says something to the effect of, "people think that you can just elect a new man to office, and everything will change. It's already a different world. We have already changed." The degree of truth of that statement is worthy of debate, and that's why I wholeheartedly recommend this movie.