Change Your Image
lordofthefries-1
Reviews
What Not to Wear (2003)
completely awful.
If someone followed me around and secretly videotaped me, and then tried to embarrass me in front of all my colleagues in order to pressure me into submitting to their attempts to force me into a lifestyle not my own...yeah, I'd be making a beeline for my lawyer to see if I could sue them for invasion of privacy. Screw this show. Not everyone wants to spend hundreds of dollars on clothes. And why should we, when it's possible to get things that look just as good and are more comfortable for so much cheaper? I don't think I've seen a single flat shoe on this show, ever. They had one with a woman who worked backstage at a theater and had to do a bunch of physical work, and they took her out of her nice, practical shoes and stuck strappy little high heels on her feet. What the hell?
Jumper (2008)
Just read the book. Seriously.
The book titled Jumper is a highly engaging, highly introspective book about a young man who has suffered a lifetime of abuse at the hands of his father before discovering at the age of nineteen that he has the ability to 'jump,' or teleport, and subsequently running away from home. The book combines the best of psychological storytelling with elements of science fiction, drawing the reader in as Davy Rice finds his way in the world with the help of Millie, a twenty-two-year-old psychology student he meets along the way. There are, of course, elements of an action story present, as seems almost inevitable in a novel about a young man with the ability to teleport, but they are in service to the overall story and character development.
The movie titled Jumper, on the other hand, is a shallow, vapid tale about a much less interesting version of Davy, dumbed down and made politically correct. Gone is the actual trauma that in the book led to Davy's stunted emotional growth, leaving the Davy of the movie nothing more than a brat with little or no reason for his selfish behavior. Gone are his struggles to establish himself in New York--that which provided the meat of the story for the novel is now compressed into the first act, thrown away in favor of playing up what the filmmakers no doubt thought was the more 'exciting' portion of the story. Even this is completely botched, with all subtlety thrown out the window, and some nonsense about 'paladins' and other jumpers inserted where there was previously a much more interesting contest of wills between Davy and certain agents of the NSA.
This movie is what happens when someone decides to make a movie out of a book, but doesn't bother to actually carry over any of the things that made that book work. For those who have only seen the movie without reading the book, this version of Jumper is most likely no worse than mind-numbingly boring and badly disjointed. For those who have read the books, however, the movie goes beyond dull and into the realm of the offensively bad.
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
No. Just no.
While this movie attempts to depict Good and Evil, it seems that there is no such thing as actual redemption in the Spideyverse. I am speaking, of course, of Harry. Harry is Evil because his father was Evil, and because Harry wants to kill Peter. What the film fails to mention, however, is the fact that Harry is simply having the exact same reaction to the death of a loved one as Peter. While one could argue that the filmmakers are drawing parallels between the two story lines, the difference is that Harry becomes disfigured and finally dies, while Peter lives on unscarred. Why does Harry get redemption only in death? Smeg knows, because good!Harry is a better person than good!Peter.
The other character that supposedly walks the line between Good and Evil is Flint Marko, but it's made clear early on that Flint does what he does for the sake of his daughter, who is terminally ill with some unspecified disease that can only be cured with money. There is absolutely no question as to whether Flint is Good or Evil, so it comes as no surprise when he is finally absolved of the death of Uncle Ben and allowed to go free.
Brock/Venom barely even merits discussion, despite having the coolest look and powers of any of the characters and being one of the best-known Spidey villains. Brock is basically Evil for the sake of Evil. Initially, he seems all right, but he soon fakes a photograph and asks Jesus to kill Peter after Peter exposes him for fraud. He dies at the end because the Spideyverse has no room for real redemption.
The heart of the Spider-Man trilogy is pubescent angst, and watching Peter continue to go through puberty when he's in his twenties is tiresome. Every single one of the movies is about Peter going through a physical change and having social difficulties as a result. Peter is continually hurting MJ and then calling to make up, and it irks me to no end that she always accepts him back despite the fact that he is selfish and pompous at the best of times, and downright Evil at the worst. Of course, MJ is also an incredibly selfish person, who is wholeheartedly jealous of Peter's success. They probably deserve each other.
The film also violated numerous laws of reality, and while I understand that comic book movies are hardly going to be realism, I'd appreciate it if they at least pretended to care about the things they portrayed. I'll accept Flint/Sandman's transformation (his awakening scene after he was fused with silicone was easily one of the best parts of the movie), and I'll accept the idea of a rock from space containing some sort of alien symbiote. Being a Doctor Who fan, I am necessarily willing to accept all sorts of pseudo-scientific macguffins, so I'm not really thrown off by superheroes and supervillains. My biggest complaint about the movie's lack of reality is Peter's ability to multitask. Are we honestly supposed to believe that Peter is capable of being a professional photographer (he must be taking pictures of things other than Spider-Man at least some of the time), going to what is apparently a school for geniuses, keeping all of New York safe as Spider-Man, having a steady relationship with MJ, and getting enough sleep to function on a daily basis? Sorry, but that's just not happening.
The biggest turnoff of all, though, was the film's sloppy pacing and unsatisfactory resolution. The action scenes are (or at least feel) few and far between, as the filmmakers chose to focus instead on Peter and MJ's unhealthy, repulsively whiny romance. I loved the action sequences, but the rest of the movie was boring beyond reason. Cool action sequences are no substitute for a well-rounded movie.
The film tries to recreate the complexity of Batman Returns by loading the movie full of baddies, but in the end there was just too much going on to really get the audience attached to any one character. And, too, Peter was the only character allowed to have any complexity whatsoever, so all the potentially interesting aspects of the other characters were unceremoniously glossed over. Venom is completely wasted on this film, as he only becomes a superperson in the third act and has all of one battle with Spider-Man before being offed. The film's dramatic issues were all but resolved before Brock became Venom, and he was present in the film only because they needed a climactic battle sequence. The battle sequence was all sorts of fun to watch, but in terms of story structure it just felt tacked on.
The resolution between Peter and Flint felt flat, as Flint finally explains what the audience knew all along (that he was really just a nice guy who got caught up in events that were beyond his control), Peter grants his tearful forgiveness, and Flint flies off into the sunset. What is unsatisfactory about this outcome is that Peter never even thinks to apologize for his brutal attempted murder of Flint midway through the film, and Flint still lacks the funds to save his daughter. Presumably, then, Flint will keep on robbing banks and hurting people in the process, despite the fact that hey, Peter is friends with Harry, who is incredibly rich. Harry could easily have provided for Flint's daughter at the end
but Harry is dead and Flint just flies off dramatically. Nothing is solved.
And that, really, is the take-home synopsis of Spider-Man 3: some people whine and complain for several hours, there are a few pretty fight scenes, and in the end, nothing is solved.
Die Zauberflöte (1983)
A good, solid performance
Maybe it's just that I've been watching absolute junk versions of this opera in my quest to find a DVD of it I actually wanted to buy, but this production left me feeling very, very happy. I'd have to say that, out of the Magic Flute DVDs I've seen, this is my favorite--and I'm including Ingmar Bergman's version in that statement.
While it's very clear that this is a documentation of a stage production (evidenced especially by the applause after each aria), it's still very well done. I'm not saying that this is cinematic gold--there's only so much even a great cameraman can do with a stage production--but the camera angles are sensible and manage to capture all the action (unlike Bergman), and enough closer shots are used that we feel as if we have front row seats.
The singing is good across the board, and if the acting falls a bit flat or goes a bit too far every now and then, we ought to remind ourselves that these are opera singers, not film actors. The sets are dynamic and detailed, and the costumes are fairly traditional, even if Papageno has less feathers than he did back in Mozart's day. It's a joy to see such a good, solid production, and I would recommend this as a good starting point for someone new to the opera.
Trollflöjten (1975)
Did I see a different movie?
I suppose I had better begin at the beginning. The overture consists of a series of static shots of the audience members staring blankly at the stage. If the conductor and orchestra had been included, it would have been something, but these static shots do nothing for me. The audience on screen seems rather bored, which really doesn't make a good impression on the audience watching them at home. Then there's the little girl, who shows up often in this opening montage and later in between scenes and during the intermission. I don't like her, simply because she has nothing to do with anything and I got sick of staring at her very quickly.
The three ladies, upon arriving, established what was to become extremely annoying to me-- all the actors staring at the camera with vacant grins as they sang. They're supposed to be arguing, and they spend the entire time looking cheerful! All the actors do this, at least from time to time, so that every time you begin to accept the story, they take you out of it by staring at you from the screen. It's kind of unnerving.
At this time, too, the poor cinematography kicked in. Almost everything is in uncomfortably tight closeups, often rendering it impossible to tell just what's going on--as when Tamino meets Papageno, who is doing something with a stick that apparently involves a bird. We don't know what it is he's doing, though, since the cinematographer didn't see fit to zoom out and show us. When the subject changes, it often does so through a sloppy pan or a jerky zoom rather than a clean cut. It looks as if it was shot by a high school student with a video camera, sweeping back and forth in an amateur attempt to follow the action. All too often, the camera focuses on something irrelevant, like when the film cut to a shot of the little girl from the overture in the middle of an aria. What?! Why would I want to look at her when there's action happening on stage?!
There's also the matter of Bergman being unable to decide whether this is a stage production or an actual movie. The intrusive shots of the audience keep dragging us back to it supposedly being a stage production, but then the characters whisper back and forth and walk through three-dimensional sets that would have been impossible to see from the audience. Yes, I know, it's stylized, but it's also very distracting to keep wondering where the heck it's taking place. I could go along with the use of stagey sets and costumes, since those by themselves in a movie that was otherwise its own production would've been a charming reference to the story's origins, but by including the audience-within-the-film, Bergman repeatedly pulls the viewers out of the moment. "See? These people are watching it too! They're awfully bored, but never mind that."
The costumes were not entirely true to Mozart's original intentions, as has been claimed by an earlier reviewer. Those who bother to look up pictures of the original Papageno (who was also the original librettist) will discover that he is covered in feathers from head to toe. Bergman's Papageno, charming as he is, lacks feathers. That being said, he was still my favorite part of the movie. I also liked the three boys in their flying machine. Tamino was dashing enough, and Sarastro was well-cast. Monostatos, on the other hand, couldn't decide whether or not he was a Moor, and settled on being a dirty-faced white man in a jester suit. Apart from his appearance, though, he was satisfying enough. I really liked the dance he and his slaves did when Papageno played his bells.
The inclusion of the actors as they ran about backstage was...odd, to say the least. Like the inclusion of the audience, it was distracting, and worse, confusing as it is unclear whether the characters on stage are supposed to be able to see the characters in the wings. Also, are we to believe that the people playing the animals and the dragon kept their costumes on the entire time they were waiting backstage? There would be no reason for them to do so, and it would be very uncomfortable.
It was also strange that sometimes Papageno had to strike the bells with a mallet to make them sound, and sometimes he did not. I don't mind the bells being magical enough to play themselves, but it would have been nice to have some consistency.
I'll forgive the abridgment of the opera, as one can hardly expect a filmmaker to shoot a three-hour opera word for word. I did like the handling of the first two trials, and the act of moving Papageno's aria up to the second trial proved to be a surprisingly good decision, as it allowed him to be singing his heart out as Tamino kept trying to shut him up, adding the element of comedy to the scene. I also liked the handling of Papageno's suicide attempt and duet with Papagena, with the symbolic winter and spring settings, even if it did include the three boys randomly stripping.
The use of pans instead of cutting was sometimes a source of confusion, such as during Papageno's aria in the second trial. When Papagena is shown trying to come to him and being stopped by the priest, the same shot pans over to Papageno, who smiles at the camera. By doing it this way, it puts Papageno and Papagena in the same space, and makes it appear almost as if Papageno has seen her and is smiling knowingly at the audience.
Overall, I'd say it's a fairly enjoyable movie, but it suffers from severe flaws in the cinematography and editing, as well as some sub-par acting.
Byt (2006)
A wonderful short film
I would tend to disagree with the previous statement that this movie was just an exercise in creativity without a real point. I found it to be deeply symbolic of the pressure Eastern Europe was under to follow rules in a world that did not follow the rules itself. The struggle of Joseph (his name is revealed when he writes it at the end) is both comic and easy to sympathize with, and in that it reminded me faintly of Charlie Chaplin's films. While it is extremely enjoyable to view superficially, delving just a little deeper is incredibly rewarding.
Joseph keeps on expecting for the room in which he finds himself trapped to give him some small bit of normalcy, and it keeps betraying him. His hopefulness is almost pitiful, but he's all the more likable for not giving up. When his hand gets stuck in the wall, he digs it out. He does not succeed at escape, however, because he is too preoccupied with following a set of rules that do nothing to help him in his plight. He can't eat his meal because, unlike the dog that comes out of the wardrobe, he is too civilized to do what needs to be done, and he quietly accepts the axe from the man with the chicken (...that sounds utterly ridiculous out of context, doesn't it?) and waits until he is left alone once more before attacking the door rather than following the man out before he can shut the door. What he finds behind the door, however, is a wall covered with the names of people who have been in the same room and faced the same problems--this is not a single man's struggle, but one faced by a multitude, which again ties back to it being about Eastern Europe rather than a single, arbitrary person.
Dracula 2000 (2000)
Not bad, but hardly scary (spoilers)
I'm honestly not sure what I expected when I first watched this movie. I'd heard all sorts of terrible reviews--and indeed, I only watched it because of Gerard Butler. I suppose I was expecting either some suspense, or something of mythic lameness (coined a new phrase there...you just watch!). Instead, I found something very strange.
First off, I have to say that Dracula 2000 is not in any way frightening, not even for a moment. I'm a terrible chicken when it comes to horror films that I can hardly stand watching many of them, but this movie never even made me think about flinching. In the commentary they go on about things being "scares," but they're really just...not. I don't know what the deal is with that. You'd think they could at least surprise you into being startled, but no.
For all that, though, Dracula 2000 is oddly alluring, not least because of Dracula himself. Yes, he is gorgeous. No, I will not gush. I would say that Mr. Butler plays Dracula as very mysterious and scary, but he really mostly looks bemused in many scenes. Who can blame him, though? The character has missed a century, and here he is in the middle of Mardi Gras.
The actors did a good job with what they had, and the dialog isn't bad. The action was as well-done as could be expected given time and budget restraints, though as with all effects using cables to make people fly around there were moments when it didn't really work. The bit where Spunkula (sorry...Dracula...) turns into a wolf is rendered just plain silly by the way it's done. With the rest of the film filled with all sorts of effects shots, to have that one transformation done by cutting back and forth between Gerard Butler and a wolf really fast is distractingly campy. It really doesn't help that the wolf they got looks old and confused, either.
Dracula's new back story was creative, to say the least. It did add a dimension to the film without which it would have been just too inane. I'm not going to go into terribly much detail there, since I'm sure it's already been discussed to death.
My suggestion to you is to stop viewing this as a horror film and re-watch it, thinking of it this time as a comedy. While it's true that if this had been their aim they ought to have upped the camp just a bit more and left in a lot of the scenes you'll find in the extras on the DVD, it's still enjoyable in this fashion. When that blood splatters across the inside of the plane, go ahead and laugh. It's cheesy. It's silly. It's great fun.
Ah, and keep your ears open in the scene in which Van Helsing is mucking about with the leeches. The music he puts on the record player is the fourth movement of Hector Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique, March to the Scaffold, though the first few seconds are skipped. Wonderfully morbid choice, and I'd highly recommend going out and listening to the whole thing.
Excess Baggage (1997)
fun and interesting enough
Maybe it was just the fact that I watched this movie on television with commercial breaks while doing homework, and therefore wasn't exactly giving it my full attention and deep scrutiny, but I rather liked it. It was pretty funny most of the time, though it was all pretty obvious, but that's all right. Journey's more important than the destination, and all that.
The acting wasn't perfect, and all around, there could have been improvements, but I felt fortunate to have stumbled upon this movie. It makes an awesome excuse to take a break from studying every few minutes and stare at Christopher Walken.