'Sideways' is a well-written culturally literate comedy that takes place in Northern California as two men (characters not unlike those in 'In The Company Of Men') struggle with love and grapes. The dialogue snaps and the debauchery seems refreshingly real and unconventional.
This film concentrates on character development and will probably rise above most 2004 films because of success in this area. This very quality, though, seems to be both the film's asset and liability. The rich wine-based metaphors seem to be purely character based. They don't rise above this and a true dialectic in the film (something it seemed to require) was absent. The heavy-handed wine metaphors seemed unclear and relevant only to Giamatti's character. The acting was tremendous by all four characters, though Madsen lacked charisma, perhaps on purpose in order to match with Giamatti. But... the overall drought seemed to have been not in character or wine development, but in substance. The richness of the main character seemed to get lost in the vineyards for the most part. The characters lacked a true dialectic upon which they might have played for greater worth and substance.
All in all it was a refreshing film for 2004. A character-driven comedy that did, at times, reach deep into the cultural literacy grab bag for wonderful references. Perhaps it was due to the new Hollywood interest in O Toole, but the 'Confederacy of Dunces' reference was perhaps the best film line of the new millennium. Anyone, and I mean anyone in the audience who cares about literature and comedy, leaps from their seat for that one!
"Fahrenheit: 911" Rating: Theater Rating: Cable
Finally a documentary with a punch. Before I even talk about the film, I'm thinking of going and taking a life insurance policy on Michael Moore. I called Geico and they laughed at me. If he happens to take a 'tumble' in the next month, I'm guessing, it won't be as easy to cover up as a Halliburton contract. So, watch for a 'natural cause' type of thing.
My first reaction was that the beginning was much more effective. The parts of the documentary where he did his research and appealed more to evidence worked. I was really sold on the Bush/Bin Laden link. I'm not sure what it means, and I'm guessing there is some hyberbole, but I do think there's more than meets the eye. But what do I know? Bush might be too dumb to cover this stuff up, I'm surprised he can get out of bed in the morning. That scene where he sat dumbfounded in the kindergarten class... he wasn't thinking what to do... he was still trying to understand Winnie The Pooh. He's that dumb.
What I didn't like was the moralizing. The one-sided theme of altruism that had no evidential support. The idea that the poor people are getting the shaft. Moore's thematic link to "1984" when it stressed a kind Kundera-like 'forgetting' and a postmodern interpretation of the reality of the past was very lucid and moving. BUT his sick altruism about the disenfranchised American holds no water. Who do you think buys all these fucking products, keeps blind capitalism moving ahead like an MCI victim in a Class Action Lawsuit line? Poor, uneducated Americans who CHOOSE to be uneducated. Yes, they are no worse than Bush, but they are no better. So this is what I say: Fuck Karl Marx and his contingency-planless idea about socialism, to hell with his 'here's the start... good luck with the altruism' plan, and somebody PLEASE come up with a political ideology that gives credit where credit is due. If all these idiots quit watching infomercials and the Koby Bryant trial for fifteen minutes and actually read "1984" or any Vonnegut novel for that matter, we might have an uprising in America and return it to a nation of philosophy, not faith.
For what it's worth, this movie is a 'must see' for its information alone. Watch it first, and then read my Ayn Rand rant.
"Matrix: Reloaded" Rating: Cable
Even though every reviewer on the planet had something bad to say, let's try to be positive. In light of the brilliance of the first film, we have to be able to ferret out redeeming qualities in 'Reloaded.' Well ... nevermind. Even I can't do the impossible. Except for the Architect scene (totally out of place) in which some actor (Helmut Bakaitis?) actually did a great Freud rendition, the philosophy was gone from the film. But here's the thing. Lightning only strikes once. It does this for a reason. If a Hollywood script works, rises up out of the pile of trash, and comes together as a complete movie (like the first Matrix) and succeeds on many fronts, it is magic. Like all art, there are qualities that cannot be duplicated. So my advice to the people making Matrix 4: Revamped Nonsense - WRITE A NEW FUCKING SCREENPLAY. TRY SOMETHING ELSE. You can't take the same plot and use different characters, even if Will Smith begs you to put his wife in a movie! The second Matrix should have tried a different strategy, come up with new plot twists, attempted to get a life of its own. It didn't do this. It was boring. Keanu's lack of talent stood out. Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) couldn't have been any less charismatic, and the story itself stands out as the biggest loser - eventless, trite, repetitive and lacking in philosophy. One more fight scene couldn't save this movie, it appeared like a bad Iraq/CNN broadcast with George W as Mr. Smith. "There's so many of me! I love it! You muslim scum can run to your Koran, but you can't hide!"
"The Passion" (of some Christ or another) Rating: Contemptible.
Please help me out and do not go see this movie, even if you want to. If you want to support a right wing fanatic, go watch Bill O'Reilly, at least he claims to be 'fair and balanced.' Mel Gibson has really done what no other religious zealot has done for some time and that is to fuse the politcally-charged cinema climate (at the right time) with overly-hyped movie trash. Let's just get this straight again. I didn't see the fucking thing. I know what it's about. It's kind of like "you don't believe... well maybe you should read the bible." I get the whole goddamn thing. I know the story, I know the evidence, I know the paradigm. It's all crap. A bunch of suffering is never going to make me become an altruist, I'm never going to sympathize with all of the Roman misfits upset with wrongdoings and their bad luck. Any effort to win the audience to Christianity is only going to work on Christians. So this really isn't a movie... it's an insider sales pitch. Many of our sophisticated reviewers pointed out that Gibson just wanted to make money and I have to tell you... I fucking wish that was the case. Either way, it was adeptly pointed out that more anti-semitism and more rehashing of the Christian desire for the sympathy of the 'other' is not in order. So we aren't watching it. We don't care. And if you have any balls, write your local filmmakers and tell them to make a movie about Friedrich Nietzsche and talk about his torture from the prostitutes that gave him syphillis. Now that would make a movie. Except, this time give us some information about his beliefs that are concrete (since he had some) and imagine an audience that doesn't want to see the ending of Braveheart over and over again for thirty minutes. The "Passion" was a porno of psuedo erotic elements and the deep-rooted Christian lust for pain and the escape of mortality. It was an emotional plug from a man who is getting old, feels the pressure, and apparently doesn't have the education to know the difference between art/dialectic and dogma/ignorance.
"Lord of the Rings" (The whole fucking trilogy) Rating: Trash
I don't even know where to begin with this crap. Let's just face facts: today's movies are built on reputation and expectation. It's got nothing to do with real film technique. These movies have an epic quality, but that's it. There are no real amazing special effects, like in The Matrix, so what's left? I'll tell you what's left: A bunch of flat characters, a litany of do-gooders, boring moral pontification, and a completely unmotivated, disconnected and unearned script. Yes, people like the books. But that doesn't mean they make good movies. And it doesn't mean you can make a film with no real film technique and get away with it. Yes, it made money, but so did Enron. Yes, everyone but me went to see them, but these same people also watch reality TV and the Martha Stewart trial. So, none of this means that they are good movies. It means that people have no taste. Let's just put it this way: when the third one won the Academy Award, they had to even pretty much say they did it because they felt sorry for the fat director. Let's keep in mind, this director has as his major credits: The Frighteners (whatever that was), Braindead, and Meet the Feebles. The actors, en masse, were in just about nothing. Put this all together into this saturday morning cartoon of an American moral classic and you can imagine George W and his daughters eating popcorn and high-fiving Jackie Chan while enjoying the afternoon at the movies. These are not movies for anyone who has learned to walk.
"Moulin Rouge" Rating: Theater (Ewan McGregor, Nicole Kidman, 2001)
To be honest, once you experience this movie for what it is, the strange apathy turns to admiration. This respect is not just for the soundtrack, which is first-class, and which propels an otherwise unmusical cast to inspirational proportion, but for the creative genius that planned and carried out the production of this broad, comprehensive project. This is a movie the likes of which has never been done. It combines classical musical brilliance - remakes and original scores included - with a postmodern cacaphony of commentary on art, emotion and pastiche. This is a movie that has to be experienced, has to be seen more than once, and that has to be approached with a clear perception of what it means to be a 21st century film. The musical choices may be sophmoric at times, but the amazing transcendence of actors into inspired singers, of script into art, of tragedy into polyphonic postmodern study makes this a wild ride into modernity. Put this on your shelf with "Being John Malkovich" and "Memento" because its here to stay. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a rerelease to accomodate late skeptics. A must see.
"Fight Club" (Brad Pitt, Ed Norton) Rating: Theater
A movie with, at best, mixed reviews from fans and critics alike. Perhaps the number one reason for this ambivalence though is the movie's gore, absurdity and social commentary - all of which is an affront to the comfortable American, lazy lifestyle. This film is so intricately tied to psychoanalytic thought that I had to place it #1 on my list of best movies. It is the champion in a newly emerging line of "popular idea films". This movie is so insightful that it breeds a semester's worth of criticism and commentary. The movement in the film seems directly tied to Freudian thought. The basement of the mind and the "death drive" are so brilliantly illuminated that, upon multiple viewings, it becomes invaluable for serious philosophers. In many ways, this film is arguably the best film of all time. For the mystification mongers and the academic dimwits, this film represents a slick postmodern idea film. It is easy to disagree with them that "Fight Club" has redefined a new genre. It has broken many conventional boundaries, while staying faithful to the only worthy Western philosophical tradition: psychoanalytic philosophy.
Click here for great links to the (really strange)Official Fight Club Page and Chuck Palahniuk (writer):
"Vampires" (James Woods)
Regardless of what Gene (drawn-on hairline) Siskel says, this piece of misogynistic religious trash redefines Hollywood misdirection, senseless blood-baths, plastic scripting, and may make Anne Rice turn over in her bed-grave. The sub-plot that really characterizes (essence anecdote) this bus station bathroom of a film is the unexplained violent anthema that (slovenly and hopefully underpaid) Daniel Baldwin's character has for the woman. This hatred switches to love, for some unknown reason, unearned reason, at some point (i was snoring) and then wraps up with him confessing his love. This intentional romantic twist could no more save this Friday the 13th wannabe film than Mark McGwire could save the '98 cards. My only hope is that the script generating computer at John Carpenter's posh home in mediocre-ville was infected by a virus so powerful that it alone could spread into the Moral Majority main database and mispell even more words in the Christian Coalition Handbook than are already probably mispelled in proper GED-related error.
This movie is rated: sub-trash
"Permanent Midnight" (Ben Stiller, 1998)
A well built, almost documentary, production that (in my humble opinion) provides Stiller with his best role. The sidecar romantic sub-plotting was first rate. The general plotting was handled in unique fashion, with pristine non-sentimental efforts. Thought provoking to the end. First class.
Rating: Theater
"Wild Things" (The chick from Starship Troopers, was anyone else in it?)1998
Oh yea, Matt Dilon. Did i ever say how much I hate this elvis-wannabe, ride-
the-wave teen fart-throb. Plastic acting and What I Did Last Summer script-
style make for a mildly entertaining, predictable (i guessed every overly-done
plot twist), Baywatch. The plot twists seem unbearably intentional (i say
that a lot) and the character motivations seem implausable and undeserved, to
say the least. Most of the charisma is lost and the charm of the movie is
hard to find (save one exception to follow). Now, on the the review. The
"chick from starship troopers" show was amazing. Camera angles perfect, smile just
right, hair dripping at the right time. Makes this movie almost unwatchable
for a single man. This actresses charms seem endless, her chemical magnetism almost
unstoppable, and her sex appeal nearing controversy. I applaud the casting
director, toast the cinematographer (more chick shots than a camera man at
a boring baseball game) and I need a washcloth. In all seriousness it brings
up a legitimate question that Sissykel and Ebert wouldn't touch with my pole,
and that is: What makes us appreciate individual films? In all of the different
answers, this film answers one: Charisma is king. And she is the fountainhead,
monarch ruler of the kingdom of nubility and i'd pay to see her every day
and twice when demi moore is playing in another theater (and demi aint bad looking,
she just can't pick a role). i'm rating it a cable pick cuz the script is
trash, but, more importantly, i don't want anyone to see what you do while
watching.
Rating: Cable
"The Truman Show" (Jim Carrey, Laura Linney) 1998
A weakly plotted conspiracy theory production that contained interesting performances
by Carrey, but cheap, boring performances from the rest, from the sets, from the ideas,
and from the script itself. In short -- it lacked vision. As a movie it gets
the rating of "Video". But there's more. As a philisophical commentary and
contribution, the sub-plot performs beyond expectations. The anti-religious
sentiment breaks boundaries and carries the torch from previous militant
athiest adventures (see: Harlan Ellison and Dino Buddies). The carefully
guided irreverent dialogue included snipets from the cast at appropriate times.
The misguided characters often looked around and spoke: "Oh, god" and "God Damn"
in intentionally leading situations. Carreys move behind the curtain, his
Wizard of Oz spectacle carries us from the sophmoric banality of our present
society to a world where "true choice" is king. It eludes to a world where
the genius of Oz and the apathy for faith salve the trepidation of the genius
mind and offer a brave new world. The greatest achievement here is the medium
in which these ideas was expressed. There are moments where the thematic elements
are too obvious, as in the villian's (ed harris')movie name: Christof (Christ-off, away with Christ)
The athiests have worked their way into a position where they can now influence, albeit through subterfuge, but where
the once-scorned, now self-evident ideas of anti-theism exist. Thanks for the
boost.
"The Game" 1997 (Michael Douglas)
A clever, well presented thriller about a multi-millionaire lulled into complacency but suffering from childhood demons. The plot is carefully woven, but convoluted by unrealistic adventure and implausible character motivation. Many of the scenes are worked for suspense and surprise yet they do not make sense factually. The reality of the scenes and of the story are sacrificed for the impact of the confused plot. This lack of order and verisimilitude may leave the audience asking for explanation. The scenes then become anticlimactic and the ending certainly unearned. I spent a good portion of the movie struggling to piece together mistakes rather than true mystery and was distracted by everything except the sexuality of the female lead (name coming). Though her role was unclear, she was striking and defiant.
Rating: Video
"The English Patient"
The 1996 Academy Award for Best Picture et al. Starring Ralph Fiennes and Juliet Binoche. Based on the novel. A magnificently filmed reconstruction that is reminescent of Victorian age stories. Overly melodramatic and at times disjointed. Again, as is often the case, front story and back story are mixed together. these stories contain almost entirely different characters and the relevance of the two coexisting, for me, is questionable. The artistic integrity seems to be one of forced literary convention, rather than natural artistry. I was turned off by the disfigured Ralph Fiennes, did not understand why he fell in love with the female co-lead, and did not understand the motivation of Juliet Binoche's character in becoming his house maid (especially after she had lost so many). The movie was well timed, but poorly planned. I am concerned about the reasons for its Academy success. Are they that swayed by setting and Victorian romance? What about reality????? We don't all live in a dream world, nor should we. If you want a love story, rent Leaving Las Vegas. Keep your feet on the ground. The soundtrack was tremendous and deservedly won an Academy Award. JS
Rating: Video
"Good Will Hunting"
Starring: Robin Williams,et al.
A smart, well-written movie that idealizes, as cinema does, the nature of
intelligence. It tries to offset this idealism with the "genius" being
a street-smart (also) and rebellious boy who is anything but cooperative.
The premise presumes that it is possible that such a rebel, with albeit
innate talents, would spend enough time to absorb all the books that he must
(given the plot and his quotes). It is the same assumption as the one which
assumes (very ridiculously) that strong men, when hit in the face, suffer
no injury and do not flinch. That is one of the few irrational movements/concepts
in the film. Otherwise, it is right on. The audience is,though, left to
form their own conclusions about psychotherapy, since no information is given
and Robin Williams character himself does not seem to truly understand the
difficulties of counseling. Perhaps the most distracting thing about the
film is the lack of tension. There is cliched tension in the beginning
while the child genius solves mathematical equations, but a certain lack
of this as the plot builds. The ending is very Hollywood and dependent on
a notion that doesn't work any better in a smart script than it does in a shallow
one. The acting is well worked and the ideas important (exceptions noted) and
it is worth examining in the comforts of your own home for it's carefully
intellectual plot and, sometimes (overly so), its lack of sentimentality.
Rating: Video
"The Full Monty"
Starring a bunch of British people.
Riding high on the art-film, male sensitivity celebration, this cheeky British farce
scores big at the box office, like many new films do, because of its
ironic tone and creative tomfoolery. The premise is so surreal and almost
unexpected that it clashes with the bland cinematography and the boring,
cliche character tension. The overall effect, though, is quite intriguing
because the idea behind it, the spark that gave birth to the ironic
surprises, is, if not universal, a brave one. Like many recent movies in
a race to make the most perverse social commentary on a "bleak world" this
takes things yet another step. The male perspective is interesting, fully
realized, and enhanced by a score of unknown and likable actors. Unlike
American scam films of the same genre, like the female counterpart, Live Nude Girls,
which title could haunt this one, lack the risk and fall short in the race
to one-up ironic swan dives like "Get Shorty" and "Fargo." This movie
is worth seeing, but don't expect too much. If you're going for character
development and you want to feel for the main character take your Forrest Gump
Intellectuality and some popcorn, because the father/son thing is dead in the water,
but the inherent message is subtle and might leave you hungry.
Rating: Video
"The Saint"
Starring: Val Kilmer and Elizabeth Shue.
A twisting spy/love story with more charm from Shue and less snap from Kilmer.
The story hangs on ridiculous assumptions like: Shue could be a prodigious
scientist and Kilmer a "beat" artist with a german accent?? It's so slick
its sticky and it makes Mission Impossible seem possible, but Shue is so
charismatic that the lack of story and forced romance allows anyone with an
imagination to, first, call me a misogynist, and second, squirm in their
seats hoping she doesn't die at the hands of the Russian, Mutant, Bond-Killing
androids.
Rating: Cable
"Starship Troopers"
I read the novel and liked it when i was eight. Heinlein is a brilliant
sci/fi novelist but surely could not have watched this without flinching
at the cartoonish nature and the dependency on "baywatchian" charisma.
The new young actors and the mandibular special effects made me think
i was watching a "new" style of film. I was left, though, wondering if
this avant garde technology was taking film even farther away into the
hair-brained silliness and trailer park, talk-show atmosphere of the
ninetie's movie-goer's world. This pulpy, colorful, spit on the face
of good sci/fi may appeal to adolescents with strong stomachs and the female
leads may leave you with a new appreciation for Nabokov novels, but the
lack of plot, connectivity, freshness, voice, and special affect purpose may
make you walk out early. It certainly leaves me with my first "trash" review.
This coming as a suprise when I first grew hopeful from the Heinlein trailer and the
hope that sci/fi was returning via the even-numbered Star Treks and the few
critics who would have rather flushed Independence Day down a Hollywood
toilet that have had to review it on a slow night.
Rating: Trash
"Independence Day"
Starring Will Smith, Bill Pullman, Randy Quaid.
This junkpile of remake/sci-fi/superglue scripts isn't so horrible because
the plot makes Batman 2 look like Cinema Paradiso, or because they try to
convince you that Bill Pullman could be president in any country still
fighting the drug war, or even because every move, every development seems
to be taking straight out of (not only a bad movie) but another movie without
a hint of parody or intelligence, but because of the overall message that
putting enough special affects into the budget, buying the hot actors, and
hoping that enough delinquent taxpayers will stand up and clap their
uneducated asses off when the white house goes up in smoke will make up for
the shallow, olympic low-jump idea that sophisticated aliens who have
mastered light speed, invented world-destroying laser beams, and have the
defensive capabilities to laugh at nuclear weaponry would be vulnerable to
a handful of drunk and stoned "Jurrasic Park" and "Vacation" rejects in a
stolen space vehicle armed with weapons right out of low budget Sandra Bullock
conspiracy theory movies. It just doesn't wash. Though the affects are
mesmerizing, it pisses you off in theory so much that you want to punch the
childish directors harder than Wil Smith does the alien before he is forced
to read his scripted one-liner that would have had Albert Broccoli going on
a loner vegetarian diet in Carmel.
Rating: Complete Trash.
"The People vs Larry Flynt"
Woody Harrelson, Edward Norton, Courtney Love
This movie was a smart ballet in which questionable circumstances (risky actors
and a precarious morality) were overcome miraculously, leaving behind a genius
film that seems to come from the right direction, push all the right
buttons, explore all the elements, and still leave the audience dying of
laughter. By movie's end it becomes clear that the genuine-ness and power of the
film must give credit to the non-fictional elements and, in particular,
the life of Larry Flynt. The debate of Harrelson's romanticization of Flynt's
character is overshadowed by the reality of Flynt's struggle against
hair-brainedness. It is a real modern victory, but it is sad also in that
it contains the mysteries of the greatest tradgedies of our time. At the heart
of the discourse are the basic weaknesses of our world: the
misconception of sex, the senseless legislation of morality, and the
undiagnosed value of the rebel spirit! The irony between Flynt's
debauchery and his value make the film more powerful, draw neon lines across
what must be done and what seemingly cannot, and clearly define, as they
must have done for the Supreme Court, the nature of the spirit of freedom.
On the most basic level, Flynt's argument was about sex and pornography, and
it is here that he is built on the strongest of foundations; it is from here
that his words come with fire and his jokes with erudition. I stood up
and applauded. I want to wear a shirt that says: Fuck This Court. I have
a large bag of oranges in my fridge for the Supreme Court.
Rating: Theatre
For more info on Flynt:
Larry Flynt
More info on Althea Leasure Flynt:
Microsoft Cinemania
Links to other sites on the Web
© 2000 [email protected]
