Change Your Image
webapalooza
Reviews
Ancient Apocalypse (2022)
Titillating fodder for the brain-dead masses
Graham Hancock is a modern-day Erich von Däniken. No, that's not a compliment. Look up von Däniken and you will understand what I mean. Here is an excerpt from von Däniken's Wikipedia page:
"The ideas put forth in his books are rejected by virtually all scientists and academics, who categorize his work as pseudohistory, pseudoarchaeology, and pseudoscience. Early in his career, he was convicted and served time for several counts of fraud or embezzlement, and wrote one of his books in prison."
Not enough for your? Okay, here's an excerpt from Hancock's own Wikipedia page:
"Hancock's claims and methods are regarded as pseudoarchaeology. In "Archaeological Fantasies" Garrett G. Fagan points out that pseudoarchaeologists cherry pick evidence and misrepresent known facts. When apparently factual claims in their works are investigated it turns out that "quotes are presented out of context, critical countervailing data is withheld, the state of understanding is misrepresented, or critical archaeological information about context is ignored".
Hancock's position is pure non-scientific drivel. He has not published any of his so-called "findings" in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Why is that? What is he trying to hide? Someone needs to make a documentary investigating that story.
Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975)
Excellent for insomniacs
Having trouble sleeping? Then I cannot recommend highly enough this film. Both my wife and I find that by the time the girls in the film fall asleep on the rock, we too are fast asleep, lulled by the lack of plot, glacial pacing, and tranquilizing musical score. Why waste precious moments of your life watching a pointless movie in search of an ending when you could instead be enjoying deep, restorative sleep?
Be sure you are comfortably arranged in your favorite recliner or sofa before you begin watching this film, as you have no way of knowing how quickly it will send you into a slumber from which you cannot easily be stirred.
Later in his career the director provided us with engaging movie experiences like Witness and Dead Poets Society. Yet few people know that he actually began his career not as a filmmaker, but as a hypnotist specializing in sleep disorders.
If this film doesn't reliably lull you to sleep, be sure to try his other soporific film, The Last Wave.
Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
Crazy Vain Asians
It's difficult to describe just how bad this movie is. Imagine 90 minutes of scene after scene containing obscene displays of wealth by obnoxious, pretentious, self-centered, condescending people who have complete disregard and utter contempt for anyone who's less than a centimillionaire. It's been misbilled as a "rom-com", because it contains not a whiff of either "rom" or "com". Hard to believe that a major film studio wasn't able to hire a few sitcom writers to add some much-needed humor to this stillborn script.
We jump from one multi-million-dollar party to another, or else a multi-million dollar shopping spree, or else a multi-million dollar wedding, or else a multi-million dollar estate. It doesn't really matter, because it's all just an endless parade of grotesque wealth being spent frivolously by vain-glorious people, none of whom you'd want to be in the same room with. This movie practically cries out for a single scene where the main character takes his girlfriend to see the orphanage or hospital or other charitable institution that his family funds as a way to inject a little humanity into them by showing they at least make an effort to do some good with their ludicrous wealth. But no, the filmmakers are evidently far too shallow and clueless themselves to add that extra dimension to these characters.
Halfway through the film I actually hit pause and turned to my wife (the rental was her idea), and said "We're an hour into this movie and I have yet to detect a plot." Her response? "I know" she said with a disappointed frown. And this is from someone with an extremely low standard for rom-coms. Imagine! A movie that manages to be completely plot-free for an entire hour! That's gotta be some kind of a record. Astonishing.
By the time the film makes it to the "big confrontation" (we're 90 minutes invested at this point, mind you), we don't care whatsoever because these are all people who are oblivious to reality and more concerned with which designer they're wearing than with doing anything admirable with their wealth. If anything, we're eager to see them completely destroy themselves and lose all their riches in an ending worthy of a cautionary tale on the evils of misused wealth. We should be so lucky.
The ending is so utterly predictable that it's actually embarrassing that anyone involved in the production thought that audiences would be surprised or satisfied by it. Seriously?
This dreck gets my vote for one of the 10 worst film of the year. Avoid at all costs.
Winter's Bone (2010)
Tedious, depressing, and ultimately pointless
After hearing rave reviews about this film, not to mention the Oscar hype, my wife and I sat down to watch it recently and came away scratching our heads. We literally looked at each other when the end credits started to roll as if to ask one another, "Did we miss something?" Maybe we did miss something, as much of the dialog is mumbled and hard to discern. The bleakness of the Ozarks seems to be captured well, although I have never been there so I can't say for sure.
A few things stuck out though: how do people who are so tragically poor still have enough money to buy a trampoline? Can anybody say "misplaced priorities"? And as my wife pointed out, just because you're poor doesn't mean you have to be a slob. These people are not only poor, they're wallowing in filth and trash. Have some respect for yourself and take a little pride in your home, however modest it might be. Sheesh.
Some of the performances are good, although I don't consider Jennifer Lawrence's performance to be Oscar-worthy. It's fairly subdued and one-note. The actor playing Teardop was much better, frankly.
Overall, it's a slow-moving, depressing film that doesn't really offer much satisfaction. It sets up the so-called "mystery" of what happened to Ree's father, as if there is any doubt in the audience's mind. I was hoping for some big revelation at some point, but the film just plods along and is a major let-down overall. Oh, and did we really need to see the characters skinning a squirrel? I don't think so.
Umberto D. (1952)
Not nearly as good as it's made out to be (Part 1 of 2)
I just saw Umberto D for the first time last night on the big screen. Roger Ebert was in town and this is one of 3 films he presented while here. Roger has listed Umberto D as one of the "Great Movies" in volume II of his book by the same name. We were told the print was from Martin Scorsese's private collection, and it looked practically new.
I was primed to see this film after hearing Roger's introductory presentation, as I had never even heard of it before. As a film school graduate, former film studio employee, and award-winning screenwriter, I enjoy seeing foreign, independent, and other films that are off the beaten path. I had, in fact, seen The Bicycle Thief when I was in film school, which Vittorio De Sica directed 4 years prior to Umberto D. However, I found Umberto D to be quite a let-down.
I have numerous problems with the film. First, there is a great deal of business that does not propel the story forward, and seems only to serve as window dressing meant to show us the world Umberto lives in. That's all well and good up to a point, but this film really spends a lot of time on side characters and story points that have no bearing on the main storyline.
For instance, the maid's character (Maria). She serves very little purpose to the story, and yet is given a great deal of screen time. In a scene that easily lasts 3-4 minutes, we watch her wake up in the night, wander to the kitchen, turn on the gas, make several attempts to strike a match, light the burner, fill the coffee pot with water, heat the water, grind the coffee beans by hand... well, you get the idea. The problem is, we don't learn anything by watching these mundane actions. Is the point to show us what boring, monotonous lives these characters lead? If so, then this scene is a failure, as we have to suspect that ANYONE who wanted to make a pot of coffee it Italy during the post-war years would have gone through essentially the identical routine. So again I ask, what's the point?
Maria is really a sideplot, not a subplot. A subplot is a plot that weaves alongside the main plot, intersecting it at critical moments. Maria's story is completely independent of Umberto's. She is pregnant by one of two soldiers -- which one she cannot be sure. This hardly creates any meaningful character development with Umberto, except to show his opinion on the matter. It should have been a brief exchange of dialogue between them in a single scene, and yet it's revisited repeatedly for no apparent reason.
Another problem is Umberto's relationship with the dog (whose name is "Flike", not "Flik" or "Flag" or anything else. Roger Ebert even commented on this during his presentation last night, saying he had mistakenly called the dog "Flag" in his review.) We almost never see Umberto and the dog interact, and when they do it's as if he's dogsitting for a friend. Because his relationship with Flike is so critical to the ending of this film, it stands to reason that we need to see a unique bond develop between them, and yet we never do. Umberto plays with the dog ONCE during the entire film, which lasts for all of 15 seconds. He never really pets the dog, or kisses him, or talks to him (other than to give him commands). So when the dog runs away and Umberto becomes distraught while trying to find him it feels like it comes out of left field. This also takes much of the power out of their reunion, since we have not been given a very strong impression that Umberto would go to great lengths on behalf of his dog.
There are also several characters who appear out of nowhere, and then disappear just as suddenly. Umberto's fellow pensioners we meet at the beginning never reappear again later on. The soldiers Maria is involved with are seen once or twice but never heard. Umberto meets a friendly man in the hospital who promises to visit him after they are discharged, but never does. Towards the very end of the film, a man stops when he sees Flike begging for money, and it turns out to be an old acquaintance of Umberto's (although one we haven't met). Who is this man? How does Umberto know him? The movie never bothers to answer these questions, nor does their encounter lead to any deeper revelations. In fact, they only exchange a few words, with most of the scene consisting of awkward silence between them. It's an unnecessary piece of extraneous business that serves little purpose.
(Be sure to read Part 2 of my review, where I discuss the ending in detail)
Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005)
More proof that film critics live in a fantasy film world and not reality
Let me first comment that I'm a film school graduate, so I've had extensive training in film theory and I've been exposed to a wide range of films. On the other hand, I also love a good brainless "popcorn movie". That said, here's my review...
My girlfriend and I just rented this movie last night, based strictly on all the awards and Top 10 lists it's been given. We were left completely baffled and confused that anyone could have found this movie to be even marginally entertaining.
Now, I love off-beat, "oddball" films just as much as anyone who appreciates film as art. But there's a line to be drawn. No matter how "avante garde" you want to be as a filmmaker, you have to remember two critical points: you must ENTERTAIN your audience, and there must be a POINT to the story you're telling.
Anyone can dream up a bunch of oddball situations and characters and throw them together for 90 minutes. If that was all it took to make movies then we wouldn't need film schools or screen writing classes, because filmmakers could just film whatever random thoughts crossed their mind, regardless of their context or relation to one another. The trick is to do it while simultaneously entertaining your audience, and then delivering a payload at the end of your story, whether that reward be a message, a warning, or simply an emotional reward of some kind. This film has NONE of those qualities.
This movie falls into the same trap of movies like "Garden State" (which I saw for the first time just last week on DVD). At least Garden State had a thread of a plot line weaving through it (albeit an extremely thin one, which is its fatal flaw). This film doesn't really ever "gel", so you keep waiting for it to "click in", for the moment when you go "Aha!" and have an epiphany, finally understanding what the filmmaker has been building towards the whole time. But there is no such feeling or moment in this film for the viewer, rendering it a pointless waste of time. It's like eating unflavored cotton candy -- it's not unpleasant while you're eating it, but when you're done you don't even feel like you've eaten anything.
I won't rehash the storyline here. Suffice it to say that any critic who put this film on their Top 10 list is no longer a critic whose opinions I can take seriously. The problem is that critics see so many movies that they become jaded, because they've seen the same stories told in every imaginable way. It thus becomes very difficult to impress them.
So when a film like this comes along, critics are excited by its unconventionality. The error is that they confuse this originality with actual skill or artistic qualities. I'm sorry to inform them that nothing could be further from the truth. Just because a film defies normal film-making or storytelling conventions does NOT make it a good film! It still must meet the criteria of being entertaining and leaving the audience feeling rewarded and not empty or cheated.
If you're looking for an exercise in meandering pointlessness, the kind where at the end you think to yourself "Huh?", then this movie is for you. But if you're looking for something that will satisfy you, or intrigue you, or change your point of view, or have ANY kind of impact on you at all, stay away. Trust me on this one.
Ghost World (2001)
There's no "there" there
Having heard stellar reviews for this film -- including that of a friend who said it was one of the year's best movies -- I decided to rent it on DVD. Major let-down. It's slow, pointless, and the pacing is awkward (I almost felt as though the filmmakers were intentionally leaving gaps in-between dialogue exchanges so the audience wouldn't miss any lines during all the laughter that they were sure would ensue).
After having seen this movie, I have no idea what it was about. Was there a point to it? If so, it escaped me completely. Hard to believe it's based on a comic book, as I can't imagine anyone buying the second issue after having read the first if it's anything like the movie.
Maybe the movie's not supposed to have a point? Maybe that IS point? But then, anybody can make a pointless movie, which is not why people go to the movies. They go to be entertained, and ultimately to come away with an emotional or intellectual pay-off of some sort, as a reward for their time. This is true of all entertainment. Imagine a sporting event where no score or time was kept. They play until they feel like stopping, and then everybody leaves. Pretty anti-climactic to say the least, which is the way I felt after watching this film.
The producers gambled on a documentary filmmaker like Terry Zwigoff to not only direct a fictional film, but also to co-write the screenplay (along with the comic's creator Daniel Clowes, which in hindsight was a gamble that didn't pay off.) Non-fiction film is about as different from fiction film as news reporting is from screenwriting. And how many of us would go to see a movie written by Dan Rather or Peter Jennings?
All in all, a big disappointment.
From Hell (2001)
Great visuals, disappointing script
The Jack the Ripper case fascinates me. I lived in England for a total of 6 months during the past 2 years, 2 months of which was spent in London. I've been on the London Walks "Jack the Ripper Haunts" walking tour. I've also been on a walking tour of East London and the Whitechapel district, lead by Donald Rumbelow himself (author of "The Complete Jack the Ripper", which he autographed for me). I've stood on the very spot where 2 of the bodies were found (Polly Nichols in Bucks Row, and Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square). I've had a pint of beer in the Ten Bells pub -- the same pub at least one of the Ripper's victims was known to frequent, and where it's suspected he may have even visited himself while stalking his prey.
Why do I tell you all this? So that you know I have some intimate familiarity with the people, places, and events that took place. "From Hell" portrays some things very nicely -- the overall look and feel of Victorian East London is largely how I'd imagine it appeared then (although highly stylized, to be sure). Other little details were a treat to those who are familiar with this time and place: the "rope" the unfortunates who could not afford a bed had to sleep leaning against, the term "doss" money, little details about each murder such as the piece of leather apron found nearby one victim, or the proximity of the broken window to the doorknob in Mary Kelly's room. All very nice details that I found exciting to see.
But then they messed up so many other details, or fabricated them completely, or didn't explain them at all that I was left feeling betrayed. I mean, grapes? Where did they get that idea? And laudanum? And although they had the broken window in Mary Kelly's room correct, the WAY it was broken was complete nonsense (it was broken during a fight she had with her common-law husband).
What about the fact that this case changed the way police investigated murders? Fingerprinting was controversial and had yet to be proved reliable as a method of identification. This case was the turning point. But no historical mention is made of this during the movie, which would have been fascinating and enlightening for those not in the know.
And not a single suspect is every caught or questioned during this movie! In reality, many people were suspected and questioned -- too many, in fact. But this movie makes it look like the police are just following the killer around, wondering whom he is and why he's doing all this killing. Sheesh.
They didn't follow up on the leather apron bit (they just threw it in there, so people not familiar with the case would be like, "huh"?) I'd imagine people not familiar at all with this case will either like the movie because they will see it on a different level than I did, or else they'll be so confused that they won't know what's going on half the time.
My favorite "Hollywoodism": the Ripper riding in a horse-drawn carriage, wearing a cape and top hat and lugging around a box of medical instruments! Come on guys -- the Ripper was seen speaking to his victims on several occasions by several witnesses. But nobody ever got a real good look at him, and the ones who did came up with differing descriptions. That just adds to the intrigue of the case.
And if you think there were any prostitutes in 1888 East London that looked like Heather Graham, I've got news for you! These women were filthy, their clothes ragged, they were smelly, diseased, missing teeth, and wore everything they owned. Heather Graham they were not.
There are so many loose ends and things thrown in that are never followed up in this movie. Like the Elephant Man -- what the hell did he have to do with anything? Or the lynch mob briefly seen running through the streets with torches, apparently looking for Jews, who are seen closing up their shops -- I'm familiar with the case and even I didn't have a clue what that was all about! (And the movie doesn't bother to explain itself). And how about the letter that arrives with a piece of victim's kidney -- the letter sent "From Hell". We never get to see the damn letter! The movie title is BASED on that letter, it derives its identity from that letter... and we NEVER GET TO SEE IT! They don't even read it completely! They don't even say whether they believe it's authentic or not! They just get the letter and kidney, read part of it, and then it's on with the story. How utterly disappointing.
Last (and perhaps least), they didn't even get the message the Ripper wrote on the wall right! The movie says it was "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing". My "Complete Jack the Ripper" book has it as: "The Juwes are not The men that Will be Blamed for nothing". Minor point, perhaps, but why would the filmmakers not make an effort to get something like this right?
I hate to criticize a movie for not staying true to reality, when I know movies have to take certain liberties with their subject matter. But some things were just too much to swallow, like Inspector Abberline being a hallucinating opium addict (although Johnny Depp's cockney accent is very convincing), or all the lobotomy stuff (let alone the people who receive the lobotomies, and for what reasons).
"What were they thinking?" is what I'd like to know. One of those movies that isn't so bad while you're watching it, but that you dislike more and more as you think about it later. A major let-down for me. I give it *1/2 out of ****.