Change Your Image
boxman-3
Reviews
Birdemic: Shock and Terror (2010)
Very enjoyable trash, though not "the next Room"
Birdemic has all the requisite components that make up a delightfully bad movie: bad acting, bad dialog, plot holes, bizarre directorial and script decisions, and extreme awkwardness. For an outbreak of killer birds, everybody seems so resolutely casual about this aviary apocalypse. There is no sense of urgency or danger; characters will stroll in their walks and frequently make outdoor pit stops. One female character is killed after she wanders needlessly far from the safety of the van to pee. They didn't decide that an indoor bathroom would be safer? The gang also decides to wander through a crowded forest, a habitat that might, you know, attract birds. Then there's the careless frolic on the beach, again needlessly far from the refuge of the van. Rod is held up by one motorist for gas (yes, society has broken down that far in hours, and yet you can watch hundreds of cars pass along the other half of the road, foolishly driving toward the birdemic and their doom). But then Rod leaves behind the full gas container and hops back into the van, escaping a not so imminent bird attack. They keep venturing to outdoor areas to escape an enemy that utilizes the sky. They even have a picnic! In short, these people are dumb.
Now comes the inevitable, and somewhat subjective part, where the critic must place Birdemic upon the scale of Absolute Awful ranging worst of the worst (Manos: The Hands of Fate) to the best of the worst (The Room). The people behind Birdemic are trying to streamline the cult phenom process. It premiered in New York City in early 2010 and is already being funneled to many markets. It all feels a little too manufactured for my tastes, like the media is so eager to be ahead of the hipster curve. Birdemic is a perfectly enjoyable, laugh-out-loud experience best had with a bunch of your friends and perhaps some adult beverages. It's a fine piece of derisive entertainment thanks to the sincerity of Nguyen. But in the world of bad, The Room still reigns supreme. Whereas Birdemic has plenty of bad housed in 90 minutes, it's pretty much the same bad decisions and limitations. I look forward to Nguyen's next film, Peephole: The Perverted. You just can't go wrong when a movie has a subtitle, "The Perverted." He may not be Tommy Wiseau, but this man knows how to make some tasty trash.
The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)
I'm pretty sure I hate Bella Swan
Posted at www.pictureshowpundits.com
Admittedly, I am not a fan of the Twilight series. I have never read one of the books but I didn't hate the first Twilight movie. I thought it kind of worked on its own merits even if it wasn't for me. However, New Moon is a crushing bore and a mess.
I can precisely indicate where everything goes wrong for the abysmal New Moon – the character of Bella Swan. For the majority of this sequel, I didn't just detest and dislike her I downright hated her. I hated her. I understand her appeal to the millions of Stephenie Meyer's literary acolytes, but man does she come across as a self-centered, casually cruel, messed up girl who spends most of her time being whiny, mopey, and sulky. It's not just that she has a guy interested in her, it's the absurd notion that every man cannot get enough of this sullen gal. As presented in New Moon, Bella is such a dour and lifeless personality. I cannot see whatsoever why she is worth such effort. This criticism may be tracked all the way to Meyer's source material, making Bella absent in defining character dynamics expressly so pre-teen readers can insert themselves as the character and swoon over being the object of universal desire. It is insultingly thin wish fulfillment that this girl has every man, vampire, and werewolf fighting over her in the Pacific Northwest. After Edward leaves, she shuts herself out and rejects all her friends. We see in one camera pan that she spends literal months in a stupor. I understand that teenagers think everything is the end of the world, but she and Edward were together for, what, a few months? Then again, heartache is something that knows no exact time frame for healing, so consider this but a quibble. Bella seems to push others away except when she needs a set of ears to whine.
It is post-Edward where Bella becomes insular, self-centered in her pursuit of danger placing herself in stupidly reckless scenarios, and hurtful. Where Bella really infuriated me is her treatment of her lifelong friend, Jacob. Obviously the big guy has a thing for her and she knows this, which allows Bella to string Jacob along for almost a whole movie. She leads this little doggie along, teasing him with a "Maybe I will be with you, maybe I won't" dance that becomes irritating and rather loathsome. Jacob is a swell guy who has looked out for Bella from day one, accepted her coupling with a vampire, sworn enemy of werewolves, and he's been the best listener to all her self-involved drama. Plus this guy is ripped and has hip flexors that could cut glass. And he is there for her and didn't abandon her like Edward. So Bella toys with her self-described "best friend" until she can hear the word "Edward" and then she can think about nothing else, even after months of complete separation. I understand that Edward has the sexy, brooding, bad boy appeal, where women think they will magically be the key ingredient to change the troubled man for the better. But on the flip side, Jacob thinks he's the key ingredient to finally get Bella to commit to a healthy relationship, and he gets screwed. Seriously, what's the worse thing about dating a werewolf? You may have to take him for more walks. I suppose this makes me sound like I'm on Team Jacob, as the fans call themselves. I'm really on Team Bella Deserves to be Alone.
What also sinks New Moon is how it repeats the same plot from Twilight. Once again Bella feels alone, she finds comfort in a boy that says they can't be together, this intrigues her and pushes her into action, she's warned of danger, and then finally she settles in with a pseudo relationship with a supernatural stud who makes blanket promises like "I'll always protect you," and, "I'll never let anything happen to you." It's not complex folks; Meyer is just feeding pre-teen girls their fantasy of a male romantic interest. Because of this repetitious plot structure, very little of substance happens during the overlong 130 minutes of New Moon. Bella kinda sorta almost gets involved with a werewolf, there's some lousy Romeo and Juliet allusions, and thanks to a delightfully hammy Michael Sheen (Frost/Nixon, The Queen), we learn a little bit about what makes Bella special to the world of vampires (it's telling that her "specialty" is her lack of reaction). Beyond that, this is two hours of posturing and some gratuitous beefcake shots of shirtless men. My theater was sold out and packed with the Twilight faithful who swooned when they saw Edward strutting in slow-mo and openly hollering in approval when Jacob first whipped off his shirt. For supernatural creatures, they do more brooding than anything.
The plot of New Moon is a shadow of the first film, the main character is annoying and hard to sympathize with, there's so little of consequence that happens, it's way too long, and, oh yeah, did I mention how much I disliked Bella Swan? At this point, the Twilight franchise is a juggernaut that cannot be contained (as I write this it's poised to make over $70 million on opening day) and the Twi-hards will find the movie to be catnip, swooning at their visualized male sex objects. For anyone outside the cult of Twilight, the movie version of New Moon will fail to communicate the appeal of the series. The movie feels bloodless. Twilight is like a tedious soap opera scrubbed clean of teenage hormones. I think I'll stick with HBO's True Blood, a more nuanced, adult, sexy, and just plain fun series following vampire-human love. Bella could learn plenty from Sookie Stackhouse, least of all how to be interesting.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
More Spectacle than Character
The Passion of the Christ is a retelling of the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ's life (perhaps you've heard of him?). In these final hours we witness his betrayal at the hands of Judas, his trial by Jewish leaders, his sentencing by Pontius Pilate, his subsequent whippings and torture and finally his crucifixion. Throughout the film Jesus is tempted by Satan, who is pictured as a pasty figure in a black hood (kind of resembling Jeremy Irons from The Time Machine if anyone can remember). The Passion spares no expense to stage the most authentic portrayal of what Jesus of Nazareth endured in his final 12 hours of life.
For all the hullabaloo about being the most controversial film in years (and forgive me for even using the term `hullabaloo'), I can't help but feel a smidgen of disappointment about the final product. The Passion is aptly passionate and full of striking images, beautiful photography and production values and stirring performances all set to a rousing score. But what makes The Passion disappointing to me is the characters. You see, Mel Gibson's epic does not devote any time to fleshing out the central characters. They are merely ciphers and the audience is expected to plug their feelings and opinions into these walking, bleeding symbols to give them life. Now, you could argue this is what religion is all about, but as far as a movie's story goes it is weak. The Passion turns into a well-meaning and slick spectacle where character is not an issue. And as a spectacle The Passion is first-rate; the production is amazing and the violence is graphic and gasp-inducing. Do I think the majority of people will leave the theater moved and satisfied? Yes I do. But I can't stop this nagging concern that The Passion was devoid of character and tried covering it up with enough violence to possibly twist its message into a Sunday school snuff film.
For my money, the best Biblical film is Martin Scorsese's 1987 The Last Temptation of Christ (also a film mired in controversy). Last Temptation, unlike Gibson's spectacle, was all about Jesus as a character and not simply as a physical martyr. Scorsese's film dealt with a Christ consumed by doubt and fear and the frailties of being human. But the best part is the final 20 minutes when Jesus is tempted, by Satan, to step down from the cross and live out a normal life. Jesus walks away from the cross, marries Mary Magdalene, fathers children (this is where the controversy stemmed from but they were married) and dies at an old age. Jesus is then confronted by his aging apostles who chastise him for not living up to what he was supposed to do to save mankind. Jesus wakes up from the illusion and fulfills his mission and dies on the cross. Now, with the story of Last Temptation an audience has a greater appreciation for the sacrifice of Jesus because they witness his fears and they witness the normal life he forgoes to die for man's sins. There is a sense of gravity about what Jesus is sacrificing.
With The Passion Gibson figures if he can build a sense of grand sacrifice by gruesomely portraying the tortures Jesus endured. Even if it is Jesus, and this may sound blasphemous, torturing a character to create sympathy and likeability is the weakest writing trick you can do. Yes Jesus suffered a lot, yes we should all be horrified and grateful, and yes people will likely be moved at the unrelenting violence he endured, but in regards to telling a story, I cannot feel as much for characters whose only characterization is their suffering. Sure, The Passion flashes back to some happier moments of Jesus' life, which I like to call the Jesus Greatest Hits collection, but the movie does not show us who Jesus was, what he felt (beyond agonizing pain) or the turmoil he went through in finally deciding to give up his own life for people that despised him. The Passion is not about character but about spectacle.
The actors all do a fine job and it's impressive that everyone's lines is in two dead languages (Latin and Aramaic, though for the life of me I can't tell them apart). But the acting is limited because of the nature of the film. Had there been more moments of character the acting would come across better. As it stands, the acting in The Passion is relegated to looks of aguish or looks of horror, interspersed with weeping. Monica Bellucci (The Matrix sequels) really has nothing to do as Mary Magdalene but run around in the background a lot. Jim Caviezel (Frequency, Angel Eyes) gives everything he has in the mighty big shoes he tries to fill. It's too bad that his Jesus spends most of the screen time being beaten, which kind of hampers his acting range.
Now let's address the anti-Semitic concerns. Let's face facts; you are not going to have a film about the crucifixion of Jesus and some Jews coming off in a good light. Just as you would not have a film about the Holocaust and have some Germans coming off in a good light. It is unavoidable. The Passion does portray a handful of Jewish religious leaders as instigators for Jesus' eventual crucifixion, but there are also Jewish leaders who denounce their actions and just as many people bemoaning the torture of Jesus as there are calling for it. Who really comes off looking bad are the Romans. Excluding the efforts to make Pilate look apprehensive, the Romans soldiers are always seen kicking, punching, whipping, spitting on Jesus and laughing manically with their yellow teeth. How anyone could watch The Passion and come away anti-Semitic and not anti-Italian is beyond me. The anti-Semitic controversy will die down as soon as people actually see the film.
And like I said before, most people will be extremely satisfied with the film because it's hard to find a person who doesn't have an opinion on Jesus. Gibson is counting on audiences to walk in and fill in the holes of the character so that The Passion is more affecting. But Gibson's film is worthy spectacle, and despite the vacuum of character I did get choked up four separate times, mostly involving Jesus and his mother. The Passion is a well-made and well-intentioned film that will hit the right notes for many. I just wish there were more to it than spectacle. I really do.
Nate's Grade: B
Solaris (2002)
Middling Existential Experiment
A most amazing thing occurred when I sat down in my theater to watch Steven Soderbergh's sci-fi remake, 'Solaris'. The majority of the theater was women, no small part I'm sure to George Clooney and the promise to see his posterior not once, but twice. As the film progressed I kept hearing the rattling of seats and the exit doors. When the lights came back on more than half my theater had walked out on 'Solaris'. I have never seen this many walk outs for any film before, and if one has to hold this title 'Solaris' certainly does not deserve this dubious honor.
Clooney plays Chris Kelvin, super future psychologist who is struggling to overcome the grief over the suicide of his wife, Rheya (Natascha McElhone). Clooney is dispatched to a space station orbiting the mysterious glowing planet Solaris. Seems strange goings on, are, well, going on. When he arrives he finds that the station head has taken his own life and the two remaining crewmembers on board could use more than a few hugs.
Clooney goes to sleep (in a bed resembling bubble-wrap) and is startled awake when his dead wife is suddenly lying right beside him. But is it his wife? Is it merely his memories being recounted? Is it Solaris messing with his gray matter? Does Rheya have consciousness of the past or of her self? What are her thoughts on her new materialization? Good luck Steven Soderbergh, existentialist party of one.
It's not that 'Solaris' is necessarily a bad film, it's just that it's plodding, mechanical and overly ambitious. There are long periods of staring, followed by brief exposition, then more staring, sometimes earnestly but mostly slack-jawed. 'Solaris' is attempting to be an existential meditation on identity and self, but what really occurs is a lot of nothingness. For a movie that was over three hours in its original 1971 Russian conception, and a mere 93 minutes in its slimmer Soderbergh size, I could likely get this movie done in 6 minutes. It could be argued that its arduous pacing amplifies its methodical subject matter, but whatever.
Clooney has said in interviews how Solaris was the most challenging role of his career. To this I make a collective psssha noise of disagreement. Clooney turns from grief-stricken to confusion, then back to grief-stricken with nary a line of dialogue. The effect is more dampening than emotional.
I'm very pleased to see the glassy-eyed, apple-cheeked beauty McElhone in movies again. She seemed to be on the cusp of mainstream acceptance after prominent roles in 1998's 'Truman Show' and 'Ronin', yet she just disappeared. McElhone is a wonderfully expressive actress and deserves to be a leading lady.
Soderbergh's take on existential dread could be described as a noble failure. 'Solaris' is the type of overreaching, underachieving film only really talented people could make. And for anyone wanting to leave after the double dose of Clooney's derriere, they both happen in the first 30 minutes. You can go after that.
C+
Old School (2003)
A Gloriously Stupid Comedy
There's something to be said for stupid comedies. Not necessarily the ones that are centered on large men getting hit in the head or crotch. Or films that climax with pie fights. Or any film where a wild animal plays some kind of pro sport. Or any film where Rob Schneider transforms into something and learns that life is indeed tough from a different perspective.
As you can see, the stupid comedy has a very dubious history but when it succeeds at creating those hearty belly laughs, the kind where your face is sore afterwards from laughing so hard, few movies are as entertaining. Billy Madison is every bit as perfect in its humor as the more critically lauded comedies Rushmore and Raising Arizona.
So then, is the crass college comedy Old School funny, stupid or both? It's safe to say its makers did their homework and admirable achieve an unrepentantly uproarious stupid comedy.
Mitch (Luke Wilson) is a real estate numbers cruncher who catches an early flight home from a business retreat only to discover his girlfriend (Juliet Lewis) blindfolded and ready to engage in an orgy. Mitch moves into a house on a local campus with the help of his two friends, smooth talker Beanie (Vince Vaughn) and man-child Frank (Will Ferrel). The trio of thirty somethings comes up with the idea to start their own fraternity and relive their youth. Their rebellion from adulthood leads to wild parties, underage girls, KY Jelly wrestling, drunken streaking, birthday party tranquilizers, eulogies featuring White Snake songs and, of course, taking it to the man that just won't let these kids have their fun.
Wilson is relegated to the role of the straight man, which means he pretty much gets to make faces at the antics of Ferrel and Vaughn. Wilson is the "nice guy" of the film, which in comedy terms means he's the individual tortured by others. And in other terms, means he's normally quite bland. Consider both checked with Wilson in Old School. Wilson is a very capable actor but he's more or less backdrop.
Ferrel is like instant comedy, just add water and he can make anything funnier. Much has been made of Kathy Bates strutting around in her 54-year-old birthday suit (which may have led to a Best Unsupported Actress nomination) but Ferrel equally jogs around jiggling his goods with glee. Ferrel is hysterical as the film's biggest party animal. He takes everything to another level of comedy. Stick around during the end credits just to see him kick some woman's shopping cart. I'm telling you this simple action is one of the funniest things in the movie.
Vaughn has made a career of playing fast-talking louts that would normally incite people with his caustic remarks if he weren't so damn charming. What happened to ole' Vince and his oodles of sex appeal? Circa 1998 or so he was going to be Hollywood's next leading man, especially after massive exposure from Spielberg's Lost World. Yes, starring in the very ill conceived remake of Psycho (now with masturbation at no extra charge!) was a bad career move but it shouldn't have been a killer. I mean, Anne Heche went on to other films after it and this was before she was communicating with aliens with her made up language. Heck, I'm just kind of glad to see Vaughn in films again. His running gag with a bread maker is great.
The plot of Old School is really nothing more than a paper-thin device for the jokes to spring forth from. There are only stock characters in these kinds of films. There's the nice girl (the lovely Ellen Pompeo) that will eventually get together with our protagonist in the end. There's her smug boyfriend played by the smug Craig Kilborn. Jeremy Piven is a stuffy dean trying to shut the boys down to settle old grudges with them.
The women of Old School are really left with nothing to do. Either they are there to have sex with the men or, when older, marry and control them. Lewis is the opposite of the good girl as the oversexed former flame of Wilson. Leah Remini has a very brief role as Vaughn's wife who knows when to lead him by a chain. 24's Elisha Cuthbert is a naughty schoolgirl that could get Wilson in trouble after one unexpected night. The ladies of this world are really tools for the guys, but what kind of feminist analysis is needed for a film that features Snoop Dog and not one, but two correspondents from The Daily Show?
Old School is from the director and co-writer of Road Trip, a crude yet very entertaining and lively comedy. Old School is kind of a big brother companion to Road Trip, and while not rising to the level of Animal House (as every college comedy wishes to be now) the film is indeed a pristine example of a gloriously stupid comedy aided by a very game cast. See it and be prepared to laugh a few pounds off. Class dismissed.
B
Dreamcatcher (2003)
A Gigantic Mess Rarely Seen in Films
Stephen King movie adaptations are usually a mixed bag. For every Carrie there's a Sleep Walkers or a Sometimes They Come Back. Let's not even discuss how many straight-to-video Children of the Corn releases there are (the answer, of course, is far too many). So what can we expect from a novel that featured butt weasels?
Dreamcatcher centers on four friends and their annual hunting trip in the woods recounting an earlier time when they befriended a mentally retarded child who would later give each of them psychic gifts. At the same time it appears an alien invasion is nearby, the military are to quarantine the area, and the lost hunter has expelled a bloody serpentine-like creature from his bowels. What does it add up to? The craziest spring break ever man!
There are several moments in Dreamcatcher where you think to yourself, `Well, it can't possibly get more stupid' and yet the movie routinely will find a way. It doesn't know when to stop. Just when you think the bottom of the Stupid Hole has been hit, here comes an alien possession where the alien uses a freaking British accent (and actually says the word "guvna'," proving to be the most dangerous interstellar chimney sweep). The only reason I knew what was going on was because I read the book over the summer.
The story is a mixture of different King staples: smaltzy coming-of-age buddy stuff (It, Stand by Me), alien invasions (Tommyknockers), gory monsters (take your pick). Dreamcatcher feels like a Stephen King greatest hits tape. The different narrative elements have great trouble gelling, as you can only segue from retarded boy with mystical powers to crazy Morgan Freeman shootin' up slimy aliens so often. The story does not work, and has too many leftover bits it doesn't know what to do with. Dreamcatcher is a proverbial square peg being jammed into a round hole.
The movie shows some promise in its opening, displaying the camaraderie of actors Thomas Jane, Jason Lee, Damien Lewis and Timothy Olyphant (a younger looking Bill Paxton if I ever saw one). The notion of the "memory warehouse" is a fun idea that is used for nice comic touches.
Director/co-writer Lawrence Kasdan has written some of the most exciting films of the past 25 years, and screenwriter William Goldman is an old hand at adapting King (having done the masterful Misery and the mawkish Hearts in Atlantis). So what in the world went so horrendously wrong? For starters, the book is a whopping 620 pages and would be more suited in the frame of mini-series. Condensed into a messy two-hour movie, Dreamcatcher is sloppy with its pacing and scope. The movie drags for an eternity and then makes a mad dash at a finish (I won't spoil its unbelievable awfulness but will say it veers SHARPLY from the novel).
The most interesting part of the novel, for me, was the second half that involved the alien (Mr. Gray) taking over the body of Jonesey (Lewis). What kept me reading was from Mr. Gray finding a liking to human temptations like bacon and, later, murder. Seeing Mr. Gray become intoxicated with humanity and perplexed by it at the same time was wonderfully interesting. Sadly, all you get in the movie is the British accent and some goofy faces as Lewis holds two conversations in one person.
Few movies come along that are as incredibly stupid as Dreamcatcher. I can't exactly recommend it for this quality. They are playing that Matrix cartoon after it (my theater showed it before the film started). It looks like a video game and features a woman doing gymnastics and sword fighting in a thong, because, quite simply, that's what women are required to do in these things. It's not really good either.
C-
The Hours (2002)
The Most Overserious, Self-Important Lifetime Movie -- Ever
Okay, after watching the Golden Globes award show and seeing 'The Hours' crowned with the highest prize, Best Picture, and hearing incessantly about Nicole Kidman's fake prosthetic nose in the movie, it was time to venture into that darkened theater and see how good the awards-friendly 'The Hours' was. Little did I fully realize what I was getting myself into.
Nicole Kidman plays Virginia Woolf, who is in the midst of writing her novel Mrs. Dalloway, where she proposes to display a woman's entire life through the events of a single day. Julianne Moore plays Laura Brown, a housewife in 1951 having difficulty adjusting to a domestic life that she feels ill equipped for. Meryl Streep plays Clarissa Vaughan, a gay editor in 2001 planning a party for a poet and former lover (an emaciated Ed Harris), who is suffering from the late stages of AIDS. These three storylines will be juggled as the film progresses, with each woman's life deeply changing before the end of the day.
'The Hours' is a meandering mess where the jigsaw pieces can be easily identified. The attempt at a resolution for an ending, tying the three storylines together, is handled very clumsily. The film spins on and on that you start to believe the title may be more appropriate than intended. What this movie needed was a rappin' kangaroo, post haste!
The film is wrought with female victimization, and screams "Give me an award already!" Before you know it you're being bludgeoned to death with what is profoundly the most over serious Lifetime network movie ever assembled. And there's nothing fundamentally wrong with Lifetime movies (their corny sensibilities can be cheery) but 'The Hours' does not share the sensibilities of its "Must-Sit-To-Pee TV" brethren.
Kidman, nose and all, gives a strong performance displaying the torture and frailty of a writer trapped within her own mind, but too often relies on wistful staring or icy glares. Moore is effectively demoralized but cannot resonate with such a shallow character. Streep is the least effective of the three and fizzles amongst an over-stuffed assembly of characters. And for those of you that have been waiting for some hot Meryl Streep girl-on-girl action, your thirst has finally been quenched.
The supporting cast is unjustly left for dead. The characters are seen as parody (Toni Collette as Moore's unliberated homemaker neighbor), extraneous (Claire Danes as Streep's daughter, Allison Janney as Streep's lover, Jeff Daniels as Harris' ex-lover, you know what, almost anyone in the Streep storyline), one-note (the workmanlike John C. Reilly who plays yet another doting and demystified husband) or merely obnoxious (Moore's brat child that refuses to separate from her). It appears 'The Hours' is the three lead actress' game, and everyone else is not invited to play along.
Stephen Daldry's direction shows surprising stability and instinct after his art-house pandering 'Billy Elliot' showed none. The technical aspects of 'The Hours' are quite competent, especially the sharp editing and musical score, which just points out further how slickly hollow and manufactured the film is.
'The Hours' is an over-glossed, morose, agenda-driven film that is too self-important for its own good. It sucks the life out of everything. And for all its doom and gloom and tsunami of tears, the only insightful thing 'The Hours' is trying to pass off onto the public is that women are more depressed than you think and like to play kissy-face with each other.
C
Narc (2002)
Like Every Single Cop Movie Ever Made
Stop me if you've heard this before. A hard-nosed and diligent cop (Jason Patrick) gets taken off the force after in accident while serving in the field. The bureau brings him back in the help of solving a case collecting cobwebs, the death of an officer undercover. This cop gets teamed up with a hothead (Ray Liotta) who doesn't "play by all the rules" who becomes increasingly more suspicious that said hothead breaks more rules than enforces. Oh, and diligent cop's neglected wife and child incessantly worry over his well being as he becomes consumed by the work. What's that, you want me to stop? Well okay then.
So what do we get with 'Narc'? Well, Ray Liotta yells. A lot. He'll huff and puff until smoke blows out his ears and veins jump from his neck. Liotta eats scenery uncontrollably like Marlon Brando left alone at the Cheesecake Factory. Liotta even gained significant weight for the role but this is no Jake Lamata. The only place Liotta can take 'Narc' is a one-way stop to dullsville.
'Narc' attempts to tell a gritty police drama in the same manner of 'The French Connection' but, instead, turns into every other `gritty' cop movie. The twists (I use this word lightly because every turn is easily telegraphed) do nothing to liven up this rote rogue copper flick.
Let's face it, every cop drama is plot driven, even the classics like 'LA Confidential' and 'The French Connection'. So if you don't have a good story then there's no gas in this car. And 'Narc' barely runs on fumes.
Writer/director Joe Carnahan tries to play window dressing with some superfluous camera tricks in an attempt to jazz up the proceedings. The opening handheld chase scene could give the makers of 'The Blair Witch Project' motion sickness. The editing can at times simulate an annoying fly buzzing around your ear. The result of these tricks is like covering a turd with chocolate and selling it to the masses.
'Narc' won't quicken any pulses or knock any socks out of their vicinity. So what will you get? Well Ray Liotta yelling at you, which, surprisingly, could lead to audience narc-olepsy. Even that horrible pun is better than watching the film. I think that says it all. Watch 'The Shield' on FX instead.
C
How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days (2003)
Hudson Needs a Padded Bra Stat!
How to lose a guy in ten days? I can think of three things a girl can say to lose a guy that second: 1) "I'm pregnant." 2) "I can explain your newfound burning sensations." 3) "I have a penis." Can I expect anyone to utilize these fool-proof dating tactics?
Andie Anderson (Kate Hudson) is a fashion magazine writer with the juiciest column of her up and coming career. She will catch herself a man then torture him for ten days by subjecting him to mistakes women make in relationships (calling too much, tampons in the medicine cabinet, asking if you look fat).
Benjamin Barry (Mathew McConaughey) is a hotshot ad exec convinced he can make any girl fall in love with him. His confidant colleagues put him to the test and select a girl he has ten days to fall in love with him. Any guesses which lucky lady gets picked?
Hudson and McConaughey have a weirdly effective chemistry that seems to grow on you as the film continues. The over animated and cutesy antics of Hudson gel nicely with McConaughey's sly charm and syrupy drawl. Their battle of the sexes doesn't really reach the simmer and zip of classic screwball comedies but the journey along the way to the predictable coupling is rife with healthy gender crossing doses of humor.
'How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days' plays its proceedings very close to the chest, following the well-worn path of romantic comedies that have come before. I guess it's what to be expected when the source material is a picture book. Seriously, look into it.
The movie even ends with the Man running against time to stop the Woman leaving on some vehicle - set to a moderately upbeat, Top 40 pop song. Yes, 'How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days' has its formula down: initial clashing and trashing leads to lip mashing that's just smashing. This is the kind of film where they hold the leads apart as long as they can and then let 'em at each other.
Bebe Neuwerth plays Hudosn's mercurial boss and is made to look way older than she is. Why did they put so much make-up on to emphasize her crow feet when this very attractive woman is only like 45? And while we're at it, why are the main characters initials AA and BB?
'How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days' is a decent date for you and your honey, especially if romantic comedies are really your bag. For me, the lack of surprises gave me much time to think and three things kept circulating in my brain:
1) Aren't too many romantic comedies today built upon some premise of deceit? Isn't this a bad idea to start a relationship?
2) Does Mathew McConaughey always act this stoned?
3) Does Kate Hudson not realize she desperately needs a padded bra before she gets confused with an ironing board?
C+
Gangs of New York (2002)
Exquisite yet Flawed Film
Watching Martin Scorsese's long in the making 'Gangs of New York' is like watching a 12 round bout between two weary and staggering prize fighters. You witness the onslaught of blows, see the momentum change several times, and in the end can't really tell which fighter is victorious. This is the experience of watching 'Gangs of New York', and the two fighters are called "Ambitions" and "Flaws."
The film begins in the Five Points district of 1840s New York amongst a vivid gang war over turf. Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio) witnesses the slaying of his father, Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson), at the blade of William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis) and his "Native" Americans gang. So what does this son of a dead preacher-man do? Well he gros up, plots revenge by making a name under the wing of the Butcher, becoming like a surrogate son. But will vengeance consume him and turn him into blah blah blah. I'll give you three guesses where this leads and you won't need two of them.
Watch Leo DiCaprio assemble toughs, rake heels, and ne'er do wells to his Irish gang of rapscallions with facial hair that looks to be tweezed! Witness a one-dimensional Leo suck the life out of the film like a black hole! See Leo become the least frightening gangster since Frido.
Watch the horribly miscast Cameron Diaz play pin-the-tail-on-an-accent! Witness as she miserably tries to play a pickpocket with a heart of gold that falls hopelessly and illogically in love with Leo! Marvel how someone looking like Diaz would exist in a mangy slum!
See the brilliant Daniel Day-Lewis upstage our stupid hero and steal every scene he inhabits! Witness one of the greatest villains in the last decade of movies! Watch Day-Lewis almost single-handedly compensate for the film's flaws with his virtuoso performance! Admire his stove-top hat and handlebar mustache!
Witness a wonderful supporting cast including John C. Reilly, Jim Broadbent and Brendan Gleeson! Wish that they had more screen time to work with!
Wonder to yourself why in all good graces this film took nearly two years of delays to get out! Speculate away!
'Gangs' has the sharp aroma of a film heavily interfered with by its producers. The whole exercise feels like Scorsese being compromised. 'Gangs' is a meticulous recreation of 1860s New York that often evokes an epic sense of awe. The story has more resonance when it flashes to small yet tasty historical asides, like the dueling fire houses and the Draft Riots. But all of these interesting tidbits get pushed aside for our pedantic revenge storyline with pretty-boy Leo front and center. You know the producers wanted a more commercial storyline, which probably explains why Diaz has anything to do with this. And Leo? He still screams like a girl too.
The script is credited to longtime Scorsese collaborator Jay Cocks, Steven Zallian (Academy award winner for 'Shindler's List') and Kenneth Lonergan (Academy award nominee for 'You Can Count on Me'). So with all these writing credentials, don't you think one of them would realize all of the dumb things going on with the story? The ending is also very anticlimactic and ham-fisted. Just watch as we segue from a graveyard to present day New York, all thanks to the Irish rockers of U2!
I know this much, Day-Lewis needs to stop cobbling shoes and act more often. 'Gangs' is his first visit to the big screen since 1997's 'The Boxer'. He spent part of this hiatus in Italy actually making shoes. I don't know about everyone else but this man has too much talent to only be acting once every five years. Somebody buy his shoes and get him a script, post haste!
Scorsese's 'Gangs of New York' is at times sprawling with entertainment in its historic vision and at other times is infuriating, always dragging behind it a ball and chain called "stupid revenge story/love story." I'm sure the film will get plenty of awards and Oscar nods in prominent categories, and this seems like the Academy's familiar plan: ignore a brilliant artist for the majority of their career and then finally reward them late for one of their lesser films. So here's hoping Scorsese wins the Oscar he deserved for 'Raging Bull' and 'Goodfellas'.
An American Tale + Far and Away = Gangs of New York
C+
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Just as Boring as it is Rewarding
My countrymen and fellow Americans, I come here not to praise 'Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers' but to bury it. I don't know if it's a result of being the bridge between the beginning and end of this saga (taking the role of neglected middle child), or a result of unmet sky-high expectations, but I may be alone here in saying, 'Two Towers' was a huge letdown. I'll try and frame my reasoning as to not be attacked by hairy hobbits and men with point hats and long flowing beards.
1) Story structure. Unlike 'Fellowship of the Ring', where we're introduced to a rich world and have suitable character set-up, the second LOTR film puts almost all our characters on the backburner and gives us an insufferably long subplot involving a king and his brood. The movie peters out an ending and seems to throw its hands in the air saying, "See ya' a year from now."
2) Length. This wasn't a problem with the previous film, but man did 'Two Towers' become unbearable as it went. Some described the first film as three hours of walking; well the second could be described as two plus hours of folks hyping a battle and then -- a battle. Seriously, there's a lot of talk about a significant battle . and that's it. An hour could have easily been cut from this. It got to the point where my girlfriend was sprawled across my lap pleading for me to somehow make the movie end.
3) Characterization. So much time is spent doing nothing you think the film would further round the characters? Oh how stupid you would be. Nothing new seems to be drawn from any character, with the exception of the treacherous yet likable Gollum. Several people from 'Fellowship' (Liv Tyler, Cate Blanchette, Hugo Weaving, Ian McKellen) have screen time that amounts to no more than a cameo, so why in the world aren't we getting anything more from our already established heroes? Everyone just looks friggin' bored. As was I.
4) Excessive dwarf jokes.
I re-watched 'Fellowship' and all of the reasons 'Two Towers' suffered were not evident. So what does this tell me? Nothing particularly, except not to see the movie in the theater again. 'Two Towers' is by no means a bad film. The cinematography, production and special effects are all breath-taking and sweeping. I'll still look forward to seeing the next, and last, installment in Peter Jackson's 'Rings' epic, but 'Two Towers' has left a bitter taste of disappointment to linger upon.
B-
Left Behind II: Tribulation Force (2002)
Quite Possibly the Most Boring Movie Ever Made
I felt the first Left Behind film was such a corny lark (if people leave behind dentures and hip replacements, does that mean they also leave behind breast implants when they get Raptured?) that I had to see what Kirk Cameron and crew were up to for their second turn at bat.
I will state this as clearly as possible - nothing happens in this film, absolutely 100% nothing. There's no progression, no forward momentum, nothing. The only thing you could classify as character development is the believers patronizingly preaching to the uninformed. Does anyone want to get their religion from the kid from Growing Pains? The plot consists of our four left behind-ers forming a group (Tribulation force, unite!) that wants to warn the world that the leader of the UN is the, wait for it, Antichrist. This plan goes nowhere. Two of the Tribulation force members contribute nothing to the cause except wistful praying.
The crux of the film is on a learned Rabbi who is to reveal to the whole wide world that Jesus is actually the Messiah. In what universe would a single Rabbi saying something about religion have the world's eyes and ears? And why would everyone systematically accept one man's words as the divine truth? If this was the case couldn't we end this boring movie with Cameron yelling, "I loves me the Jesus" and be done with it? I enjoy the Rabbi's slow reveal in his speech. He starts talking about how he's proven who the Messiah is (though we see nothing of his findings) and says it's a man who was born in Bethlehem and betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. Then he says it's Jesus. And the audience literally gasps. This whole plot device couldn't be any more insulting.
Overall Left Behind 2 is far worse than the original film, and that is something of an accomplishment of itself. I challenge you to stay awake and interested into what's going on, because there may be more nothing going on in this film than in the entire history of cinema. Cameron is the best the world of journalism has to offer? And anyone else notice that if you're not Western European in ethnicity you're either evil or dead wrong with your religious beliefs. Take that 4/5 of the world!
There are so many laugh-out-loud moments (like the explanation for millions instantaneously vanishing as "nuclear radiation," are we in 1955 all over again?) but the largest drawback of Left Behind 2 is how horrifically boring it is. The Omega Codes were equally atrocious but campy and slightly entertaining in an I-Can't-Believe-People-Spent-Money-On-This kind of way. Left Behind 2 on the other hand has no sense of humor and no sense of style, let alone competent pacing, directing, and acting. I know sixth graders that could blow the socks off these Left Behind thespians.
I can think of no possible reason anyone should every view this film at any time. I have never been more bored, and I fell asleep during The Thin Red Line three separate times when I saw it in theaters. The only reason you would recommend this film is if you wanted that person to die of boredom.
For my money, the DVD menu screen is the funniest and most entertaining part of the film.
Urban Legends: Final Cut (2000)
Quite possibly the worst movie ever
It takes a lot to go from being just bad to being painfully inept to the point where you contemplate suicide watching the multi-level banality. Urban Legends: Final Cut made that jump. I can't remember seeing something this poorly directed, acted, written, edited, and just about every other department, in a long while.
Why do all the students at the "best film school ever!" want to make horrible teenie slasher films? Did they sit in their basements dreaming of the day they too could create Scream? My God, the idealistic youth of America just wants to make fake blooded dreck! And why then, the chosen few of the best and brightest for the "best film school ever!" are so BAD at making movies? I'll give this, the girl does draw nice storyboards but then she should have gone to art school and not "the best film school ever!"
And everyone looks like they stepped off a magazine cover including the obligatory cute lesbian, sans Joey Lawerance. You should know trouble's afoot when a Lawerance makes his way into a movie. The acting is phenomenally bad with this cast of characters that are more inclined to be found on the back of a milk carton than deliver a good line or carry a joke well.
This movie just goes from bad to horrible the longer it goes. Yes yes, it's a slasher film you're supposed to have fun with. But what fun is it watching crap you and your friends could make better and funnier in your backyard with your dad's camcorder?