spinin Reviews

Oppenheimer (I) (2023)

A fascinating, but also frustrating biopic, both thanks to Nolan's direction

[8/10 · 17 September 2023]

By now, it is pretty obvious that Christopher Nolan's films have a very distinct style, similar themes and ideas, and epic, twisty narratives. He is an auteur for sure, but also one of the messiest ones, in my opinion. This story of Oppenheimer, so brilliantly and absorbingly portrayed on-screen by Nolan, is also frustrating at times because of his tendency to go back to his trademarks: twists, over-dramatization, and a complex time-jumping storyline. If you mix a standard biopic, with all of the elements of narrative of The Dark Knight, Interstellar, or Tenet, this is what you get. It's certainly not a bad thing, but at times just unnecessary.

Here are the great things about this movie. The cinematography is stunning. The sound design is exciting and impactful. The story is fascinating - to make what feels like an action film about chemists and physicists is quite the achievement. It is absorbing right from the beginning and for the most part to the very end. It presents an account of history that I was not very familiar with and a complex portrait of Oppenheimer as a brilliant man, but also conflicted, and with glaring weaknesses, especially for women and in his naive beliefs and interpersonal relationships. It has the best performance by Cillian Murphy that I've seen as he disappears into the role. What struck me most was his voice, which is low and gruff and not like what I've heard before. There are great supporting performances from Josh Hartnett, Emily Blunt, Florence Pugh, and Benny Safdie. I was especially pleasantly surprised by Josh Hartnett's nice turn in the movie. The build-up all the way to the completion and detonation of the first atomic bomb is exciting. The affect it has throughout on Oppenheimer, his justifications for the Manhattan project, and the disturbing effect the use of the atomic bombs on Japan has on him is portrayed brilliantly. And all of the "action" is punched up a few levels by the great score.

Now here are the bad things. The main issue that I have with this movie is the striking parallels with other Nolan's films. Since he is an auteur, this is to be expected, but in an intense biopic, it kept taking me out of the movie. Essentially, while watching I just kept seeing characters from his other films. Oppenheimer is like Batman. Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.) is like Ducard or the Joker. Or perhaps they are the rivaling magicians from The Prestige. Kitty Oppenheimer and Jean Tatlock (Emily Blunt and Florence Pugh) are to Oppenheimer like the Scarlett Johansson and Rebecca Hall characters were to Christian Bale's character in The Prestige. Albert Einstein is the Nicola Tesla of Oppenheimer. And on and on this can be done with many of the individuals in the film and you can probably replace any one of these comparisons with so many of the other characters from Nolan's other films. Essentially it is the same conflicts, with the same non-surprising surprises and twists, and the same narrative resolutions as in all of Nolan's work. For a biopic that feels so absorbing and epic, this just took me out of the movie. It's like Nolan is showing both his power as a director in how he paints this story with broad and epic strokes and his inability to get over the same character arcs, which are starting to feel trivial at this point in his career. While Robert Downey Jr. Gives a very good performance in the movie, the entire storyline of who sabotaged who and how and why between Strauss and Oppenheimer feels dwarfed by the rest of the story. I felt as if though this was from another movie. It has some purpose behind it, but it's just not very interesting. Lesser characters come in (like Rami Malek's David Hill) and all of a sudden put a twist on the storyline as if though they were an ace up a sleeve all along. Does it have to feel so much like The Dark Knight or The Prestige? Does it have to add so much unnecessary exposition and revelation about character motives and behaviors, which really just feel like made-up conjecture or silly, overly dramatic rationalizations?

Now for some of the mixed stuff. Matt Damon gives a very Matt Damon performance as Leslie Groves, the supervising military officer overseeing Oppenheimer. He's solid, but a little distracting with how familiar his face and behavior is. Oppenheimer's political affiliations, or more like relationships with people of certain political affiliations, and the role they played in his difficulties and how they led to questions about his loyalty to the United States also feel like an area explored in the movie that is both interesting and somewhat out of place. It's another great side to the story, but doesn't always gel. So there is just so much stuff here that it feels like some of it could have been left out or tightened. It didn't have to be turned into Inception with layer upon layer upon layer. In particular because this is a biopic and turning it into Inception is excessive. I think Nolan could have stuck to his trademarks without over-indulging once again. And finally the quick editing that Nolan employs is on display here. It's like a movie with ADD. This adds to the excitement, but sometimes Nolan could hold a shot instead of trying to catch every detail by cutting every second. It has the effect of feeling rushed and sloppy.

So this is clearly an exciting and absorbing film. I don't know that there are that many fascinating biopics out there in terms of the energy with which the story is told. But at times it feels convoluted. The editing can be distracting as are Nolan's character and theme trademarks. Some parts just could have been left out or done differently. I'd be lying if I said that the parts with Robert Downey Jr. Didn't take me out of the movie. One of the characters summed it up best when responding to Strauss' assertion that Oppenheimer said something to Einstein to purposefully ruin Strauss' relationship with him: "They were probably talking about something more interesting." A very good, exciting, and epic film that strives for greatness, but doesn't quite reach it. Definitely worth watching for the many interesting avenues it explores. And it is quite brilliant if taken more out of context with Nolan's other work.

Masters of the Universe (1987)

Not a good movie, but good-natured fun

[6/10 · 30 August 2023]

As a kid I was a big fan of He-Man. I owned many of the toys and played with them constantly. When this movie came out, I must have watched it dozens of times. Having caught it again recently and after watching it out of curiosity, I think it holds up quite well.

The story pretty much jumps right in, as in if you've seen Star Wars, any comic book movies, or are familiar with the original Masters of the Universe cartoon and toy line, you're supposed to be able to just get right into it and accept it. In the movie Skeletor (Frank Langella) gets his hands on a cosmic key, which can allow him to open portals and travel to other worlds. The inventor of the key, a little "goblin" named Gwildor, has also created another one. He partners with He-Man (Dolph Lundgren) and in an attempt to evade Skeletor, he opens up a portal to earth. He-Man and his team escape and eventually partner up with some humans, including a girl played by Courtney Cox, that stumble onto the key. A battle to protect the earthlings and to defend themselves against Skeletor and his army then ensues.

So the movie is cheesy for sure. Many of the gladiator-like costumes are not very impressive. The storyline is very basic and the script is also very unremarkable, with most characters being very one-dimensional. There's also not many surprises as you can pretty much tell how this movie will go.

However, there are quite a few good things about the movie, especially given its low budget. For starters, the performances are quite good with the actors really buying into the story. Dolph Lundgren does a fine job as He-Man, even if he is a bit of a bore. Frank Langella is exceptional as Skeletor. He delivers the perfect balance of villany and humor. His mask could have been better, though. And Gwildor is a very amusing character with a great costume and with Bill Barty giving probably the second best performance in the movie. The special effects also hold up well. While there are no amazing spaceships, unique worlds, or elaborate space battles, the ground battles and shoot outs look as good as they did in Star Wars (even if this movie came out several years after). And although the costumes are unremarkable for the most-part, the make-up for the more alien-like creatures is terrific. The look and art and set design in the movie is also cool as it has its own unique atmosphere and interesting looking locations, sets, and lairs. Finally, the storyline is basic, but the travel with the use of the keys is an intriguing plot idea. This has been done countless times in movies like Back to the Future or in the Marvel movies (see Thor or The Avengers) since, and is very effective here. As is the interplay between earth people and He-Man's world.

So the movie is cheesy, but it is nowhere near MST3000 bad. It is actually executed quite well given how basic it is. The ideas that it has are actually effective enough even if they have had more of an impact in other movies. It has a good spirit and with an open mindset, Masters of the Universe can even be enjoyable. So it gets an extra point or two for good-natured fun.

Passion (2012)

Oh De Palma - a ridiculous thriller that you could expect

[7/10 · 8 August 2023]

The tension between two competing corporate marketing stars at an agency grows after one of them (Rachel McAdams) takes the other's (Noomi Rapace) successful idea and passes it off as her own. She then proceeds to take every opportunity to further embarrass her rival in an attempt to eliminate her. That is, until her rival begins plotting a revenge.

Critics and maybe even De Palma fans will say that this is "lesser" De Palma or that he is no longer at the height of his powers. To me, he has always been like this. He is "lesser" Hitchcock, "lesser" subtlety, and a "lesser" final product than the potential of what the film could have been. That's just who he is and what his films are and what they have always been to me, whether you look at his movies from the 80s or the 2000s. Not much has really changed. It's still the same pot-boiler thrillers, the same style that ranges from cringe-worthy to absorbing and awe-inspiring, and the same shocking, nonsensical, or even laughable plot developments. It's just a matter of whether you buy into it or not; whether you are a fan of it or not; and whether you are able to suspend your disbelief or whether he is successful enough to have you suspend your disbelief.

I'm a fan of his Body Double, Dressed to Kill, Casualties of War and especially Femme Fatale. They are all rip-offs of better films and yet very uniquely his: stylish and surreal. The first 1/3 of Passion is great. It features exceptional cinematography, sexy music, and strong performances from the two leads. It is kind of a joy to watch someone tell a story and execute a film like a designer artist. I felt the same way about Femme Fatale when I first saw it and Passion shares a lot of visual and tonal similarities with it. The second third of the film drags on a bit as the petty behavior of the McAdams character is just on repeat as she undermines people over and over. But it does build up the idea that anyone would want to or could take revenge against her. The final third is good enough as there are multiple twists, some quite ridiculous, and it all resolves like a De Palma film. Like lesser Hitchcock. But to be fair, De Palma has earned the right to be called an auteur and to be associated with this type of a thriller.

In lesser hands, this could have been an annoying teen-slasher movie, but De Palma does elevate it to a classier, sexier, more stylish level. He also has ridiculous moments that make you do a double-take in disbelief at his miscalculations. He has at least three dream sequences, where you see something happen, and then the character wakes up and you realize you were being fooled because it was just a dream. In fact, at one point he has them back to back within a few minutes of one another. You don't need this type of cheap trickery three times in a movie. And then it seems that some of those may not have even been dreams, undoing the whole point of the "it was just a dream" gimmick.

I found this movie enjoyable, even with the silly stuff. It's got style and great performances. And even the ridiculous stuff has some purpose behind it. De Palma doesn't seem to be dialing it in. After the main crime in the movie happens, it keeps you guessing. There are enough red herrings in the story and plot developments that even if your suspicions are right, you may still find yourself second guessing or needing to see how it all resolves. Like most De Palma films, it leaves me with a sense of disappointment at the end, but not feeling disappointed as I'm watching it.

Knock at the Cabin (2023)

Great filmmaking by Shyamalan; solid acting; weak and predictable story

[6/10 · 22 July 2023]

Together with Split this is probably Shyamalan's best movie since Signs. Both movies have a lot of the best features of the director's first three films, which had heights he has never reached since.

In the story, four strangers show up at a cabin in the woods and invade it, taking hostage its inhabitants, two men and their daughter. They tell them that one of the three will have to die before morning in order to save the world from the apocalypse and that the three of them will have to decide who.

This is the set-up for the movie. It's really like a Twilight Zone episode stretched out to a 100 minute film. However, it is done expertly so by Shyamalan. It has excellent tension created by the use of the space, sound design, and dynamic camera work. He really makes the most of the story, of adding a sense of foreboding and dread, and of building up intrigue and suspense.

The acting is very strong from the two males that play the girl's two fathers as well as from the little girl. David Bautista delivers the best performance in the movie as the imposing, but eerily calm leader of the foursome that invades the cabin. The rest of the performances are fine, but the characters are not very fleshed out. They are mostly just like added pieces to move the plot along.

As the movie moves along, it's the directing that kept me interested, along with a few of the performances I already mentioned, especially Bautista's. Shyamalan is at his best here at creating suspense and tension and stretching it out. However, as the movie reaches the conclusion it becomes more and more clear that it is going to resolve in the most predictable of ways. Of all the possible developments and resolutions, it chooses the least surprising one. After all the build up and intrigue, the ending is without a doubt anticlimactic. And what you are left with really is a Twilight Zone episode, with a less than satisfactory ending, expertly executed to make the most of the story. What Shyamalan could do if he ever found a good story again.

Better Watch Out (II) (2016)

Amusing, but who is this movie for?

[7/10 · 21 July 2023]

This movie is sort of like a Home Alone, but with an R rating, and a far more sadistic and malevolent kid at the center. It is well-made, well-acted, amusing and even had a few clever ideas and a jump scare that got me for the first time in a long time. It's main issue is that it is like R-rated horror lite. As a result, it doesn't really offer any real gut punches to be a great horror film, but it's not for kids either, despite tonally coming across like a kids movie.

During Christmas, a kid and his friend decide to frighten the kid's babysitter with some elaborate scares. The goal is to scare her into liking him, even though he is about (I'm guessing) 13 or 14, and she is somewhere closer to college age. She sees and rejects his advances, but despite being baby-faced, the kid turns out to be quite a menace and is willing to do some sadistic and brutal things to get to her.

In the early scenes you can see that the two guy friends talk more like a couple of twisted and violent college guys. They start to alternate between acting cute and like they are a couple of serial killers in training. The acting is probably the best part of the movie where all of the young actors are quite successful at navigating between innocent behavior, humor, and malevolent sadism (terror for the girl). I can say that I don't think I've ever seen an approach like this to a horror story.

The main issue is that the movie never has any real terror or horror. It mostly feels like a scary comedy for middle schoolers - like someone wanted to make a slasher for kids, but ended up going a bit too far and getting an R rating. It's protagonists are too hokey and the story too juvenile for adults. At the same time, the movie is too violent and sex-obsessed for younger teenagers. And as the violence escalates, it still maintains a sort of innocent Home Alone type tone throughout. It's really kind of odd. All of these elements are fine on their own and commonly seen in other movies, but when combined together they make for an odd blend. What saves the movie is it's tongue-in-cheek approach and pretty good final scenes. Like Psycho, on a much smaller scale, it was able to make me root for the kid villain. Will he get away with it? Does he actually have a smart and elaborate plan? Is he a psychopath that's pretending to be a normal kid, or just a normal kid completely out of touch with reality that's turning into a psycho right as the movie unfolds? The movie doesn't ever ponder these questions, but has enough nuance in the writing, directing and acting to make one wonder.

This is a fun movie, but difficult to categorize, even within the horror genre. It's got surprising developments and is aided by it's tonal approach and oddly young cast for such material. It's not great, but is an amusing and original watch that flies by.

Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One (2023)

Another M:I movie full of ideas, and another winner for Cruise

[8/10 · 10 July 2023]

I was surprised to see this playing at the cinema this weekend in Poland, before its official release date. I decided to check it out since the early reviews have been so good and since I was in the mood for some fun action.

The M:I movies have really surpassed Bond films in terms of action, ideas, and even fun. It's probably the best running franchise now. And ideas are where this movie really excels.

In the movie, an AI "virus" of sorts has slowly been overtaking the existing global tech infrastructure. It is becoming so powerful that it can control and alter outcomes, affect humanity in drastic ways, and even affect individual actions in a given moment. This is a cool idea and very relevant given the context of the world we live in today. This virus appears to have more sinister intentions for humanity. The IMF team, US intelligence, defenders/enforcers of the virus, and other world powers are all interested in a key that "opens something" and with which the virus can supposedly be controlled. And so you have the basic storyline as all of these sides will battle each other to get to that key first, which Alanna Mitsopolis, a black arms dealer, is looking to sell.

The way that this is set up is great, as there is a feeling throughout the movie that the stakes are very high. At different moments, the movie seems to have this eerie, almost surreal, Matrix-like feel to it, that is created by the complex reality of the story and the tone of the film. The standout stars in the movie are Cruise and Hayley Atwell, who plays Grace, a thief that at one point gets her hands on the key and gets pulled into the action. They are great as a duo throughout much of the film. The banter and comedy is also quite good as I had a couple of actual laugh out loud moments. There was a little more "lightness" in this MI entry in general.

Esai Morales as Gabriel, the main defender of the virus and also one of the pursuers of the key, was also quite good. Throughout the movie he acts as if he is a medium for the virus or in some way controlled by it as his actions essentially channel what the virus wants. I was a little confused by his character or how such a character would even come to be, but some of the logic can definitely be checked at the door. Essentially, he, as well as the other dueling sides, has interest in the power of the virus. I also really enjoyed Henry Czerny back as Kittridge and Shea Whigham as Jasper, who spends most of the movie trying to chase down Ethan and his team.

The other stars in the film are the ideas and executions in the action and set pieces. There is a marvelous battle in nighttime Venice. A surprisingly entertaining and funny car chase sequence where Ethan and Grace try to get away in a janky little Fiat. And an absolutely ridiculous final train stunt sequence. Its one of those that make me go "oh come on!" in disbelief while simultaneously not being able to look away due to the amazing and captivating execution.

Overall this one is action-packed, with great ideas and execution, and is a lot of fun. It feels a bit more "classic" in tone with a lot of the themes and plot developments resembling the first M:I movie. I really enjoyed that. There is more intrigue and mystery than outright action. As I said, there are a lot of funny, more lighthearted moments as well and Cruise is the one delivering a lot of them. I guess it's a bit disheartening that with all that said, I still felt bored at moments during the movie. Perhaps this was just the state of mind I was in. Perhaps it is a statement of how high the bar has already been set by all the M:I movies and ideas in the past. And perhaps it is also a result of being a bit jaded by all of the action and CGI films of the past decade, which have left me with a feeling of riding one roller-coaster after another, with each one trying to outdo the previous one. It didn't blow me away and take me by surprise as much as Top Gun Maverick did, for example.

With that said, there are plenty of clever ideas here, inventive action, and funny and lighthearted moments, along with an overall more classic espionage movie tone. It's good and people will not be disappointed, even if it is a Part 1 of 2. It leaves you with a feeling of closure as far as the events that transpired, but also with a knowledge that more will come and that it could be quite spectacular. It's value might also grow on a repeated viewing and once the second part completes the story.

Scream (I) (2022)

Blank Everybody, capturing the culture

[6/10 · 10 September 2022]

"Blank you" to the boyfriend. "Blank you" to the girlfriend. "Blank you" to the best friend.

"Blank you" to the sister. "Blank you" to the other friends. "Blank you" to the parents.

"Blank you" to the older generations. "Blank you" to the killers. "Blank you" to the victims.

"Blank" everybody. "Blank you" a**hole and "blank you too" b**h. Oh, and a big blanking "blank you" from the pedestrian to the cop that cut him off.

And after everybody "blank yous" everybody else in the movie, it's time to pull out a nearby kitchen knife and stab the person closest to you 23 times, because 3 or 4 just isn't enough anymore. Oh, and don't forget to also shoot them a few times too. And shoot them in the head also, because you never know.

The film captures today's culture, with "blank you" as the new "good bye" and the killings upped to a new mind-numbing level. Other than that, the movie is a pretty good slasher film. It's on par with the better sequels and quite fun, though not as good as the original. It has a few clever ideas, but nothing wholly new or very surprising. If you've seen the other Scream movies, you can pretty much guess what's coming, with the details being ironed out as it goes along and reveals who is who in this entry. The tie-ins to the past films, the movie within a movie, horror genre trademarks, and film franchises range from frantically uninspired accusations that anyone, even your grandma and grandpa, could be the killer to some okay ideas and reveals. It feels like a film made for the Twitter community. Themes about empowering women are a fitting and timely addition, though I hope it doesn't inspire women to bash, stab, and murder any person that just looks at them the wrong way. It's both a good and a sad commentary on today's America. In the end, as a fun, roller coaster slasher film with a few twists it succeeds well enough.

No Time to Die (2021)

A most ironic title

[8/10 · 2 October 2021]

I will still need some time to digest the final film in the Daniel Craig era, but here are my initial thoughts. The movie is overall a pretty touching, nostalgic, and fitting entry in the Bond cannon and as Craig's finale. It does a nice job tying everything up from the Craig era, and the Bond series in general. I won't spoil every detail, but here is why the title is ironic: everybody dies. Felix Leiter... dead. Blofeld... dead. All of SPECTRE... dead. All the villains... dead. And the biggest one of all, James Bond, dead.

There are moments that remind of the early Connery films. There are strong and touching moments where the theme from OHMSS gets reused, as well as the infamous Louis Armstrong song "We Have All the Time in the World." The film in general harkens back a lot to OHMSS with the relationship between Medeleine and Bond, except of course this time it is Bond that dies in the end, in a more bittersweet way.

There are some pretty exciting and fun action sequences. Craig probably puts in his best and most fun performance of his era. And it is probably fitting that he dies, as he was the most moody Bond with the biggest death wish of all, while the character in general was long overdue with the lifestyle choices he made over the years.

There are some pretty strong Bond moments. One of my favorite ones is where Bond finishes off a double agent that killed Felix Leiter by helping push an SUV that's slowly edging down a hill, right onto him. A moment that brings to mind Bond cold-bloodedly kicking a Mercedes with a henchman off a cliff in For Your Eyes Only. His final battle with Safin is also quite brutal and cold-blooded, really in what both of them do to each other.

So the movie has a little bit of everything. A lot of moments that call back to classic Bond, with a lot of fresh moments woven in, mainly thanks to the female characters, Madeleine, Nomi, and Paloma. However, as well written as they are, and as great as they are around Bond, they do hijack the film from the main character a bit. It's both fitting and a little disappointing. And much has been made about this woke culture Bond being in conflict with who the character was written to be by Ian Flemming and how he has been portrayed over the years, namely a cold-blooded killer and womanizer. Personally, as a huge longtime fan, I am a little disappointed with the softer and somewhat melodramatic direction, while also being accepting of it.

All of the supporting cast is great as well. Fiennes as M and Whishaw as Q are both fantastic. Lynch as Nomi and de Armas as Paloma are also quite fun to watch, without completely taking everything away from Bond. Paloma is the best Bond girl since Camille (Olga Kurylenko), who was unfortunately somewhat burdened with a complex and dramatic story arc. The chemistry between Bond and Paloma is great, and she really could have been the perfect Bond girl if this movie went in a different direction.

Léa Seydoux is much more interesting here than in Spectre, but let's face it, she has been dragging Bond and the entire Bond story way down into the sad and melodramatic since she was first introduced. Blofeld too is better in his brief moments than he was in the last film. And it adds to the gravity of the film how much everyone is working together to save the world. And I thought the idea of using nanotechnology to spread a virus that can target the DNA of specific people, was quite cool, even if the whole villain plot is just another one of those where the bad guy wants to destroy the world cause he's an angry maniac.

So finally, I do feel that the idea of killing off Bond and giving Madeleine Swan and her daughter (Bond's daughter) this bittersweet ending is a bit of a cop out. It's what a lot of movies, like some of the Marvel Universe ones have been doing. The strong hero dies, and everyone else celebrates it in a bittersweet, sappy ending. It's not reality and it's not right by who James Bond was and is. So with time I may sill reevaluate this movie and how I feel about it. But as a cinematic experience, I feel that it succeeds. And it brings closure to everything in the Craig era, as well as past Bond movies, in a way that the future direction for the series can be pretty much anything. However, I do hope that they will still stick to the tradition of what James Bond is supposed to be and will not muck it up with unoriginal ideas like a female James Bond. As Craig said it himself, Bond is a male, and there are plenty of other great characters that can be written for a woman.

Diamonds Are Forever (1971)

The return of Sean Connery, a change in direction, and the first in an odd trilogy

[7/10 · 12 July 2021]

Sean Connery returns as James Bond to investigate a mysterious diamond smuggling operation. Along the way he teams up with Tiffany Case (Jill St. John) as the trail leads him to Las Vegas and once again to his ultimate nemesis, Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Charles Gray).

With On Her Majesty's Secret Service, the glory days of the 60s era James Bond came to an end. The previous film was a box-office failure and the underwhelming George Lazenby left after just one movie. The producers scrambled and got Sean Connery to return thanks to a big paycheck. Though Connery returned, the series took on a decidedly new look and direction.

With a screenplay written by Tom Mankiewicz, Diamonds is more of an outright comedy than any other Bond film in the official series. At times it feels as cheap as the Vegas setting, but it works quite well for a number of reasons. It's a funny movie, almost a spoof, with very strong and witty dialogue. Connery is better here than in You Only Live Twice, has a lot of fun with the ridiculous plot, and is able to adjust to the lighthearted tone of the film without making James Bond too serious this time around. And his performance is appropriate for the slightly more aged Bond.

The Bond girls, including Tiffany Case and Plenty O'Toole (Lana Wood) are funny as well, as is Charles Gray's version of Blofeld. I happen to like Gray's performance here, even though he is frequently ranked as the worst of all the Blofelds. He is pompous, but intelligent, and fits very well within the satirical tone of the film. And of course, the film features the oddest duo of homosexual henchmen assassins, Mr. Wint (Bruce Glover) and Mr. Kidd (Putter Smith). Though the film may have gone a bit too far with the somewhat buffoon-like Vegas tycoon Willard Whyte (Jimmy Dean).

The film doesn't feature any truly memorable action, but it moves quickly and focuses on clever dialogue, which is probably the sharpest in the series. It has a Goldfinger-like feel, without the expansiveness. There is a great elevator fight scene and a cool stunt featuring a Ford Mustang, and a lot of chuckles along the way. As cheap entertainment, it under-promises and overdelivers.

This was the first of three films in a row written by Mankiewicz, with Live and Let Die and The Man With the Golden Gun being the other two. It ushered in a lower budget Bond era. All three feature bizarre characters, more focus on dark and sometimes slapstick humor, somewhat more competent Bond girls, and odd, at times almost surreal plots. They aren't the strongest films in the series, and in fact almost brought it to an end. However, I consider them middle-tier Bond and in moments they can be more interesting and fun than the more traditional, and somewhat more predictable Bond films. Connery gives a fine final performance helping take the series in this new, uneven, and strange direction and pave the way for his replacement, Roger Moore.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

What was once an underrated Bond film, is now overrated

[6/10 · 12 July 2021]

James Bond (George Lazenby) falls in love with a Mob boss' daughter Teresa (Diana Rigg), while simultaneously going undercover and infiltrating Blofeld's (Telly Savalas) allergy research facility in the Swiss alps, hoping to uncover his new plot and to stop his arch-nemesis once and for all.

I've gone back and forth on this film. When I first saw it as a kid, I was underwhelmed and really missed not seeing Sean Connery or Roger Moore in the iconic role. Upon repeated viewings, I grew to like the movie and even started to consider it one of the better ones in the series. Based on my most recent viewing, I am finding myself very critical of the film once more.

To start, Lazenby really falls short as James Bond. He has enough of a screen presence for the role, but truly lacks the acting ability. I'm not sure which actor would have been best for this movie, one of the most tragic ones in the series. In a way, perhaps it is good that it was Lazenby, as this film really stands apart from the rest in terms of the love story that unfolds. And as such, perhaps it is good that it was a one-time thing for another actor, rather than another Sean Connery movie. Having said all that, Lazenby isn't believable as a love interest to Teresa (Diana Rigg). He comes across as goofy, and not very believable as James Bond either. He is outshined by nearly every other main character in the film and out-acted by Rigg, Telly Savalas, and nearly anyone else he shares the screen with. Which results in a pretty good story, with memorable characters, but not a very good James Bond story. Things just happen to him here and Lazenby lacks the conviction to sell Bond as a sly and charming man of action.

The movie has one of the best scores in the series and has a lot of memorable scenes, but it isn't any of the action scenes that stand out. Lets be honest, it's only the weight of the love tragedy that makes it memorable. Savalas makes a good Blofeld. However, the scenes where Bond is undercover in his Swiss alp hideaway go on too long and are at times as boring as Sir Hilary Bray, the man he is impersonating. Both Lazenby's portrayal of Bray, and the dubbing of his voice, really weaken his overall performance in this movie. During all of these sequences it is easy to forget that one is watching a James Bond film.

A lot of the action sequences really suffer from the shaky cam techniques and quick jump cuts that are used. I found this to be terribly distracting and disorienting. The bobsled scene in particular was great in idea and poor in execution. All the suspense is lost because of the choppiness of the editing and the terrible back-screen projection.

This could have been a great Bond film, but the execution and Lazenby's portrayal are both very off. I don't buy that Teresa would fall for him. I don't buy that he is a competent agent with a license to kill. And toward the end, Bond makes a stupid mistake with Blofeld, giving him an opening for the tragedy that eventually transpires and allowing him to roam free once more. On the plus side, Irma Bunt (Ilse Steppat) was a good addition as Blofeld's henchwoman.

You Only Live Twice (1967)

The worst of the Connery Bonds, not counting Never Say Never Again

[6/10 · 11 July 2021]

James Bond (Sean Connery) travels to Japan to uncover the mystery of disappearing space shuttles and to identify the culprit behind the hijackings before a war between the US and Russia breaks out.

You Only Live Twice is a nice story, with a sweeping, epic, and adventurous feel. The music is beautiful, as is the Japan setting, and the cinematography really captures the beauty of many of the locations. The movie has elements that remind us of a romantic film era.

Unfortunately, it is also a terribly uneven and sloppy film, with some of the most cringe-worthy moments of the Sean Connery period. To start, Connery gives his laziest performance. He looks a bit overweight and physically appears to have really dropped off during the two-year period between Thunderball and this film. He doesn't even seem to be "present" in some of the scenes, especially in the first half, and moves through much of the film on autopilot. This was his last Bond movie before he would later come back to do one more official entry after George Lazenby flopped in the role, and it frequently looks like he is just tired of playing Bond.

You Only Live Twice hasn't aged well either and is frequently silly. The two Japanese Bond girls are not very memorable and add little to the story. They are nice, but perfunctory. Midway through, Bond undergoes a physical transformation into a Japanese man in order to help him go undercover and to train as a ninja. This is completely unnecessary and proves to be useless in his mission. Additionally, it is just ridiculous and perhaps even highlights bigotry and ignorance on the part of the filmmakers. Whether intended or not, it makes me laugh more than anything else.

Bond flying around in "Little Nellie," a tiny one-person helicopter/plane gadget, while strapped with a helmet equipped with a camera, stands out to me as an example of the silly action in the movie. And it's just not a good look for Bond. Two of the villain henchmen are poor imitations of Red Grant and Fiona Volpe from previous installments. And while Donald Pleasence gives the series' mastermind villain Blofeld a great first on-screen full reveal, in most of the scenes Blofeld just looks like some schizoid little man running around, and no real match for Bond or his allies. And that poor cat, just trying to run away from his arms in so many of the shots. The story goes that this cat's owners, who would provide the cat as an extra in many other projects, could never get it to work on any set again after this.

The highlights for me are the aerial shot of Bond's rooftop escape and battle with dozens of henchmen, and the fantastic villain lair set and the action that takes place there in the last part of the film. But again, as I stated earlier, so many moments just make me cringe and while some of it can be viewed as tongue-in-cheek, I feel that those moments, as well as the film, really miss the mark.

Thunderball (1965)

A big time Bond adventure that tries to go even bigger than Goldfinger

[7/10 · 25 June 2021]

James Bond (Sean Connery), travels to the Bahamas to recover two nuclear missiles stolen by Emilio Largo (Adolfo Celi), SPECTRE's agent No. 2. The organization threatens to destroy a major US or British city, unless they are paid a huge ransom. Bond soon meets Largo, as well as his mistress Domino (Claudine Auger), whom Largo keeps under a tight watch in his mansion and aboard his ship the Disco Volante. Domino is unaware that her brother was killed by Largo and SPECTRE during their theft of the missiles, but Bond hopes to get her over to his side and stop Largo.

Thuderball is both a major Bond film in the series and a bit of an overblown mess. A lot of the suspense created by the storyline is quite great. Sean Connery gives another very solid performance, and is perhaps at his most effortless in the Bond series here. However, the effortlessness is starting to look a bit like boredom in moments as Connery was starting to become jaded with playing Bond.

The film is stunningly colorful and beautiful in many places as most of the action takes place in the one Bahamas location. This was the first Bond film shot in full widescreen. However, the drawback of the sole Bahamas location is that it does get boring over time. At times, it's like being on a beach with soothing waves, which lull you to sleep, rather than whisk you away to great action.

Adolfo Celi, as the main villain Largo, has a strong screen presence and is very memorable. However, the movie pushes that over-the-top villainy to the point of being laughable at times. It's the sort of stuff that has spurred the Austin Powers movies to parody the character. Domino is beautiful, but is also not a terribly exciting Bond girl. One could argue that since her character is essentially trapped by Largo, this may have taken some life out of her and the quiet naivete is appropriate.

Then, of course, there is the unforgettable Fiona Volpe, played by the stunning Luciana Paluzzi. A henchman of sorts, she is just as cold, intelligent, and ruthless as she is beautiful. She has an almost equal part in SPECTRE's plot as Largo and clearly ranks high up the SPECTRE ladder as an agent. She gives Bond a taste of his own medicine in many moments and nearly takes him out herself.

The film really plays up SPECTRE in this movie once again, after From Russia With Love. This side-plot would be fully opened up finally in You Only Live Twice. It's kind of hilarious how all the SPECTRE agents wear the same rings with a logo of an octopus, essentially giving themselves away.

The film is beautiful, but empty at times. The action scenes are great in concept, but flat in execution. In particular, there is a great deal of debate among Bond fans over the huge amount of underwater sequences in this movie, which many argue tend to slow it down and add to the lull of the film and its location. I'm somewhat in agreement with that. While early on, they have a feel of mystery and suspense, the underwater finale especially is disappointing. The choreography of the final underwater battle is good, but constantly made me question if such shooting and fighting moves would even be remotely possible in the water. And the battle does drag on, when it could have easily been resolved by larger NATO forces swooping in.

So the film is very uneven. It is big, bold, and colorful, with memorable villains, Bond girls, and a gorgeous location. Sean Connery is good as well, but no longer at his best and this is the movie where the paycheck for him started being more important than the role. Some scenes, like the ones that take place at the recuperation center, the interplay between Bond and Largo early on, and the scenes with Bond and Volpe stand out. The pre-title sequence is fairly good as well. But many other scenes really drag as the plot unravels slowly. There are a few parts that feel roughly edited in and look more like they were shot for a TV movie. And the use of backscreen projection is also quite bad in places. The action scenes, especially the final underwater battle, are a disappointment. This was the first Bond movie I saw as a kid with Sean Connery, and maybe the 4th or 5th Bond film I saw overall, so it did have it's impact on me precisely because of many of the big story elements. However, now it feels like an unevenly executed, big budget Bond movie.

Goldfinger (1964)

Still the best Bond film after all this time

[9/10 · 24 June 2021]

James Bond (Sean Connery) goes after a suspicious gold-smuggling entrepreneur, Auric Goldfinger (Gert Frobe). As he encounters several women along the way, he will need all the help from them he can get if he is to stop Goldfinger's ingenious plot to get rich, while destroying the western economy.

This is the Bond film where all of the pieces from the first two films come together. Everything that the Bond films would become is done here first. The outrageous villain, his mastermind plot, an unstoppable henchman, the numerous memorable Bond girls on different sides of the battle, the ever growing build up to a huge finale, and Bond at his most suave and pulling out all the stops to prevent his arch-enemy from succeeding.

I grew up on Roger Moore films and I love several of them, so this was not my personal favorite right off the bat. It wasn't the first Sean Connery film that I saw, but over time, it has grown on me and at this point I can say that it is the best Bond movie and my favorite as well. It is the type of movie that I could watch all the way through, if I randomly caught it on TV. It is polished, entertaining, well-plotted, and it is remarkably rewatchable. Some of the technology and backscreen projection doesn't look great, and a few moments in the plot involving some of the characters are implausible, but those are small moments in the film and really the only things I can nitpick.

I love the character of Goldfinger. He is a likeable villain and larger-than-life, without being completely unbelievable. He enjoys the finer things in life, is smart, and I love how this movie paints him as a cheat. The moments where he cheats at cards and later at a round of golf with Bond, are just such great touches. The entire golf game with him and Bond is so memorable as Bond gets to one-up him with some giddy and brave tactics. He is frequently dismissive of Bond throughout the film, which really strengthens him as a character. And his plot actually makes sense. It is one of the most foolproof villain plots in all of the Bond films, especially compared to so many ridiculous ones.

Sean Connery is at his absolute best here. He is on point and present throughout the entire film. He is more charming, more amusing, and more suave than in any other Bond film. He is having as much fun here as in any other movie in the series, except maybe the often ridiculous Diamonds are Forever. A lot of people in the Bond fan community frequently bring up that he spends a lot of the film in captivity and at Goldfinger's will. While that is true, I also think that this is why Connery is good here. You get to see Bond figure his way out throughout the film, much like us, the viewers. He has to use his charm and cleverness rather than just brute force or calculated logic to stop Goldfinger. And I love how the two actually befriend each other. There is a sense of actual friendship in many moments, despite the fact that business for each one will come first. They genuinely seem to enjoy each other's company and the chess match they are both playing.

Finally, there are just so many iconic and memorable scenes. The indestructable hat-throwing henchman Oddjob paved the way for so many other henchmen that followed in the Bond series. His final battle with Bond at Fort Knox again pushes Bond against the ropes to the max. There's Pussy Galore, the Bond Girl that Bond needs to win over. The two Masterson sisters, each with a different character, both tied to Goldfinger and both greatly affected by Bond quite tragically. They become the Bond girls that Bond cannot save, casualties along the way, which would also become a frequent staple in the films. The music is so memorable. The film has a great pre-title sequence that culminates with the "shocking!" Bond one-liner. And the iconic "Do you expect me to talk?", "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!" scene is now legendary.

Goldfinger really flows from one memorable scene to the next and is just littered with iconic moments. Simply put, it is fun, with very few flaws, and is so watchable that any flaws that it does have, I see myself dismissing simply because I enjoy the experience of watching it so much.

From Russia with Love (1963)

An almost real spy thriller and an improvement over Dr. No

[8/10 · 15 June 2021]

In the second film in the series, James Bond is pulled into a plot involving a Soviet encryption device. The terrorist organization SPECTRE, headed by mastermind Blofeld, employ the beautiful, but naive Russian girl Tatiana as the bait. At the orders of SPECTRE agent Rosa Klebb, the girl is to do whatever is necessary to lead Bond to the device and ultimately to his demise. With SPECTRE's other agent Kronsteen, a master chess player, strategizing all the moves of this foolproof plan, Bond's death is virtually guaranteed, with SPECTRE coming away with the device in the process. Despite knowing that he is entering some sort of trap, Bond is enticed by both the girl and the possibility of recovering the device for MI6.

This very Hitchcockian thriller, along with For Your Eyes Only, is one of the more realistic entries in the Bond series. In fact, all the scenes involving SPECTRE can seem almost silly in comparison to the grounded nature of the rest of the film. Bond first travels to Istanbul, where through a connection, he is to meet the girl and obtain the device. His aid, Kerim Bey, is played very well by Pedro Armendariz. However, some of the scenes involving Kerim early in the film, like when he takes Bond to a fascinating gypsy camp for the night, do at the same time take the story on a bit of an unnecessary tangent.

The villains are all great in this movie, especially the iconic SPECTRE assassin Red Grant, played by Robert Shaw. His moves, which are done with a close eye on the unsuspecting Bond, and his inching ever closer to meeting Bond are some of the best stuff in this film. When the two finally do meet on the train, which is to be part of Bond's escape route, the film serves up some of the best scenes. Bond suspects something right away upon meeting Red Grant, but it is all of the dialogue and interplay between them that generates a tremendous amount of suspense in that Hitchcockian way, as we the audience know more about what is happening than the hero. Needless to say, their encounter is one of the most iconic in all of the Bond series, with spy work, psychological trickery, weapons, gadgets, and physical prowess all coming into play.

In the final few scenes, there is some odd editing, which really took me out of the movie. The execution of the boat chase scene feels dated by today's technological standards. Even more noticeable is that the scene seems to be out of order with the meeting between Blofeld and his agents that takes place immediately before it, which would have made more sense if it followed the boat chase. Either that or some other editing or writing needed to be done to have these final scenes make more sense temporally or with what happens to the characters. As it stands, this part of the movie feels rushed and somewhat jarring.

Outside of these issues, the film is very strong. It really captures Fleming and has a true feel of a spy thriller. Sean Connery is just as good as in Dr. No, perhaps better. Desmond Llewelyn makes his first appearance in the series as gadget man "Q", replacing Peter Burton, who played the same character in Dr. No, then referred to by his actual name, Major Boothroyd. Daniela Bianchi makes for a very good Bond girl and plays an integral part in many of the events. The locations are also pretty memorable throughout, with Bond moving more from place to place than in the last movie. The Bond formula is still not quite there yet and it would take the next entry, Goldfinger, for all of the pieces that would make this such a hugely popular series to finally fall into place.

Dr. No (1962)

A classic piece of cinema where parts just haven't aged well

[6/10 · 13 June 2021]

British secret agent James Bond, 007, in his first official on-screen adventure in the Bond film series, travels to Jamaica to investigate the disappearance of another agent. Not very long after his arrival, he finds himself the target of attempts on his life. As he uses his wits to survive and gather clues, the trail leads him to the mysterious island of Crab Key. Together with his partner Quarrel, a local fisherman, Bond travels to Crab Key, where he soon meets the beautiful, shell-collecting Honey Rider, as well as the island's nefarious inhabitants. Crab Key is occupied by the evil genius Dr. No, who plans to harness nuclear energy to interfere with American space missions and to disrupt the balance of world powers.

This is a good James Bond film, which doesn't really have many flaws, but it just lacks the polish and excitement of many of the later entries, including the one that followed it and immediately improved on the formula. On the plus side, there is Sean Connery's very solid performance. His first delivery of the "Bond, James Bond" line in the casino is iconic. He is suave, serious, athletic, and highly believable, both as a spy licensed to kill and as a slick charmer. His Bond moments are smaller here than in later movies. His final face-off with Professor Dent is certainly a memorable one. He has a lot of good quips throughout the movie and some good dialogue once he finally meets Dr. No.

The first half does drag a bit. The pacing is relatively slow compared to the later Bond films. And so one has to take pleasure from the small moments like the ones I already mentioned. Once the action moves to Crab Key, the movie picks up in pace and suspense. Honey Rider is also iconic and she and Bond make a classic partnership. The action that takes place at Dr. No's lair is where the movie is at it's best. Though again relatively small scale compared to the films that followed, the sets are very memorable and original and one really gets a good feel for the place as Bond maneuvers throughout it. The technology that is showcased however, does feel very dated. The bleeps and buzzes that accompany readings from different radiation equipment and the anti-radiation suits can come off as humorous. As does the island "monster" when Bond, Honey, and Quarrel first encounter it. Joseph Wiseman's performance as Dr. No is also memorable, although his final battle with Bond is rather quick. His particular deformity, common in many Bond villains, happens to be that he has no hands and uses metal prosthetics instead. This comes into play during the final scene.

Overall, this is an OK Bond film, when looking at it retrospectively. It ranks in the lower tier for me, although it isn't exactly flawed, per se. In terms of the ideas and execution for what it was at the time, and the franchise it started, it gets a 9/10. There is a lot to respect and admire here when one allows the time to take in the moments. Bond's maneuvering around Dr. No's lair was the highlight for me. However, the film does move a bit slow at times and the technology and special effects are the sort that helped inspire many of the moments in the Austin Powers movies. And when the subsequent three films improved upon and mastered the Bond formula so well in comparison, Dr. No stands more as just an interesting first try for me.

Femme Fatale (2002)

A De Palma Film That Actually Works

[10/10 · 29 March 2003]

Brian De Palma is no doubt a gifted filmmaker, but his films have always been somewhat of a disappointment to many, including me. While his visual style is just about as good as anybody's, often I find myself feeling like that's really the only reason I enjoy some of his films. The numerous Hitchcock references and homages that fill all of his films along with twisty ridiculous plots are kind of fun, but not all that satisfying. His films seem to embody the style over substance approach and the film-noir rip offs can simply feel derivative as they just pollute his movies. I liked THE UNTOUCHABLES, CARRIE and CARLITO'S WAY, thought SCARFACE was decent, was rather disappointed by DRESSED TO KILL (too much of a PSYCHO remake, way too predictable as a result, but a great slasher scene in the elevator), and didn't like SNAKE EYES. From what I hear, those are probably his best movies (except for SNAKE EYES) so I'm sure there are some bad ones that I would simply hate. However, I actually loved FEMME FATALE. I could not have been more pleased with this film. Yes, it's still on the trashy fun side and borrows heavily from film-noir, but it felt fresh.

First of all, the movie looks gorgeous. The visual style completely pulled me in and all of De Palma's little details were working for me. I can easily recall several stunning shots, which are some of the best I've ever seen from De Palma. Somehow I did not feel like I was watching a remake of another Hitchcock classic even though there were a lot of familiar elements. The jewel heist that opens the film is unbelievably engaging and sets the tone for the rest of the film perfectly. Romijn-Stamos looks incredibly hot in this film and I have never really been much of a fan of hers. The way De Palma was able to make her look in that striptease was amazing. Her acting is sufficient, but this is not a multilayered character study. This is not a very deep or thought provoking film, although it is not mindless either. It is pure cinema that communicates the director's thoughts visually. The plot may feel a little choppy to some and the twist may seem ridiculous, but it worked completely for me. The entire film is hovering in a dream-like state and so I bought some of the explanations quite easily. It reminded me a lot of Lynch's MULLHOLLAND DRIVE. Although FEMME FATALE isn't even nearly as thematically rich or complete a film as MULLHOLLAND, it pulls off a similar structure quite well.

Say what you will, I thought this movie was great. For once De Palma lives up to his Hitchcock wannabe status. He carries the entire film on fantastic visuals and this time it feels right. FEMME FATALE is an incredibly entertaining visceral experience; a modern and elegant thriller at its best. I can almost see how someone might dislike the film (it is De Palma after all), but I think those hold it up to too much of a high standard (Hitchcock). Now, if you compare it to other De Palma films, you will have a tough time finding something better. While the average moviegoer can enjoy the sexy thriller components, I think true film lovers will find some of De Palma's best work here. His film-noir details have never been better. If you think of De Palma as an "auteur," then he will probably go down as one of the worst "auteurs" in history. However, here is one film that really works and as a result I am doomed to check out more of De Palma's work in the future, only to probably find myself disappointed most of the time. Overall, FEMME FATALE gets a 9 out of 10. Along with SOLARIS, one of the most underrated films of 2002.

V.I.P. (1998–2002)

This show may be smarter than you are

[31 December 2002]

Before I comment on the show lets get my credentials out of the way. I recently graduated from Indiana University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry and a minor in Mathematics. I have also taken several film/arts courses because of my intense interest in them. I love art, but I am most familiar with film. There is nothing that I enjoy more than a thought-provoking movie. I understand film as art and I appreciate all the great directors (and I'm not talking Spielberg here). Color or B&W, old or new, domestic or foreign, it doesn't matter as long as the film is good. I'm not bragging here, but I'm trying to establish that I do have some intelligence before I get crucified for being an idiot that actually enjoys "VIP" from time to time. One of the things that upsets me is when people complain about a film being stupid when they don't even understand it. This happens with just about any non-conventional movie. However, the same thing can partly be said about "VIP." From most of the negative comments I can see that people are completely missing the point (not all the negative comments). Yes the show is ridiculous, unrealistic, predictable, and features one-dimensional characters, but does it ever pretend to be something better? NO IT DOES NOT. It never pretends that it is not any of the above. It wallows in its ridiculousness and embraces its one-dimensional characters. For those reasons, it will never be a great show, but it can be kind of fun.

One comment I read complained about Pammy spying at night in a tight purple outfit and stiletto heels. The reviewer was really bothered by this and believed that it could never happen. Let's think about it... OF COURSE IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN! THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! Yes it is simple and silly, but don't miss the fact that that's the point. Would you also complain that Lt. Frank Drebin from the NAKED GUN doesn't really act like a very competent cop? Did the inflatable autopilot in AIRPLANE seem a little too "literal" to you? If so, then you are stupid. The quality of "VIP" and the show's humor cannot be compared to those great comedies, but "VIP" is in the same vein. There have been several witty moments in the series. Not genius, but witty.

The characters are supposed to be one-dimensional. Every member of the VIP team has pretty much one characteristic and they just go with it. Is it redundant? Yes it is. But it also makes them into cartoon characters. Why would you watch the Road Runner cartoons many times? It's always the same thing, but it can still be fun. The cars, the colors, the outfits, and the people are all beautiful, but that's the show's style. IT IS NOT AN EXERCISE IN REALISM.

Before I give the show too much credit, I do want to say that this is definitely nothing to admire. I think the show is decent if you have nothing else to watch and can be kind of fun. At the same time, there is always that tug of war going on in my brain between the intelligent me and the me who needs to stop thinking in order to enjoy the show. Because "VIP" is so one-dimensional, I don't get much satisfaction from it. The MTV-style editing can be kind of annoying. Everyone in the show is a walking arsenal of guns, but the only time they use them is to shoot other people's guns out of their hands (which is also kind of a funny thing). Everything comes down to hand to hand combat. And when they shoot those gorgeous vehicles, the bullets just bounce off. So all of these things get on my nerves, but they are kind of funny as well. It's all a part of the ridiculous nature of the show. The only time the show is really bad is when it abandons its nature. Anytime it tries to be serious or dramatic it becomes terrible. When the bodyguards actually believe that they are more important than the FBI or the cops, that's when the show is a little stupid. This would be fine if that belief was yet another joke, but the characters do appear to be a little too serious about what they are doing sometimes. Then again, even that can work well in contrast to Pammy's goofiness.

The bottom line is there is nothing amazing about this show, but it can be fun in a "cartoonish" way. It does not satisfy in a large variety of ways, but "VIP" can be enjoyable if you are willing to accept its nature. The acting is one-dimensional because that is how it is supposed to be and as that, it is quite good. Pammy herself has never been better. If you look at "Baywatch" or BARB WIRE, there she is a weak actress because she is stretching for dramatic levels that she cannot reach. She is perfect in "VIP" and is very willing to mock herself. Let's not forget all of her great outfits since she does look real good. It's definitely one of the reasons why people watch. "VIP" is a perfectly acceptable show because it is not an insult to our intelligence. It comes straight out and says, "I'm incredibly stupid. If you want, enjoy my stupidity. If not, change the channel." It is infinitely better than a show like "Baywatch" where the melodrama is truly ridiculous and insulting and the acting is pure garbage (because people are trying to act in dramatic ways they cannot). "Baywatch" actually pretends to have a serious story and "VIP" does not. That's what makes it much better. And if you are getting angry about how stupid "VIP" is and how a girl in high-heels could never be a bodyguard, think for a moment. You may be missing the point.

Soylent Green (1973)

My Misinterpretation

[6/10 · 17 December 2002]

SOYLENT GREEN is a good story executed without the impact it may deserve. There is plenty to appreciate in this dark portrayal of earth in the future, but there are too many elements that just scream out "Messy B-movie". A vision of a world where overpopulation causes people to literally spill out of windows, animal and plant life is virtually non existent, fresh food and water is only available to the truly rich, voluntary suicide is encouraged, the government hands out rations of odd food supplements (Soylent Red, Soylent Yellow, and the new Soylent Green), a jar of strawberries costs $150, and women are called "furniture" (they can be "reused" or thrown out when new rich tenants move into apartments), certainly has potential. The acting is strong from the two people that matter the most, Charlton Heston (Thorn) and Edward G. Robinson (Sol). Sol's suicide scene followed by Thorn's discovery of the recipe for Soylent Green represent the best parts of the movie. There is something very creepy about the way Sol is lead to his chamber. As he lies there and watches a film of all the beautiful things that earth once had to offer (still does to us), the footage makes its impact. The themes in SOYLENT GREEN are obvious right from the very beginning. An excellent montage, which shows the earth as it becomes more polluted over the years, opens the film.

SOYLENT GREEN is similar to Heston's more famous PLANET OF THE APES as it shows us a bleak look at the future of humanity that is a direct result of our ignorance. It asks us to appreciate what we take for granted. However, it does not have the same impact. I'm not going to complain about film quality because that is more due to the fact that I had a poor videotape copy. Unfortunately, the film does have choppy editing and a weak execution. The story suffers from some really banal sub-plots such as Thorn's relationship with a "furniture." The movie lacks the focus to develop into something really intriguing and instead contains some bizarre, out-of-place scenes. It's best when it focuses on Thorn's investigation and on his relationship with Sol. The production quality is low and the idea that people have not advanced much beyond the seventies seems like a lazy way of not having to deal with wardrobe, design, music, etc. So while the story may be good, the movie feels weak and dated and Thorn's final lines, while delivered nicely by Heston, do not have the impact they should.

There is a curious scene that I want to mention. It occurs when Sol visits the Exchange. I got the impression that Sol is Jewish, especially since I heard him utter Hebrew phrases throughout the movie (I don't know a single word in Hebrew, but I've heard it before and that's what it sounded like). From their accents, it appears that the old women he talks to at the Exchange are European (possibly also Jewish). In my opinion, the conversation they have about the Soylent Green cover-ups seems to resemble conversations about Nazi war crime cover-ups. Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to make light of the Holocaust by comparing it to the story in SOYLENT GREEN. I may be completely misreading it. However, the old women have such strange looks on their faces as they talk about the hideous nature of the crimes and the need for proof. There is something about that scene that just made me uncomfortable. I don't know if it was the director's intention to show that the story paralleled the Holocaust in some ways, but I got that impression from that little scene. Other moments in the film, such as the crowd control scene or Sol's death scene, appear to fit in with that idea. The film is clearly against such actions so a comparison to the Holocaust may not be totally inappropriate, but it may be a trivialization, especially if the director really did intend for the parallels to be seen. Since I may just be imagining this, I'm not sure what to make of it. Please understand that I have never stretched my interpretation of a movie this far before (Well, I did have a strange theory on FREDDY GOT FINGERED). I may be completely wrong and I don't mean to misinterpret anything.

The bottom line is that SOYLENT GREEN is a poorly executed, but interesting story about embracing and respecting our environment before it deteriorates and forces us into some extreme behavior. Here is a movie in desperate need of remaking. A thought provoking (not action driven) and technically superior remake could have a much stronger impact. For now, if you have time, SOYLENT GREEN is just decent enough to check out, if only for the famous ending. However, don't expect anything too amazing as this feels only like a second rate PLANET OF THE APES, from beginning to twist ending. Overall, a 6 out of 10.

Signs (2002)

(THE SIXTH SENSE + UNBREAKABLE)/2 = SIGNS

[8/10 · 13 December 2002]

SIGNS is yet another strong movie from M. Night Shyamalan that follows the formulas he has presented in THE SIXTH SENSE and UNBREAKABLE. This time a Pennsylvania farmhouse provides the setting and a widowed reverend (Mel Gibson), his two kids (Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin), and his less conservative brother (Joaquin Phoenix) are the main characters. The ordinary people find themselves in extraordinary circumstances after some crop circles appear in their fields. Strange occurrences follow and numerous contradictory speculations within the family are inevitable. Soon the situation turns far more serious with an appearance of several UFOs around the world, including near the family's house. Are these really aliens and are they friendly or hostile?

Like the other two Shyamalan films, SIGNS becomes a character study. We learn of the preacher's struggle with his faith and Phoenix's character becomes a tough guy gone scared. Both men reveal important elements from their past as the movie progresses and they become fully developed characters rather than horror film victims running around screaming. The two kids embrace the arrival of the aliens in a hopeful and innocently childlike way. The acting by all is very good and the kids are an improvement over the boy from UNBREAKABLE. The story unfolds patiently and builds up in suspense. Shyamalan again shows great control over pacing. He combines Spielberg's early sci-fi storytelling techniques with Hitchcock-like direction, understanding that less is more. SIGNS utilizes the sound of the wind, the movement in the fields, the distant dog barks, the creepy shadows, the eerie music, and the characters' scared reactions all at once effortlessly. The cinematography, lighting, and use of color are all superb again like in the previous two Shyamalan films. As I was watching the movie I realized how much I was enjoying everything that was up on the screen. I could see the effort and the careful attention to detail. This is no INDEPENDENCE DAY or GODZILLA as there is no numbing explosions and corny dialogue. With SIGNS you get a true build up of suspense and uncertainty before Shyamalan wraps it all up in his typically exciting fashion.

I do have one problem with the film. It is a major problem and a minor one at the same time. The entire film is constructed in such a familiar fashion that some of the surprises and developments feel a little predictable. The following can all be found in THE SIXTH SENSE, UNBREAKABLE, and SIGNS: the immature (ghosts, super heroes, and now aliens) story directed in a very mature manner, similar uses of color and shadow, similar pacing and character development, similar relationships between adults and kids (the kids usually guide the less open minded adults toward the correct state of mind), the sub-par appearance of the director, the really toned down acting (no real objection here, but one scream once in a may actually be a little more realistic), the Pennsylvania settings, and the big revelations in the climax (small one in SIGNS). I know that some of those are trivial. More can probably be found, but that is not important. What I am trying to say is that I am disappointed that Shyamalan has not grown much as a director since THE SIXTH SENSE. All the things I have listed above are positives (except for Shyamalan's cameos), but I'm not being surprised by anything new. The stories are all different, but the framework is just the same. I still did not see some of the ideas or twists coming during SIGNS, but I was expecting them to show up. I wasn't too shocked to see them appear like clockwork. Everything felt so calculated. I liked UNBREAKABLE the most and now I find SIGNS to be the weakest of the three. If SIGNS came out before the other two movies and UNBREAKABLE were released third, possibly I would have found UNBREAKABLE to be the weakest. And maybe SIGNS would have taken the country by storm the way THE SIXTH SENSE did if it were released earlier. I don't know. As long as Shyamalan will follow these structures, he will not grow as a director. On the other hand, if he continues to follow these formulas in all of his films then probably every single one of them will be good. I'm already waiting with curiosity for his next one. For now, SIGNS gets an 8 out of 10.

Die Another Day (2002)

Kind of fun, but going in the wrong direction

[7/10 · 12 December 2002]

The 20th Bond film is nothing new, but it is still fun, which is the single most important thing. I'm not going to go into the plot because it just seems so unnecessary. I will say that this is probably neither the best nor the worst Bond film in the franchise, although I can clearly see where the disappointment might come from for those who believe that it is a new low. Personally, I believe that the last one, THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, was just such a bore that it has easily become my least favorite. DIE ANOTHER DAY is kind of similar to the Roger Moore Bond movies, which were a little on the ridiculous side. I find that acceptable because I grew up with those. I decided to simply list my pros and cons of the new Bond film since that will probably be the easiest way to deal with everything I thought.

Cons:

1. Madonna's opening theme song: I actually liked the song, but it has no place in a Bond movie.

2. Jinx: Just an average bond girl character. There is nothing new or amazing about her being a spy. If anyone can remember five years back to TOMORROW NEVER DIES, Michelle Yeoh did the same exact thing. In fact, there have been many spy Bond girls in the past. They have just become progressively more independent over the years. The filmmakers believe this is a perfect opportunity to create a corny competition between 007 and the women spies. And Jinx's weak comeback, `Yo Momma,' uttered by her at one point in the film is about as original as me wanting to tell her, `Go back to the early 90s,' in response.

3. The editing: What's with the slowed down and sped-up shots that randomly pop up? This is not a Guy Ritchie film. Where is the class that Bond films used to have?

4. Not enough real espionage stuff: The Pierce Brosnan James Bond couldn't go outside for two minutes to buy a newspaper without some gadget or cool car. Everything he does seems to draw attention to him, which defeats the purpose of being a spy.

5. Action overkill: There is nothing wrong with some clever combat or creative use of gadgets, but when everything revolves around explosions layered on top of more explosions, it becomes numbing. The opening sequence is rather average. James Bond surfing on top of a melting iceberg looks laughable and the computer effects suck. The final sequence in the burning plane is also very unimaginative. It sure is loud though.

6. Music overkill: Slapping a lot of music on top of the action kills the suspense even further. It sure is loud though.

7. Not enough screen time for Pierce Brosnan, which, I think, explains a lot of the problems. If the filmmakers would concentrate on showing more Bond, maybe there would be more suspense, and more real espionage. Instead they concentrate on trying to make Jinx look like a major character. Her scenes are never as interesting as Bond's, with one exception. In the final sequence on the burning plane, the movie goes back and forth between Bond's fight and Jinx's fight. The fact that I actually found Bond's fight a lot duller is unacceptable.

8. The female M: While Judi Dench is a great actress, I still can't buy her as the head of the Secret Service. At least she doesn't get captured in this one like she did in the last movie.

9. The plot steals a little too much from DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER with the stupid `laser up in space, shoots down on earth' idea.

10. The new opening gun barrel logo: For the first time ever, there is a bullet that shoots out of Bond's gun, seemingly toward the audience. Why? It's not THAT cool. It does symbolize how the franchise seems to be moving toward pointless action.

Pros:

1. The Bond theme still sounds good and hasn't been changed too much like in GOLDENEYE. It sounds best when it resembles the classic origins. The music in general is good, but there is too much of it as I said before.

2. Halle Berry: Jinx is nothing original, but Halle Berry may be the best-looking Bond girl yet. That's what it's really about. Otherwise, if they wanted to be very progressive, they would make the spy Bond girls ugly. There's a great homage to Dr. No with her introduction.

3. The first half of the film is very good. There is some decent plot and character development and I like the little twist at the beginning with Bond being tortured and held prisoner. This eventually leads to some humorous little scenes where Brosnan shows off long hair and a beard.

4. Typically great gadgets: An invisible car is the main new item and it is a fun idea.

5. Typically great locations: Lots of great and exotic countries visited, including Korea, England, Cuba, and Iceland. I thought the ice palace was an unbelievable idea even if it was a little far fetched.

6. Some good action scenes: The sword fight, midway through, between Bond and the main villain Gustav Graves is terrific. It is just the type of fight sequence that makes Bond movies so great as it occurs in a strange location and cleverly utilizes different props. The car chase with Bond and Zao sliding around the ice in their cars and eventually driving into the ice palace was also excellent.

7. Pierce Brosnan is the best James Bond since Sean Connery. It's too bad that his scripts are not as good. John Cleese is, of course, the perfect replacement for Q. Desmond Llewelyn will always be the greatest though.

8. The villains are rather average, but at least Gustav Graves has a nice level of arrogance and Zao has a cool look.

9. Items from the other 19 Bond films: Since DIE ANOTHER DAY is a 40th anniversary Bond movie, the filmmakers decided to add a bunch of little items from the previous films in the franchise. I did not remember this as I watched the movie, but as soon as I started noticing familiar objects or heard familiar lines of dialogue I became aware of what was going on. It was kind of fun to spot some of these things.

10. It's Bond, James Bond.

There's probably a lot more to list. The bottom line is that I enjoyed the movie and most of its ridiculous action. Unfortunately, as long as these explosion driven Bond films continue to make the big money, there will not be any change for the more subtle. I think that Michael G. Wilson, the producer, can be blamed for that. Pierce Brosnan mentioned in some interview that Wilson was not willing to take any risks. So we end up with an average Bond movie. Overall, a 7 out of 10.

Solaris (2002)

Don't hate it cause it's beautiful

[9/10 · 10 December 2002]

Human nature makes us so constricted. We want everything nicely categorized and neatly packaged. Most of all, we need to have control and understanding over everything in life, otherwise we feel frustrated and are unable to function. I am at least talking about the majority here. I would like to think that I am different, but nobody's perfect. SOLARIS is a beautiful film that is already well on its way to becoming the most underrated movie of the year thanks to the usual unsubstantiated complaints that it is boring or makes no sense. To those not used to films that stray from typical Hollywood movie conventions and to those too lazy to think or to try to interpret the movie themselves, SOLARIS would be worse than death or public speaking. To those open minded enough to understand that film is also art and can be used to convey thought, SOLARIS may be a great experience.

The plot is only the set-up. Psychiatrist Chris Kelvin (George Clooney) is sent to a space station to investigate the strange behavior of the crew, with whom contact has been lost. The crew's mission was to study a mysterious planet called Solaris. Upon his arrival, Chris finds that only two people, Snow and Gordon, are still alive, while the rest of the crew either committed suicide or died mysteriously. During his first night there, Chris is visited by his dead wife, Rheya. She is not a ghost, but seemingly a real person. Apparently, Solaris is able to read people's thoughts and recreate loved-ones from their memories. The `visitors' appear how they were remembered rather than how they really were.

The plot does not develop much beyond that. The film becomes a meditation on the nature of the situation. I am not sure what to make of Snow's character, but it is clear that Gordon is terrified by everything that is happening even though she does not comprehend it. She is eager to destroy the planet and any visitors without even trying to understand the situation. Chris is much more open minded, but may be going mad. In the early scenes back on earth, he is portrayed as sad and lonely. With the reappearance of his dead wife on the space station, he eagerly seeks a second chance.

I think that Soderbergh has done an amazing job here especially the way he blurs the lines between reality and Chris' thoughts, memories, and dreams. The film has his usual steadi-cam style with some beautiful and fascinating images. The cinematography and haunting music were simply captivating, especially in the scene where Chris first dreams of his wife. The film is deliberately paced, but it is not slow and boring. It allowed my eyes to wander from one side of the screen to the other and completely absorb the images.

I have not read the original novel or seen Tarkovsky's version so I cannot make any of those comparisons. However, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is one of my favorite films and SOLARIS evoked many of the same themes and recreated some of the same stunning images (while watching, I thought about how great it would be to see 2001 on the big screen). You cannot really compare SOLARIS to 2001, but I'm sure that Soderbergh was never thinking about surpassing Kubrick's film. I do think that this is his best movie along with TRAFFIC. I think he went in a different direction and succeeded on almost every level. The same can be said of George Clooney who, like Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp, is fighting his Sexiest Man in the World image with a good performance in a risky movie (although you wouldn't think so from the excessive shots of his rear end).

Without getting into a specific discussion of the film's themes, the general meanings conveyed by SOLARIS relate back to what I said in the first paragraph. The film is meant to question human existence and our nature in the universe. It questions our need to explain the unexplainable and our fear of what we do not understand. It portrays humans as creatures with limitations that have a ridiculous need to always be right. I don't know if Solaris is meant to represent god or the unknown, but it is something that humans are not able to comprehend with everything we know on earth. By the end of the movie Chris realizes that he can no longer live the way he has and opens his mind to new possibilities. That may be the only way at another chance with his wife.

If you feel intimidated by a thought provoking film that will force you to be an active participant and will not cater to your expectations, rent SPIDER-MAN. If you are specifically looking for sci-fi movies with gadgets and explosions then wait for STAR TREK: NEMESIS or even go to DIE ANOTHER DAY (a pretty sci-fi Bond movie). I'm sure there are people who understood SOLARIS and still disliked it. That's fine. I simply disagree with quick and irrational judgments of this film based on misinterpretations. I do not think that SOLARIS is anything completely new or revolutionary, but it felt very fresh. My enjoyment level was just about as high as it could have been throughout. I did wish it had been longer (that's right!) since it went by so fast. Maybe then Soderbergh could have gone even further with his themes. However, the threatened masses already don't know what to make of it and dismiss it as unclear or self-indulgent, so maybe it's for the best this way. SOLARIS gets a 9 out of 10.

The Pianist (2002)

Oscar Contender?

[8/10 · 9 December 2002]

I have been lucky enough to catch this film while I was in Poland a couple of months ago. There was some major hype to it then, but that is understandable since Polanski is one of the most famous Polish directors along with Kieslowski and Wajda. I have watched several Polanski films over the last few months and I really appreciate what he has done over the years. The thing that I most like about him as a filmmaker is that he combines simple and intelligent storytelling with artistic craft that is easy to see. He always claims that he likes to make films that he would like to watch himself as a fan. Most of his films tell engaging stories that are accessible to anyone. At the same time, his techniques are very direct and provide additional enjoyment to those who have a deeper knowledge of film and its devices. I think his films would be good to study in an introductory film class. Enough about Polanski

THE PIANIST is a true story of a Polish Jew named Wladyslaw Szpilman and his survival during WWII. His name is rather appropriate since he is also a piano player. As the film opens, Nazi Germany has invaded Poland and quickly the Jews are separated from the rest of the Poles. At first Szpilman and his family live in the ghettos, but soon the Nazis begin transporting everyone out into concentration camps. During a hectic sequence where Jews are being led to the train wagons, Szpilman gets separated from the rest of his family. He returns to an empty ghetto where he is one of the few Jews who have not yet been transported. The rest of the film deals with his struggle for survival and his fear of being found by Nazis as he seeks new places to hide.

In the first half of the film I was not really getting into it. I wasn't sure where the story was going. It took some time before Szpilman found himself alone and that's when the movie started to become really good. The film is a little detached, which gives it a perfect sense of realism. There is no melodrama here that might be found in other films. Adrien Brody, who seemed rather unimpressive to me in the first half, really starts to embody the role as the film progresses.

I started seeing that this film was not about WWII or about the Holocaust. Those are the settings, but that is not what it is about. This was a realistic portrayal of a man who lived in hiding through those depressing times. It is from his point of view and you only get to see what he sees through windows, key holes, or door cracks and you only hear what he happens to hear from people he meets. He has no other way of learning anything about the war or when it will finally come to an end. The film becomes about one man, not Pole or Jew, but just one man and his uncertainties. It could have been anyone. What I liked most is that THE PIANIST illustrates the helplessness of witnessing horrible acts that happen right in front of you as you try to hide. You are afraid to come out and you are afraid to keep hiding. In many ways Mr. Szpilman is lucky because he does not live through the suffering that millions of other people lived through, but his experiences were not necessarily any easier. His loneliness is clearly conveyed in many beautiful and symbolic images. One high angle shot I remember well shows his silhouette as he walks in the middle of an empty street surrounded by destroyed buildings.

THE PIANIST has a great story to tell and Polanski's direction tells it well. Since it is about a piano player, there is lots of beautiful music throughout. The main theme is very memorable. This is a subtle, patient, and thoughtful film that does not create excessive melodrama, but rather focuses on realism. The toned down, bittersweet ending is especially strong. I have a feeling that THE PIANIST will come and go from the movie theaters in the US rather quietly and as a result will not be a major contender at the Oscars (This also depends on many other movies that are still to be released soon). I don't think that this is an exceptional film, but I hope that audiences will not overlook it. As I watched it, my enjoyment was at about an 8, but as the film progressed I became more absorbed by it and my appreciation level was at about a 9 by the time it was over. I guess my overall rating would be somewhere between an 8 and a 9, but I would like to watch it again. Another strong Polanski film.

Donnie Darko (2001)

ONLY THEMATIC COMMENTS WITH SPOILERS, PART 1

[8/10 · 9 December 2002]

PART 1: **SPOILERS EVERYWHERE**

I have decided to write a thematic explanation to DONNIE DARKO since I was not satisfied with the majority of the user comments I have seen. Because I have only seen the movie once, this is not a definitive discussion of every single element of the film. And since after I began to write it became difficult to stop, I have written a little too much. For those who give a s**t about my ramblings, this lengthy comment comes in two parts that should be on the same page.

I am always pretty disappointed to read comments of angry viewers screaming about how a movie makes no sense and therefore it is bad, or it is weird for weird's sake, or that people who like it don't understand it either. You couldn't be more wrong. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean that other people (whose intellects must be far inferior to yours) don't understand it either. Of course, I'm not saying that everyone who thinks that DONNIE DARKO is a bad movie is wrong. I'm saying that anyone who says that it is a bad movie without understanding it is wrong. On the other hand, there are people that believe it to be the greatest film ever made, comparing it to other works of genius such as MEMENTO or FIGHT CLUB. Those are certainly good films, but if you think that those are the best ever made then you still have a lot more movies left to watch. Plenty of great films were made before 1999, believe it or not. Many also hail DONNIE DARKO as genius without really understanding it. How do you know that you are not watching a Nazi propaganda film that just happens to have a `cool' style? In their defense, they are at least open-minded enough to respond to it even if they don't fully understand it. They are accepting it as something artistic rather than dismissing it immediately without thinking about it.

Now I'll get into DONNIE DARKO. I have seen the movie only once, but I have thought out the themes well enough to write about them, I think. First of all, I will not try to explain the logistics of every single plot point since the film has some surreal moments that are meant to symbolize states of mind rather than physical actions. For example, I do not care how exactly Donnie Darko travels through time. It might only be inside his mind, or he might actually be moving physically. It may have been that he went back in time at the end of the film to make things right, or that he went into the future at the beginning to see what might happen if he survives. It is not important. Movies like this are not puzzles where every piece must fit. I think this film is pretty easy to understand as long as you try to find themes and understand the characters.

Donnie is clearly a thoughtful outsider in his school. He is not a genius, or nerd, or an average person, or the most popular kid. He is an outsider that thinks about his place in the world. He is visited by a creepy looking bunny that saves his life. As a result, Donnie feels that he owes the rabbit something. He carries out destructive deeds, which the rabbit asks for, without even thinking about the consequences. It is not a `cool' thing when Donnie floods the school or burns down Patrick Swayze's house. Even if Swayze's character had child porn in his house that does not necessarily make him an evil person. He is a confused character that tries to guide people along some religion that he himself does not follow. As the movie progresses, Donnie continues to do harmful things including killing a person. When loved ones around him start dying, he begins to understand that his survival eventually lead to more harm than good. He travels back in time (physically, mentally, in his dream, whatever) because he knows that he should die as intended.

End of Part 1, look for Part 2, if you care!

Donnie Darko (2001)

ONLY THEMATIC COMMENTS WITH SPOILERS, PART 2

[8/10 · 9 December 2002]

PART 2: **SPOILERS EVERYWHERE**

That is the very general outline and now I'll get into it a bit more. The essence of what the film is about is summarized in the quote, `every body dies alone,' which is repeated throughout. What that means is that your death is only your own. No one can help you deal with it or help you understand it. DONNIE DARKO is about Donnie understanding and coming to terms with his own death. By the end of the film he sees the relevance of his death. As a result he ends up saving a lot of people's lives. The final shots of the film are brief cuts between faces of people that his death will affect. It is as if to say that all these people have no idea what a sacrifice he is making for them. One of the people whose face you see is Patrick Swayze's character. He happens to be crying, which again indicates that he is a sad and confused man rather than an evil person. Now the rabbit that visits Donnie has little to do with the character that Donnie kills later except to bridge the present with the eventual future (the same way the engine device does). The rabbit can be compared to the devil. He saves Donnie's life and as a result, Donnie listens to him unconditionally, before realizing that he has been fooled. I'm not sure about the old lady, but I think that she is a character that missed her chance to do what Donnie does at the end. Since she knows about the `time travel' she may have had a chance to use it, but chose not too. She has grown mad ever since. I cannot say anything about her definitely since I just did not pay enough attention to her story in my one viewing.

So now the film takes on a few meanings. Donnie Darko is like a superhero (hence the name) because, using his powers (time travel), he saves the lives of many by sacrificing himself. Like any hero, he is an outsider with deep thoughts and doubts about his destiny. His character dying for the people in his community can also be compared to Jesus Christ dying on the cross for everyone (Only symbolically, I'm not saying that Donnie is Jesus' equal). Donnie dies so that people's lives can be preserved. He even dies for the flawed ones such as Patrick Swayze's character (who now can be seen as a sort of false prophet) just like Jesus died for sinners. The reason that I am comparing Donnie to Jesus is because there is a very specific and very obvious reference to Scorsese's THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST in the movie. Donnie walks out of a theater where THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST is playing right after the movie he is watching. The shot moves up from Donnie's face to the title up on the board. It's a pretty obvious juxtaposition. THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST has a similar plot structure. Jesus imagines himself getting off the cross and continuing a normal life. He eventually realizes that he has been fooled into doing this by the devil and returns to die on his cross as intended. It is a mental struggle inside Jesus' mind. This is why the rabbit that visits Donnie can be seen as the devil. He leads Donnie on the wrong path. Both films have key sequences at the end that evoke similar meanings. Jesus climbs back onto his cross and Donnie climbs back into his bed. Both have come to understand the importance of their death and are no longer scared to die. But don't get me wrong. You do not need to have seen THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST in order to understand DONNIE DARKO. The reference is probably only the director's way of quoting his influence. Others have pointed out some references to Faust, which could lead a discussion in a similar direction.

Having said all that, I did like the movie. I do not think it is genius as it is nothing revolutionary and does have some holes. My main complaint is that while the atmosphere is out of a David Lynch film, the dialogue (like about the Smurfs) often seems to be Tarantino-like, and the actual themes that the film raises are seriously dramatic rather than scary as the atmosphere implies. It's a little bit messy. The ending does not come out of nowhere as it fits in fine with what has been built up, but the atmosphere created throughout most of the movie conceals what is significant. If you want to see a film that deals with the issues of fate, identity, and sacrifice more head-on, see THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. In my tedious explanation of the themes in DONNIE DARKO, I regret that I did not even get into what the movie's good qualities are, such as Richard Kelly's direction (for the most part; some complaints above). More important than all my answers and opinions are the questions that the movie raises. For example: Did Donnie actually decide that he should die, or was that predetermined fate anyway? I think I know what the movie says, but I don't know if I will watch it again any time soon to review my thoughts. Any movie that inspires some debate and discussion can't be bad. It made me write way more than I should have. I give it an 8 out of 10.

Wall Street (1987)

Tough and Ruthless or Rough and Toothless?

[8/10 · 20 April 2001]

Half the time, I have absolutely no idea what the characters in "Wall Street" are talking about. The good thing is that I don't have to in order to understand this movie. I hope not. Bonds, stocks, withdrawals, savings accounts, points, credit cards, whatever… it all boils down to common human emotions people can relate to.

Charlie Sheen plays Bud Fox, a young, eager stockbroker looking for a lucky break in his unsatisfying career. It is clear that the man has plenty of motivation as he constantly calls up one of the stock market gods, Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas), hoping to get his foot in the door. He finally succeeds and gets a meeting with Gekko on his birthday when he shows up with a box of Cuban cigars for a gift. He tries real hard to impress Gekko in their brief meeting, but is mostly unsuccessful. That is until he uses some inside information on an airline he got from his dad (Martin Sheen- real life dad too. Isn't that ironic) who happens to work there. His tip for Gekko is a good one, but it is also an illegal one. It impresses Gekko who decides to get Fox involved and really teach him about the stuff on the inside.

I don't know what it is with their names, but they're a little bit too suggestive. Bud is as smart as a Fox and he finds ways to outwit people. Sheen is not as good here as in Platoon where his "average guy" presence was more effective. He needs to show more emotion and surprise here. He does redeem himself with better scenes near the end of the movie. Douglas almost looks like a lizard with his slick hair and slim face. Of course, he acts like one too. And the Oscar speaks of his performance. I guess those names are pretty cool. Terence Stamp has one of the coolest names in real life and he plays Gekko's rival in "Wall Street." I really like this guy. He has this fearlessly cold look on his face, whoever he's playing. I would never mess with him. Then there's Daryl Hannah who plays a personal decorator and Fox's girlfriend. I don't know why this character is in this movie. She has a very pointless and meaningless role and Hannah plays it in an extremely artificial and awkward way. I guess she reflects Gekko and his greed in a more subtle way that eventually sneaks up on Fox.

Of course Oliver Stone does a great job directing this film. When the stock market first opens in the movie and Fox picks up the phone, the tone immediately changes. Everyone goes into panic mode including the cameras. I never understood how this works. How can these people handle three hundred phone calls, voices, and their computer screens or notes all at the same time? I can almost understand the office brokers' jobs, but what is going on down on the trading floor? What are they doing? Betting? Millions of people are bidding on something and this one guy writes it down on a tiny little piece of paper. Does he know what he's doing? Does he write down the name of the guy who bought the shares? I don't know and the movie certainly doesn't explain. That's not what it's about.

Simply put, "Wall Street" is about greed and the destruction of everything that's weaker in order to gain wealth or power. Douglas embodies that in his performance as Gekko. Fox learns about it through the experience. "Wall Street" is actually similar to "American Psycho," another movie about the excess of the eighties. Obviously, "American Psycho" chooses to show that the businessmen of those days were literally getting away with murder. "Wall Street" is a very good film, although sometimes it is too confusing with its lingo. I guess that makes it good on two levels. The plot is universal enough for everyone to enjoy, but it also has a level that Donald Trump can enjoy (I don't think he really does this stuff though). I haven't seen "Boiler Room," but I would be willing to bet that "Wall Street" is probably a better movie. It should be seen at least for the performance Michael Douglas puts in. I give it an 8 out of 10. By the way, Gordon, Gekko, God, Greed, and Grand all start with "G's." Coincidence?