Change Your Image
yndprod-2
Reviews
Encounter Party (2023)
Great Hang-Out TV - Not Just For Gamers
Gotta be honest - I'm a little surprised I'm hooked! I checked this out because a D&D friend wanted to know what I'd think of it as a NON-gamer. He said watch 2 eps and see what I thought. Well, now I'm 10 eps into it and ready for more, so... I guess I like it! For real, this is just terrific hangout TV - die-hard fantasy folks might be on the edge of their seats but for me, i just like chilling and hanging out with these people! Don't get me wrong - it's dramatic and exciting and I'm legit invested - but the best part for me is the community of the cast. Everybody at the table has their own thing they're bringing - and nobody's "the annoying one" that you wish wasn't there. The story is super cool - as a newbie to the game, I thought the first 3 episodes were the whole game - I was a little bummed when it appeared to be wrapping up... only to discover it hadn't even started yet lol. The DM is a terrific guide and the story is consistently surprising and satisfying. Love the visualizations of the gameplay and appreciate that the show takes JUST enough time explaining what's up to make sure the uninitiated don't get left behind. (I recommend starting with the little pre-premiere special they made that does some good introductory groundwork - Plex started me there and I was glad it did.) Yeah, it's been a blast! Looking forward to the rest of this season and would love to see future seasons - especially if each season could introduce a new player or two to keep mixing it up (as long as they're all as good company as the current cast). Great stuff.
Babel (2006)
A Serious, Thought-Provoking, Uncompromised Film... from Hollywood?
BABEL is better than I'd expected it could be. I've heard the beginnings of the backlash ("it's another CRASH") coming on the heels of the Cannes Film Festival triumph... and I kind of bought it. I respected AMORES PERROS and 21 GRAMS but neither really connected with me... So I was totally unprepared to be as impressed by this film as I was.
I wasn't a fan of CRASH -- I thought it was an overly-simplified take on a complex issue and that the characters were drawn in cartoony, larger-than-life strokes. BABEL, for me, is the complete opposite: as dense and complicated as the current state of world relations (between countries, between strangers, between family members and friends), filled with complex characters who are never reduced to stereotype. The performances are uniformly excellent, from the non-actors to the unknowns (here in America, anyway) to Brad Pitt, Gael Garcia Bernal and Cate Blanchett (all of whom give completely unflashy, ensemble performances). And the technical film-making is astounding -- not just the direction, but on every front (the editing and the amazing score deserve particular attention).
The most remarkable thing for me is the way director Inarritu and screenwriter Arriaga capture the different rhythms of life in Morocco, America, Tokyo and Mexico. Rather than using some kind of clear-cut stylistic device (like the color-coding in TRAFFIC), they establish the distinct flow and feel of each country early on and maintain it throughout the film. It's that kind of depth that makes BABEL such a unique mainstream film.
My best advice is to go into this film with as few preconceptions as possible and enjoy an experience that's become increasingly rare since the heyday of the 1970s: an intelligent Hollywood film with something important on its mind.
Funny Ha Ha (2002)
What Independent Film Should Be
Well, there's no accounting for taste. I see a lot of negative reviews for FUNNY HA HA on here, so I felt the need to weigh in with my rave. For me, this is what independent film should be. It's cheaply made, very personal, featuring remarkably unaffected and incredibly likable performances from non-actors. For me, it's not about anything but trying to capture what it's like to be a real person in a specific place and time. Cassavetes gets mentioned a lot in reference to Bujalski and it's certainly an apt comparison in philosophy if nothing else. Small, modest films that strive only to convey something honest. For me, you can keep the empty, smug, disposable movies that comprise most of the no-budget indie landscape. I'll take FUNNY HA HA (or Bujalski's 2nd film, MUTUAL APPRECIATION) any day.
The Aviator (2004)
A Great, Complex, Challenging Film
This is beautiful, old-school Hollywood film-making infused with life and energy. I think it's hysterical that people are complaining that the film "has no soul" -- that was the same criticism leveled at Scorsese's "Raging Bull" back in '80 (later named the Best Film of the Decade by several critics orgs).
"The Aviator" isn't a touchy-feely biopic. You want that, go see "Ray" or "Finding Neverland". Scorsese's films don't work that way. They don't spoon-feed easy sentiment and they don't reduce people to anecdotes. They're complex, challenging and infinitely more rewarding that either of the other two biopics nominated for Best Picture this year.
Not at the top of my "Best Of" list this year, but certainly my favorite of the Best Picture nominees.
Dancer in the Dark (2000)
Just simply NOT the masterpiece everyone else on this site is saying it is
Okay, I'll do my best to avoid specific spoilers, but some indication of where this film ends up is probably going to come through. Odds are, though, you can probably tell that much from the ads.
First off, let me say that I'm an enormous Lars von Trier fan. I've watched his "Element of Crime" twice, watched all nine hours of his "Kingdom" series on the big screen last year (and loved every minute of it), made sure to catch "Idioterne" on video when I was in London early this year (as it hadn't been released in the U.S. yet), and would say that his masterpiece "Breaking the Waves" is the finest film of the past two decades. Seriously. So of course I jumped at the chance to see an advance screening of his new film. However, "Dancer in the Dark" was a disappointment.
The plain fact is that it's a rehash of "Breaking the Waves" all the way down the line. The only real difference is that "DitD" has none of the weight or ambiguity that "BtW" possesses. "Breaking the Waves" says, basically, that God and Love are worth dying for. "Dancer in the Dark" says that Eyesight and Musicals are worth dying for. Which of the two sounds like the stronger case? To approach more minor issues with nearly the EXACT SAME TECHNIQUES with which he approached major ones makes this feel like a BIG step back for von Trier. And how can we not make comparisons? Both films are about a quiet, childlike, self-sacrificing woman who gives her all for a loved one and comes to a difficult end due to the circumstances of a cruel world. Both films are shot in the same very distinctive widescreen, hand-held style by the brilliant Robby Muller("BtW" on film, "DitD" on digital video).
However, where "Breaking the Waves" has a very specific sense of place, "Dancer in the Dark" takes place in a totally anachronistic United States which no one from this country will recognize. Where "Breaking the Waves" has character and story ambiguity (is Bess mentally ill or just blessed? is the ending tragic or triumphant?), "Dancer in the Dark" is all black and white. Bjork's Selma is a saint -- she's never mean or selfish or confused -- and her world is simply a very cruel place with no grace save for what she can create in her imagination. Bjork's performance is quite good, and I can't help but think that it could rank with Emily Watson's Bess from "BtW", if only von Trier had given her a character that complete to play.
"Dancer in the Dark"s only real innovations are its Musical Numbers, which usually just seem gimmicky. Some of them are endearing, some of them are moving, some of them are agonizingly awkward. They don't hurt the film any, but neither do they help to raise it up.
In conclusion, I would say that despite my disappointment, I would still say that this is a film that should be seen. Film only reaches the level of art if it provokes people, if it elicits a response from its audience. This is something von Trier does very well, even in his weaker moments. This is certainly a film that will be the subject of contemplation and conversation long after you leave the theatre (which isn't something I can really say about many other films made these days). My recommendation, though -- to anyone who wants to see "Dancer in the Dark", or anyone who has already seen it and liked it (like the other people on this page) -- is that after you've seen this film, and you've had time to digest it, rent "Breaking the Waves" and see the heights to which Lars von Trier can really climb.