imbatman-2 Reviews

Casper (1995)

often beautiful, often creepy, mostly wonderful, but . . .

[1 November 2000]

I don't view films as if I'm watching them as the intended audience; I watch them for myself. And that's why I found it odd at how engrossed I was when I watched this film for the first time at the age of eighteen. Aside from the great gothic flair of the mansion, two superbly placed cameos, and nice laughable black humour from the "trio," the film took off because of its emotional core. It's something that a youngster can really get into, but also anyone who finds it sad that a child can die. When Casper plays with his toys, I just wanted to start crying. This eternal child--lost and stuck in an age of mystery and wonder. And yet, he's smitten with a girl--he's starting to go through puberty. And it's just so sad . . . and beautiful.

And then there's the father, and his sway into the afterlife, his daughter's plight, her struggle with her wish to help Casper. It's all so simple and written for kids, but I was so engrossed by the romanticism of it all.

The villains mostly butt into the greatness of all of it, but you just have to grant that in a kid's picture. And now comes my but . . . in the end, when the mother does appear, she's supposed to be this amazing, angelic, deux es machinal, she floats through the stain glass window, her long hair flows around her, her gown flows all around her but--what the hell! why is her dress such a deep red!? she looks like satan! Oh well. Bad costume choice made a really bad moment. But mostly, I loved this film for it's good parts, despite the childishness of much of it.

Return to Oz (1985)

take it from one who experienced this movie at the right age

[22 October 2000]

Return To Oz was the first horror film i ever saw, and i love it today just as much as i did when i was 5. yes, i do believe Return To Oz is a horror, but one that children should see. it is horror just as the brothers Grim are horror. it is horror because everything in the eyes of a child can be very frightening. and yes, i do believe this horror is better than The Wizard of Oz, despite what all my contempories might believe. as a kid, i could not get over the fact the Judy Garland was too old, that they would not stop singing and dancing. come on, this was my childhood, i needed a good rush, not a bunch of eye-candy and disturbing munchkin voices. little dorothy walking down a corridor of decapitated head in ornate display cases, afraid that she might wake them, that the decapitated body would come in search of her in her terrifying gothic splendor-this moment has stayed with me, has always frightened me, but i'm glad that i experienced it, it is healthy for a child to be afraid, humility is something everyone needs to embrace, and this film with its lush terror and build up to a phenomenal climax as apocolyptic as anything today still inspires me toward something the silly set pieces and hammy emotion of Wizard of Oz, cannot do. Return to Oz is a lost masterpiece, terrifying, energetic, creative, and wonderful.

The Patriot (2000)

what else do you expect from the man to give you Godzilla

[30 August 2000]

To quote Roger Ebert, "I hated, hated, hated this movie." I worked in a movie house which showed this film to millions of patriotic Americans, all leaving the theatre with a tear in their eyes. I sat down to watch this film with my father. My father liked it. I expected that. But why do people actually believe life is like this? Is it good action? Sure. I can understand people enjoying the film on that level, but if this film moved you in any way then I say you have a lot of books to read.

The boy asks for war recruits in church (quite blasphemous, isn't it, the fact that he totally interupts the minister, oh but the minister is supposed to be more patriotic than he is Christian, more blasphemy!) and then that stupid girl stands up out of nowhere and whines, "I only wish that you stand by the ideas of which you so fervently believe." And then the congregration lowers their heads in shame. Oh, my, one man stands proud and courageous. The music swells (poor John Williams, why did you score this trash?) and then everyone's standing. God bless America! If this scene didn't make you laugh out loud then I suggest you go back to school and learn about real drama and inspiration.

This is not a stunning war-epic, this isn't Braveheart in America, this isn't even Lethal Weapon with a musket. This is formula propaganda at its best (worst) meant only to make people buy more fireworks during the 4th of July. If you thought this was a good film for any reason other than fine battle scenes then I know for a fact that the American spirit is truly dead.

Dinosaur (2000)

to all parents considering this film . . .

[30 August 2000]

This is not a movie for anyone, especially kids. Sure, the first few minutes, including a spectacular flight on the back of a pteradon, had me dazzled. I was glued. And then I was not. This is not just a bad movie.

Fault 1. This is a boring movie. Kids don't like to be bored, but they will with this one. Yes, the first few minutes are set in a beautiful tropical landscape overflowing with amazing creatures. Then the rest of the thing is set in a boring and utterly depressing desert. If the execs at Disney wanted to flaunt CGI, couldn't they have found a more interesting backdrop. A kid's movie should be anything but boring, right?

Fault 2. This is a violent movie. I like violence in films. It's often stimulating and always gets a reaction, but in a kids film, to see a cute little triceratops get pounced on by a giant monster and then watch as the innocent thing is torn to shreds is appalling in a film aimed at youngsters. And this incident is very soon in the film. Then you see the aftermath of this one poor dinosaur all ripped apart, blood all over, barely alive from his ordeal.

Fault 3. This is a film with bad ethics/morals (apologies to "Election"). As has been stated numerous times, all those who eat meat are considered pure evil. Vegetarians, that's mother nature's elect, I guess. What happened to Mufasah explaining the circle of life? And kids will no doubt be asking their parents to explain the mating ritual of the lemurs, which was supposed to be cute and mirror real life, but it explained nothing, just confused kids more about sex. And then there's much hypocrisy concerning the moral of the story, about standing together and yet beeing a rebel when the occasion called for it.

Fault 4. This is a stolen film. Not only was I constantly reminded of The Land Before Time, but I realized that I was just watching The Land Before Time, but gone were good characters and dazzling poetic backdrops. All the plot points are identical, it's just that here, we don't care, largely due to the fact that Dinosaur is supposed to be realistic, which it is not (they talk), but the previous had characters which were kids. The audience could relate.

Parents, please do not buy this film for your kids. Go buy Chicken Run, came out around the same time, was inspiring, intellectual, absolutely exciting, and I laughed throughout. Land Before Time was also great if kids want dinosaurs.

Hamlet (1996)

no more film Halmet's, oh wait, they already made another

[30 August 2000]

Yes, Hamlet is probably the finest piece of fictional literature ever. It is cerebral and daring and exciting and beautiful, but like so many pieces of literature, films should not be made of it. Frakenstein is very similiar but yet Kenneth (I use his first name for I am not comfortable with addressing him properly after watching this film) also made a film of that. In Frankenstein he was too interested in making it all look neat. But Frankenstein was about the language, the concept, the plot, not the imagery.

Hamlet cannot be made into any more movies because it is so personal. People feel connected to it like the memory of a departed loved one. Everyone has their own image of Hamlet and I feel very sorry for the poor fool who thinks of Hamlet and pictures Kenneth swinging on a chandelier and throwing rapiers like they were spears. For me, Hamlet would be like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, expressionistic, symbolising inner struggle and possible madness, the prison of Denmark Hamlet can't get away from, but that's my vision and not anyone elses. Kenneth had a vision, but it wasn't anybody else's. His performance is at times too fast or too slow. I never understood his Hamlet, I couldn't sympathize with him. Without that, it's not Hamlet. No, it's just some guy reciting Shakespeare while pretending to be a non-Dumas swashbuckler.

Kudos to his Henry V, it's incredible, but this is candy.

Ready to Wear (1994)

a lesson in expectation

[30 August 2000]

There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who like Kim Basinger, and those who don't. I don't. Yet, I couldn't understand why she was the only character I had any interest in. At the end of a long 2 hours I was waiting for some piece of Altman magic, the Mash football game, the shooting in Nasville, the perfect movie finale of The Player, and then Ready to Wear struts its stuff. It most certainly does. But why. Was the fact that all these women were walking around naked supposed to add commentary on everything we had seen in the movie. I was as disgusted as Kim Basinger's character was. She, like I, had had it. We had suffered through too much; too much posturing, too much goofiness, too much dog excrement to come to that end!? Kim Basinger's character was the only one in the whole lot that I could sympathize with. But wait, Kim Basinger's character is the fool, the one we're supposed to make fun of through the whole thing. Even at the end, when she says what I was thinking she's comical about it all. I don't think Altman wanted me to admire the character's decision as much as I was. Was that the point? If it was, why did it take so long, why did we have to watch all these boring people go absolutely no where in their pathetic and dull vignettes? So Julia Robert's plays an alcoholic, is this funny? So

the editor is photographed on her knees, is this funny? So Danny Ailleo looks like Streisand in drag, is this funny? The more important question: is this supposed to be interesting, or intellectual in any way? I cannot see it.

Altman films are supposed to confuse us, to make us think, and to have us experience, briefly, bizarre people. But at the end, he usually clarifies everything. In one moment, Altman can make you sit back and go "ah ha," feeling like a sober man once again. Ready to Wear starts you out as a drunk, and at the end, you feel even more drunk. Do not see this film. Please, let it disappear in film history, leaving us only with the best of the best.

The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1989)

mother of mercy, I have seen heaven and I have seen hell

[30 August 2000]

Am I one of the only people in the world to say this is one of the greatest and most important of all films? I believe I am. Shocked? Yes. Horrified? Yes. Confused? Yes. But challenged and stimulated and moved? Oh, most certainly.

Even without the sets, without the costumes, without the cinematography (which are all superb), we are still left with a dynamic and blessed film. Sure the ending is "Titus Andronicus," but for Greenaway to borrow from Shakespeare is to do exactly what Shakespeare did. But the moments here are visually profound, as opposed to linguistically. The single greatest moment is the transition between the ride in the butcher truck, filled with guts and heads and many other unmentionables, to the shower outside the book depository. We go from odious blood reds to heavenly golds, irritating sopranos to peaceful woodwinds, darkness to rain. And the whole while, two great thespians stand naked. They are Adam and Eve, and they have re-entered paradise via the wisdoms of the books. I cannot think of a film filled with as much compelling suggestion and intellectual storytelling as this insulted and abashed prostitute. "He who is without sin . .."

Pleasantville (1998)

give it a little time

[29 August 2000]

At one point in the film, a housewife will slip into her bath and pleasure herself, and her whole world is changed for the better. Like a lot of viewers, this scene made me want to stop the movie. But if you were not like me, and did stop watching the film here, I plead with you to continue. Just give it a little more time and you will be surprised. This is a brilliant film, existential (like so many films recently: The Matrix, The Truman Show, Dark City), and . . . well, pleasant. Some of the best use of cinematography, and most certainly colour, that has ever been conceived of will be found here. But that's all technical. The film is at heart a morality play. "You can't stop something that's inside you." As frightening as this quotation is to ponder, it is true. Everyone will see the "Paradise Lost" allusions, but the movie isn't saying paradise was bad. Just this paradise, that of idealism, of sitcom situations (redundant, I know, but for a purpose), that's hell. Life is about exploration, metaphorically as well as physically. Sure, some exploration will scar you, but you will be the better for it in the end. That is the film. Please, give the film a chance. It's absolutely pleasant, but this time, it's honest as well.

Joe Versus the Volcano (1990)

what a film is

[29 August 2000]

Here is a test for you: watch "Joe Versus the Volcano." About thirty seconds into the film you will come across a film image. What you will see is a man who has given up on life, asking the sky "why" with only his body language, while everyone around him does not care, but rather continues on the path he's walking. The path is not just a road, as the camera shows us; it is a unique and troubling crooked road. If you have come to this part in the film and you are not thoroughly engrossed in this man's life, then you should immediately postpone watching the film for another couple of years until you are ready to witness an experience that may change your life.

This film is indeed not for everyone. The humour is sophomoric, the plot simple, but for those who love and understand film, who stay up late at night and try to wonder just what is out there in the stars, for those who do not even try to describe the wonder of the moon. This is film poetry. You might not be ready for the experience, but if you are in the right mind, at the right time, the adventures of this average Joe will touch you.

Rewind it, listen to the music again, try to understand the re-occurring image of the duck, but don't just skip through this film. It is a lost gem. And it's rarity makes it that much more precious. I'm glad that it's lost. We can appreciate it more. I hope this helps people make a decision.

Edward Scissorhands (1990)

not your average two hours

[29 August 2000]

I will always wonder what was on the other side of the mountain. I think all of the characters in "Edward Scissorhands" must have contemplated it too at some time in their lives. Of course, none of them can see it, it's obscured by the menacing mountain and its gothic mansion, but the eternal resident of the mansion must know what's on the other side, even though he will never visit.

This is the world of Edward. I could go on about the film's theme, try to convince people that the film is blessed simply because it says, "different is good." The film is more. Perhaps it's flawed, but it's a fable, and that makes it okay. Like all Burton films, this is a film of image, what a film should be. Those who have seen it will never forget what it looks like to dance in the snow around an ice angel, or how painful it must be to impail the only thing that would make your life complete. Unlike other Burton films, this one really takes itself seriously. It has often been billed as a comedy, and if you are looking for one, go someplace else, because this is most definitely a tragedy. True tragedy in films is hard to find. Just because a character dies and it is sad does not create a tragedy. Every frame of this film is painful to watch, even the last few beautiful images.

I'm not sure if my ramblings have influenced anyone, but this is a film of faith. It is an experience. It might not change your life or teach you anything or make you understand something you have put away, this is a film to sympathize with. This is a film that makes you feel human, a quality that will seperate the species.

The NeverEnding Story (1984)

one word: transcendentalism

[29 August 2000]

My favorite film when I was a child was long ignored in my adolescence, and now as I become an adult, I have found a piece of life-essence itself. "The Neverending Story" makes me cry. It is not about reading books. It is about creativity, oh, but so much more. As a boy I wanted to visit Fantasia and ride the luckdraggon and even meet the Empress (who is still one of the most beautifully filmed characters ever) but I knew it was all a movie and continued with my life. The biggest mistake ever.

The Neverending Story was real. It kept telling me that I was part of it to, but I never understood that as a child. It is not about books, but about going beyond books, transcending them, moving away from words and pages into making things real for yourself. Perhaps that's why I dislike the book so greatly. It was too specific. Bastian was made a character too detailed for his own good. Bastian, in the movie, and appropriately so, is not only every child, but every person. Anyone can relate to him and his wishes, whereas the book was too character driven and not fascinated enough by its own premise. And those who scoff at the film's effects, then spend the rest of your life in a laboratory and concern yourself with the physical world and never understand what The Neverending Story was about. If you do, someday you will regret it, lying sick in your bed, with no dragon to fly you to your dreams.