All I remember about this, from seeing it years ago, is how boring it is. I'm by no means an expert at poker and I figured out the end of the movie about 30 minutes in, the rest just drug it out. I didn't care about the characters either. The reason I say you almost have to admire this movie is that here you have Ed Norton, one of the best actors of his time, Matt Damon, no slouch either, and Gretchen Mol, who gets poor roles a lot of times but is pretty good in spite of that, and John Malkovich who is routinely great...and it's boring. Malkovich is terribly in this, by the way, Mol is kind of annoying so I could use even LESS of her in this movie. It just wasn't that dramatic. It had less tension than a cliff-hanger episode of Full House.
Reviews
18 Reviews
Religulous
(2008)
Short on humor and almost devoid of facts
30 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I rented this shortly after renting Ben Stein's "Expelled" and thought it would interesting to compare them. Before I go further, it seems only fair that I point out the following so a reader can see if I'm prejudiced or not. I'm trying to be objective, for the record.
I tend to enjoy Maher's HBO show now and then, though I rarely think he's the source of the humor. I don't really care for his stand-up either. But he makes some good points on the show now and again, and I liked Politically Incorrect, though he was still fairly politically correct (which I deem a negative because the very term sounds Orwellian or at least fascist). As for my religious views, I'll say for simplicity's sake that I'm a non-denom. Christian with some views that are objectivist and some that are agnostic mixed in.
That being said, this a bad "documentary" for reasons that haven't been touched on yet by many reviewers--though the ones mentioned are valid too. The reason it's not convincing isn't just that he argues the main point without letting others talk (and his point boils down to nothing logical either, it's just "come on, really?" which isn't a point, just a question. Try David Hume if you want a decent argument.). The reason this isn't convincing lies in his lack of experts on the subject matter. I saw this about 2 months ago and I only recall him talking to one person whose credentials as a professional were mentioned if he wasn't a clergyman. There are probably hundreds of scientists or at least professors with Masters or Doctorates willing to do a bit of verbal sparring, particularly in the fields of History, Anthropology or a host of others.
If one compares this to Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" he'll find that Stein interviews about 30 credentialed professors, professionals, clergy, etc. He does this with a variety of sources with various backgrounds. He also makes a point in his film regarding freedom of thought and education. Maher could easily have pointed out wrongs committed by theocratic rules throughout centuries or persecutions from this. Instead he idiotically refers to the 20th century's secular totalitarian regimes as evidence of why secularism needs more socio-political power!!!! (it's in the bonus features where he's standing in front of the Anne Frank house I think.) This is a true Orwellian head-trip. He blames Christianity in particular on many pointless deaths--which has had its share, though far smaller than most!!--without even including a basic view of the evidence. Perhaps this is because that argument is dwarfed by secular humanism's miserable record of the 20th Century ALONE.
Another glaring weakness is his unwillingness to talk to anyone that would be considered a moderate or "average" practitioner. He picks out the weakest gazelles of the herd. How difficult is that? How does proving the existence of exceptions move toward disproving the general rule? It does not. Wow, so people in cults think outside of the norm? How enlightening to know this. Great work Maher! Again, it would be fairly easy to interview someone like Laurence Vance and include his work on refuting the idea of "patriotic duty" that demands a person fight in any war his country is involved in.
Beyond all that, he's just not that funny here. Some of the clips that are overlaid in "clever" out of context/irreverent ways might garner a laugh, but mostly work to illustrate how a real contextual argument from Maher will NOT be forthcoming, much less convincing. He spends most of his time bashing Christians, spouting inaccuracies, and interviewing fringe groups that he doesn't allow to really answer his questions.
For the record, there are good questions to honestly ask of religious folks and many they should ask of themselves. He touches on almost none of these. I get the feeling that I could've responded much better to most of his questioning than the people he interviewed, but the whole thing reeks of deck-stacking in terms of what is included and what was edited out.
I tend to enjoy Maher's HBO show now and then, though I rarely think he's the source of the humor. I don't really care for his stand-up either. But he makes some good points on the show now and again, and I liked Politically Incorrect, though he was still fairly politically correct (which I deem a negative because the very term sounds Orwellian or at least fascist). As for my religious views, I'll say for simplicity's sake that I'm a non-denom. Christian with some views that are objectivist and some that are agnostic mixed in.
That being said, this a bad "documentary" for reasons that haven't been touched on yet by many reviewers--though the ones mentioned are valid too. The reason it's not convincing isn't just that he argues the main point without letting others talk (and his point boils down to nothing logical either, it's just "come on, really?" which isn't a point, just a question. Try David Hume if you want a decent argument.). The reason this isn't convincing lies in his lack of experts on the subject matter. I saw this about 2 months ago and I only recall him talking to one person whose credentials as a professional were mentioned if he wasn't a clergyman. There are probably hundreds of scientists or at least professors with Masters or Doctorates willing to do a bit of verbal sparring, particularly in the fields of History, Anthropology or a host of others.
If one compares this to Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" he'll find that Stein interviews about 30 credentialed professors, professionals, clergy, etc. He does this with a variety of sources with various backgrounds. He also makes a point in his film regarding freedom of thought and education. Maher could easily have pointed out wrongs committed by theocratic rules throughout centuries or persecutions from this. Instead he idiotically refers to the 20th century's secular totalitarian regimes as evidence of why secularism needs more socio-political power!!!! (it's in the bonus features where he's standing in front of the Anne Frank house I think.) This is a true Orwellian head-trip. He blames Christianity in particular on many pointless deaths--which has had its share, though far smaller than most!!--without even including a basic view of the evidence. Perhaps this is because that argument is dwarfed by secular humanism's miserable record of the 20th Century ALONE.
Another glaring weakness is his unwillingness to talk to anyone that would be considered a moderate or "average" practitioner. He picks out the weakest gazelles of the herd. How difficult is that? How does proving the existence of exceptions move toward disproving the general rule? It does not. Wow, so people in cults think outside of the norm? How enlightening to know this. Great work Maher! Again, it would be fairly easy to interview someone like Laurence Vance and include his work on refuting the idea of "patriotic duty" that demands a person fight in any war his country is involved in.
Beyond all that, he's just not that funny here. Some of the clips that are overlaid in "clever" out of context/irreverent ways might garner a laugh, but mostly work to illustrate how a real contextual argument from Maher will NOT be forthcoming, much less convincing. He spends most of his time bashing Christians, spouting inaccuracies, and interviewing fringe groups that he doesn't allow to really answer his questions.
For the record, there are good questions to honestly ask of religious folks and many they should ask of themselves. He touches on almost none of these. I get the feeling that I could've responded much better to most of his questioning than the people he interviewed, but the whole thing reeks of deck-stacking in terms of what is included and what was edited out.
Half Baked
(1998)
One of the funniest 90s movies
24 July 2009
This is a movie about a group of friends whose lives revolve around smoking marijuana. One of the friends ends up in jail and they have to raise money to try to get him out. I don't remember if it's for a fine or for bail or court costs--It's been a year or two since I've seen it--and the guys end up dealing pot to make it happen.
The main thing I do remember is that every time I see it on TV or at a friend's house, I always end up watching it all the way through and laughing like mad. There are never any dull moments with comedians like Dave Chappelle and Jim Breuer, two of funniest guys from the 90s. Harlan Williams also has a great but minor roll.
I remember seeing this when i was about 18 and still being somewhat naive I was able to appreciate the whole thing. Years later it's still funny. To this day I've never smoked anything and that didn't effect my appreciation of this movie whatsoever. The jokes aren't all the same old people acting silly because they're high. The marijuana related humor is still funny for most people because the characters remind you of people you probably know and their idiosyncrasies.
It's not a serious movie by any means, and obviously not for little kids. Still, I've watched this with my Dad and even he was cracking up. It's just good, juvenile fun.
The main thing I do remember is that every time I see it on TV or at a friend's house, I always end up watching it all the way through and laughing like mad. There are never any dull moments with comedians like Dave Chappelle and Jim Breuer, two of funniest guys from the 90s. Harlan Williams also has a great but minor roll.
I remember seeing this when i was about 18 and still being somewhat naive I was able to appreciate the whole thing. Years later it's still funny. To this day I've never smoked anything and that didn't effect my appreciation of this movie whatsoever. The jokes aren't all the same old people acting silly because they're high. The marijuana related humor is still funny for most people because the characters remind you of people you probably know and their idiosyncrasies.
It's not a serious movie by any means, and obviously not for little kids. Still, I've watched this with my Dad and even he was cracking up. It's just good, juvenile fun.
Goodfellas
(1990)
interesting twist on mob-life
3 June 2009
There are several good plot synopses up already, so I'll avoid that and just say what I liked and didn't about it. Maybe the few people who haven't seen it will appreciate this.
So apparently this is the one that re-started fascination with the mob. I like how different it was from Godfather. They say it influenced the Sopranos. I can see a little of that, but to me is just not quite as satisfying.
Liotta, Brocco, Pesci and the rest of the gang are all great in this movie. It's cool because of Henry--Liotta--'s outside perspective. I dig how it's not exactly easy being a mobster either. It's never quite as glamorous as it seems, and on top of that, the crazy fellas who are in that business are crazy enough to turn on you at any time. Pesci's famous "Funny how?...Am I a clown? Do I amuse you?" is classic for good reason.
Still, Scorsese has this weird obsession with making at least the last 45 minutes seem like a video for 70s AM radio greatest hits. It really gets in the way of the movie for me...big time. (I'm a musician by trade, so I love music. It's not a prejudice. The songs chosen here are all cool songs too, just way too loud and pervasive.) The big lessons aren't quite so big in this one either. That's fine, but you expect a little more from this crew. On the other hand, maybe that should be seen as refreshing. And in a lot of ways it is.
I would recommend it for anyone who wants a lighter mob movie, and one that seems oddly more realistic because of the domestic issues. Also, the time frame helps it stand out in a cool way. It's very good, no doubt.
So apparently this is the one that re-started fascination with the mob. I like how different it was from Godfather. They say it influenced the Sopranos. I can see a little of that, but to me is just not quite as satisfying.
Liotta, Brocco, Pesci and the rest of the gang are all great in this movie. It's cool because of Henry--Liotta--'s outside perspective. I dig how it's not exactly easy being a mobster either. It's never quite as glamorous as it seems, and on top of that, the crazy fellas who are in that business are crazy enough to turn on you at any time. Pesci's famous "Funny how?...Am I a clown? Do I amuse you?" is classic for good reason.
Still, Scorsese has this weird obsession with making at least the last 45 minutes seem like a video for 70s AM radio greatest hits. It really gets in the way of the movie for me...big time. (I'm a musician by trade, so I love music. It's not a prejudice. The songs chosen here are all cool songs too, just way too loud and pervasive.) The big lessons aren't quite so big in this one either. That's fine, but you expect a little more from this crew. On the other hand, maybe that should be seen as refreshing. And in a lot of ways it is.
I would recommend it for anyone who wants a lighter mob movie, and one that seems oddly more realistic because of the domestic issues. Also, the time frame helps it stand out in a cool way. It's very good, no doubt.
Suicide Kings
(1997)
Entertaining plot and dialog, but some plot problems
3 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This is a fun movie about a kidnapping gone wrong. The kidnappers are generally spoiled, rich "kids" in their 20s who trick an old mobster, played by Christopher Walken, into taking a ride with them. They hold him hostage and he cleverly manipulates them to fight with each other.
there's nothing too dark, and the dialog and dynamic with the younger characters is really solid. Dennis Leary's mobster role is funny and angry and brutal in just the right doses.
***Possible spoiler*** Most of the way through the film I was convinced there would be a killer climax. The problem is that the story is leading you to believe that there's an "inside man..." but when you find out who it really is, it seems misleading. The motivations behind the actions of the kidnappers don't quite add up, particularly Avery and Max's interaction. The flashback sections of the story lead you to think one way, but don't come off as too convincing.
On the other hand, the movie's good at digging into these different personalities and Walken, Leary and the Ira character are really compelling. (It seems a lot of people didn't like Ira but he's pretty a very important foil for the others and the film would lose a lot without him. Plus, he's awfully convincing as the uptight kiss-up geek.) The twists are pretty cool, and not too tricky to get, just a little contradictory when you consider all the different ways the movie could have gone. But this was the way to make it interesting and not so obvious.
Well worth renting or picking up used.
there's nothing too dark, and the dialog and dynamic with the younger characters is really solid. Dennis Leary's mobster role is funny and angry and brutal in just the right doses.
***Possible spoiler*** Most of the way through the film I was convinced there would be a killer climax. The problem is that the story is leading you to believe that there's an "inside man..." but when you find out who it really is, it seems misleading. The motivations behind the actions of the kidnappers don't quite add up, particularly Avery and Max's interaction. The flashback sections of the story lead you to think one way, but don't come off as too convincing.
On the other hand, the movie's good at digging into these different personalities and Walken, Leary and the Ira character are really compelling. (It seems a lot of people didn't like Ira but he's pretty a very important foil for the others and the film would lose a lot without him. Plus, he's awfully convincing as the uptight kiss-up geek.) The twists are pretty cool, and not too tricky to get, just a little contradictory when you consider all the different ways the movie could have gone. But this was the way to make it interesting and not so obvious.
Well worth renting or picking up used.
American Beauty
(1999)
Self-aware, but pretty good anyway
30 March 2008
Almost every technical aspect of this movie was great. The story is compelling and original: there are other movies about mid-life crises, but this one is more complex and has several side plots that include the family and neighbors. The acting very good all around. Spacey is still just a little pushy, but it rarely gets in the way. The Ricky character is a bit overwrought. The pacing was excellent too, because the writing gave you just enough time to think about what you were seeing, or at least get your instinct involved. And of course, it's shot well. For those who think that sort of thing doesn't matter much, this movie will provide many great examples proving my point about the effect of good camera work to the average Joe.
Before you read the rest, keep in mind that I actually recommend this movie for the above reasons. They've all been covered in detail by many others I'm sure, and rightfully so. However, it often gets hyped as "One of the best movies I've seen" whenever anyone makes a list that goes beyond 5 movies. This is as much a reaction to that as it is a review.
There are some funny moments and some graphic ones. There's a good amount of tension and release. All this adds to the realism and is expertly portrayed by the relationships between parents and children and the parents themselves. My main problem with the film is the issue of self-righteousness which seems to be praised throughout. Lester's character is supposed to a hero, and that's fine. But he's a flawed one at least. I think the film tries to convey the opposite message. Selfishness abounds in this movie to the point where it becomes preachy. The message "do what feels good" were subtle enough to fool a lot of people into thinking there was more here than there really was. Tarantino would've had a gospel choir sing a song called "do what feels good" I think. Mendes was smarter than that.
Still, it's well worth watching, but make sure you're mature enough to see past the flaws. A man with Mendes' talent could've easily gotten rid of the preachy implications of Chris Cooper's next-door visit to Lester's garage (I don't want to give it away but you'll know when you see it). Ricky's emotive recount of how he felt filming the plastic bag is kind of vomit inducing too. But these small miscalculations really took a lot away from an otherwise great movie. It wouldn't have been so obvious and wouldn't have been so forceful on the modern existentialism, but it would've been more real as a result. It could've been a masterpiece. Should've been a contender.
Before you read the rest, keep in mind that I actually recommend this movie for the above reasons. They've all been covered in detail by many others I'm sure, and rightfully so. However, it often gets hyped as "One of the best movies I've seen" whenever anyone makes a list that goes beyond 5 movies. This is as much a reaction to that as it is a review.
There are some funny moments and some graphic ones. There's a good amount of tension and release. All this adds to the realism and is expertly portrayed by the relationships between parents and children and the parents themselves. My main problem with the film is the issue of self-righteousness which seems to be praised throughout. Lester's character is supposed to a hero, and that's fine. But he's a flawed one at least. I think the film tries to convey the opposite message. Selfishness abounds in this movie to the point where it becomes preachy. The message "do what feels good" were subtle enough to fool a lot of people into thinking there was more here than there really was. Tarantino would've had a gospel choir sing a song called "do what feels good" I think. Mendes was smarter than that.
Still, it's well worth watching, but make sure you're mature enough to see past the flaws. A man with Mendes' talent could've easily gotten rid of the preachy implications of Chris Cooper's next-door visit to Lester's garage (I don't want to give it away but you'll know when you see it). Ricky's emotive recount of how he felt filming the plastic bag is kind of vomit inducing too. But these small miscalculations really took a lot away from an otherwise great movie. It wouldn't have been so obvious and wouldn't have been so forceful on the modern existentialism, but it would've been more real as a result. It could've been a masterpiece. Should've been a contender.
Blades of Glory
(2007)
Wait for it to be on TV
30 March 2008
I was really pretty disappointed in this movie. I just watched it on HBO because frankly it didn't look all that funny from the ads. It had some decent laughs strewn throughout but nothing flat-out hilarious. I'm not the stuffy kind of viewer who hates physical comedy either. I can watch Anchorman for the 5th time and still laugh out loud pretty hard a few times, but this never had those moments for me.
It's the typical Will Ferrell movie where he is the idiot savant and the joke's on him. He never realizes it or just rolls with it, you know the rest. He was funny here and there and can still come up with the completely off-the-wall things to say. Heder is better when he talks less. I loved Napoleon Dynamite, but here his character was the Will Ferrell style of over-the-top. Didn't make sense to me so much. Arnett and the SNL chick were OK, but could've been given some funnier things to do.
Really the best part was Jenna Fischer in a corset. She seemed to be well-aware that the role was pretty silly and she didn't fit in the movie that well. But then again, they needed a pretty goody-two shoes and she seems to fit that. I'd like her to aim a little higher though, as I bet she could do some pretty good comedy with a good script.
Better than the 50th showing of "Breakfast Club" on TBS but not better than the 30th you know what I mean? I wouldn't pay to watch it, but then I didn't so it all works out.
It's the typical Will Ferrell movie where he is the idiot savant and the joke's on him. He never realizes it or just rolls with it, you know the rest. He was funny here and there and can still come up with the completely off-the-wall things to say. Heder is better when he talks less. I loved Napoleon Dynamite, but here his character was the Will Ferrell style of over-the-top. Didn't make sense to me so much. Arnett and the SNL chick were OK, but could've been given some funnier things to do.
Really the best part was Jenna Fischer in a corset. She seemed to be well-aware that the role was pretty silly and she didn't fit in the movie that well. But then again, they needed a pretty goody-two shoes and she seems to fit that. I'd like her to aim a little higher though, as I bet she could do some pretty good comedy with a good script.
Better than the 50th showing of "Breakfast Club" on TBS but not better than the 30th you know what I mean? I wouldn't pay to watch it, but then I didn't so it all works out.
Kill Bill: Vol. 2
(2004)
Had it's ups and downs
12 March 2008
I'll spare the details of the plot because there aren't many and you can read the synopsis. Basically Uma Thurman's character wants revenge and wants to kill Bill. There's other people too, but...it feels sort of inconsequential to me. I don't really buy the plot so it was a bit of a let down. I think the way the story is told impresses a lot of people, but I just don't find it that clever.
I don't see how people can truly say this was amazing or horrible when you take in all the elements and judge it on artistic basis. However, just as a general asthetic I can understand people hating it. I am certainly not one of those people...it's interesting to see why people seem so polarized though.
Camera work: great. No argument there from anyone. I do'nt see how you could complain about how this is shot. I didn't read the credits that far because I have no idea who these people are and don't honestly care. But whoever it was, he really brought out the best of what was there.
Acting: pretty damn good considering there's rarely any depth. In spite of such an absence of substance--which anyone in their right mind recognizes--Thurman and Madsen say a lot more when there's no dialog. Carradine's good, etc.
Script: OK. Some people seem to miss Tarantino's overwrought loquaciousness. It would've gotten in the way here...and on the ocassion that it creeps up it continues to get in the way. They're killers not 2nd semester English majors (the kind Quinten puts in every other movie apparently).
Plot: Yeah who are you kidding? It's kind of fun though.
Action sequences: Cool at first, and fortunately there's enough focus to keep you drawn in. Nowadays it seems like there needs to be 15 cuts per second to convey action instead of letting us watch the actual fight. Kudos for not following that trend. On the other hand these become a cliché unto themselves pretty quickly for me.
Style: Look if you want style over substance then go the full way and make it a joke. I think of this movie as an over-budget, less funny, more colorful "Story of Ricki Oh" about half the time. Either put more substance in next time or leave it out.
Pretty much middle of the road in terms of quality for Tarantino, but usually I tend to feel his movies fit the extreme. A little more work on the plot would've taken this much farther.
I don't see how people can truly say this was amazing or horrible when you take in all the elements and judge it on artistic basis. However, just as a general asthetic I can understand people hating it. I am certainly not one of those people...it's interesting to see why people seem so polarized though.
Camera work: great. No argument there from anyone. I do'nt see how you could complain about how this is shot. I didn't read the credits that far because I have no idea who these people are and don't honestly care. But whoever it was, he really brought out the best of what was there.
Acting: pretty damn good considering there's rarely any depth. In spite of such an absence of substance--which anyone in their right mind recognizes--Thurman and Madsen say a lot more when there's no dialog. Carradine's good, etc.
Script: OK. Some people seem to miss Tarantino's overwrought loquaciousness. It would've gotten in the way here...and on the ocassion that it creeps up it continues to get in the way. They're killers not 2nd semester English majors (the kind Quinten puts in every other movie apparently).
Plot: Yeah who are you kidding? It's kind of fun though.
Action sequences: Cool at first, and fortunately there's enough focus to keep you drawn in. Nowadays it seems like there needs to be 15 cuts per second to convey action instead of letting us watch the actual fight. Kudos for not following that trend. On the other hand these become a cliché unto themselves pretty quickly for me.
Style: Look if you want style over substance then go the full way and make it a joke. I think of this movie as an over-budget, less funny, more colorful "Story of Ricki Oh" about half the time. Either put more substance in next time or leave it out.
Pretty much middle of the road in terms of quality for Tarantino, but usually I tend to feel his movies fit the extreme. A little more work on the plot would've taken this much farther.
No Country for Old Men
(2007)
Sure to be a classic
10 December 2007
The basic premise the Cohen Bros. seem to be working with here is that evil can't be stopped. It's possible that some of my views here might be interpreted differently, but the film seems pretty clear with Antone's character.
So here's what happens (I won't give away the ending): A man called Lewellyn Moss(not sure of spelling) find's a drug deal gone bad where everyone is dead or left for dead in the deserted Texas plains. He comes across a suitcase full of money brought to the deal and sneaks it back to his place. Once he realizes he's being sought after and tracked by a sadistic hit-man, the cat and mouse game begins. Lewellyn tries to hide his wife and his own identity from the hit-man, but as the chase continues he realizes he might be out of his league.
Meanwhile Tommy Lee Jones is the sheriff in the county where this all started. He just be a small-town cop, but he's a good one with a dark sense of humor that seems to blend perfectly with his crime-solving abilities. He realizes early on that Antone is not simply a hired gun, but someone who enjoys his work and is quite crafty. Jones's character wants to prevent any further death and devastation and even with his experience and skill as detective he feels he's up against some sort of evil that may overtake him.
It's a dusty, dirty world that seems real and harsh when you realize that you're rooting for Lewellyn because Antone is coming after him and is a force that can't be stopped. To root for him is to live that Dylan Thomas poem "Do Not Go Gentle." But you root for Jones's character too, and Moss's wife. Most of all just hope that that dark evil that seems to trap everyone wont' win in this case. The money's really not the issue, and this is shown through Moss's reactions, but especially the supporting cast. Moss is more subtle and keeps his cards closer to his chest.
Every line is delivered with just the right amount of weight and there never seems to be a word wasted. While watching this movie I couldn't help but think that the script was so good that it could almost be transfered straight to radio with little narration and still be very effective. The photography is just about as good though. It's a thinking man's movie, but there's plenty of action, swagger and suspense in how this is shot. The backdrop of the desolate Texas towns of 1980 or thereabouts is so real you feel surrounded by it and almost as if you're going to walk into it when you leave the theatre.
The message sinks in slowly but surely. Antone is a badass in the very very "bad" way and you hate him for it, even if you love watching the chase. Every lesser character like Woody Harrelson's, the convenience store clerk (the Cohen's have a knack for finding perfect roles for gas station attendents) the deputy and Moss's mother-in-law add to the stew.
It's fascinating, well-paced, leaves you thinking and just pulls at you. You feel like you've faced just what the sheriff faced by the end and you'll probably come to the same conclusion. Watch it.
So here's what happens (I won't give away the ending): A man called Lewellyn Moss(not sure of spelling) find's a drug deal gone bad where everyone is dead or left for dead in the deserted Texas plains. He comes across a suitcase full of money brought to the deal and sneaks it back to his place. Once he realizes he's being sought after and tracked by a sadistic hit-man, the cat and mouse game begins. Lewellyn tries to hide his wife and his own identity from the hit-man, but as the chase continues he realizes he might be out of his league.
Meanwhile Tommy Lee Jones is the sheriff in the county where this all started. He just be a small-town cop, but he's a good one with a dark sense of humor that seems to blend perfectly with his crime-solving abilities. He realizes early on that Antone is not simply a hired gun, but someone who enjoys his work and is quite crafty. Jones's character wants to prevent any further death and devastation and even with his experience and skill as detective he feels he's up against some sort of evil that may overtake him.
It's a dusty, dirty world that seems real and harsh when you realize that you're rooting for Lewellyn because Antone is coming after him and is a force that can't be stopped. To root for him is to live that Dylan Thomas poem "Do Not Go Gentle." But you root for Jones's character too, and Moss's wife. Most of all just hope that that dark evil that seems to trap everyone wont' win in this case. The money's really not the issue, and this is shown through Moss's reactions, but especially the supporting cast. Moss is more subtle and keeps his cards closer to his chest.
Every line is delivered with just the right amount of weight and there never seems to be a word wasted. While watching this movie I couldn't help but think that the script was so good that it could almost be transfered straight to radio with little narration and still be very effective. The photography is just about as good though. It's a thinking man's movie, but there's plenty of action, swagger and suspense in how this is shot. The backdrop of the desolate Texas towns of 1980 or thereabouts is so real you feel surrounded by it and almost as if you're going to walk into it when you leave the theatre.
The message sinks in slowly but surely. Antone is a badass in the very very "bad" way and you hate him for it, even if you love watching the chase. Every lesser character like Woody Harrelson's, the convenience store clerk (the Cohen's have a knack for finding perfect roles for gas station attendents) the deputy and Moss's mother-in-law add to the stew.
It's fascinating, well-paced, leaves you thinking and just pulls at you. You feel like you've faced just what the sheriff faced by the end and you'll probably come to the same conclusion. Watch it.
Reservoir Dogs
(1992)
A study in style over substance
13 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This is probably Quentin's best movie of the ones I've seen simply because it IS so stylized. However, beyond that this is nothing to hold it up. I don't care how great the acting is, there's just no real plot. OK, there is a plot but it's totally beside the point.
There's a heist that involves a group of criminals who have to split up and meet up later. An undercover cop who is in on the heist watches as another cop gets tortured. Tempers flare amongst the criminals and one gets shot. Despite being criminals and not really knowing each other, some show loyalty. That's pretty much it.
Some friends have told me that I missed the part in the end where you hear the cops show up and gun some of the criminals down. That doesn't change much. I'm not compelled in any way to really care for any of the characters. There's not really any background on any of them. There's no substance. It's all one-dimensional even down to the stupid "mr. pink" "mr. white" names they're given. Twelve Angry Men is an awesome film that does the opposite of this and uses pretty much one boring room as the entire setting. Yet it's interesting because the plot is good and it's all about the characters. Breakfast Club is a totally different film that does the same. Both make more lasting statements than are made here. The most memorable of which deals with lyrics from a Madonna song and Michael Madsen's almost comical "Are you gonna bark all day...?" ooh i'm a bad-ass line.
No one will ever make a movie that can beat Tombstone in that category. And yeah that movie is all style, but there's still a story to it. The characters resemble people.
The fact is that Steve Buscemi, Harvey Keitel, Michael Madsen and most of the rest are all great actors. They all play their parts well and exhibit that one "color" as it were. There are some cool lines here and there. The music is great. The violence is sort of inventive (using the old trick of letting your imagination fill in the blanks IS brilliant). The rest of it is...well I don't see anything going on. There is no rest of it as far as I'm concerned.
There's a heist that involves a group of criminals who have to split up and meet up later. An undercover cop who is in on the heist watches as another cop gets tortured. Tempers flare amongst the criminals and one gets shot. Despite being criminals and not really knowing each other, some show loyalty. That's pretty much it.
Some friends have told me that I missed the part in the end where you hear the cops show up and gun some of the criminals down. That doesn't change much. I'm not compelled in any way to really care for any of the characters. There's not really any background on any of them. There's no substance. It's all one-dimensional even down to the stupid "mr. pink" "mr. white" names they're given. Twelve Angry Men is an awesome film that does the opposite of this and uses pretty much one boring room as the entire setting. Yet it's interesting because the plot is good and it's all about the characters. Breakfast Club is a totally different film that does the same. Both make more lasting statements than are made here. The most memorable of which deals with lyrics from a Madonna song and Michael Madsen's almost comical "Are you gonna bark all day...?" ooh i'm a bad-ass line.
No one will ever make a movie that can beat Tombstone in that category. And yeah that movie is all style, but there's still a story to it. The characters resemble people.
The fact is that Steve Buscemi, Harvey Keitel, Michael Madsen and most of the rest are all great actors. They all play their parts well and exhibit that one "color" as it were. There are some cool lines here and there. The music is great. The violence is sort of inventive (using the old trick of letting your imagination fill in the blanks IS brilliant). The rest of it is...well I don't see anything going on. There is no rest of it as far as I'm concerned.
The Rules of Attraction
(2002)
boo hoo this movie is mean. It hurts my feelings
13 July 2007
I read a bunch of comments on here about how mean it is, and dark and all that. It's either that or the complaints about it not being like the book. Who cares? It was effective as a movie. It wasn't perfect but deserves a fair criticism for what it was.
Most of the characters are pretty flat throughout and don't really develop much. It reeks of nihilism in some parts and is a pretty good commentary on the darker side of selfish college kids who tend to actually BE that way in my experience. They all have these silly little illusions about what it should be...That is not to say it's like this for everyone. It's not. But for almost endlessly delusional, shallow people it IS like this. They compromise and hurt each other and themselves. The dose of reality involving the insights into Victor alone make this movie worth watching when you compare it to the girl that's been waiting for him. Awesome!! The characters hurt each other and only care about themselves. It's just portrayed in a really creative way.
There's a moving suicide scene and it's cast pretty well. The guy playing Paul does a good job too. REally the only complaints I have about it is that it could've taken the concept of dark humor much further by having a few parallels of "normal" couples who treat each other like real human beings. It would've added a positivity that IS realistic and when juxtaposed with the morons these actors portray it would've been even funnier. I have no sympathy for anyone in the film, but at times it hurts a little to see them treat each other this way.
Oh, and the editing/rewind trick wasn't that intrusive. It's just a devise to set up the scenes. One of the few dark comedy's that seemed pretty satisfying if not all that funny.
Most of the characters are pretty flat throughout and don't really develop much. It reeks of nihilism in some parts and is a pretty good commentary on the darker side of selfish college kids who tend to actually BE that way in my experience. They all have these silly little illusions about what it should be...That is not to say it's like this for everyone. It's not. But for almost endlessly delusional, shallow people it IS like this. They compromise and hurt each other and themselves. The dose of reality involving the insights into Victor alone make this movie worth watching when you compare it to the girl that's been waiting for him. Awesome!! The characters hurt each other and only care about themselves. It's just portrayed in a really creative way.
There's a moving suicide scene and it's cast pretty well. The guy playing Paul does a good job too. REally the only complaints I have about it is that it could've taken the concept of dark humor much further by having a few parallels of "normal" couples who treat each other like real human beings. It would've added a positivity that IS realistic and when juxtaposed with the morons these actors portray it would've been even funnier. I have no sympathy for anyone in the film, but at times it hurts a little to see them treat each other this way.
Oh, and the editing/rewind trick wasn't that intrusive. It's just a devise to set up the scenes. One of the few dark comedy's that seemed pretty satisfying if not all that funny.
Johnny Got His Gun
(1971)
Maybe the most effective movie I've ever seen
13 July 2007
Let me say that I would NOT recommend this to anyone lightly. I feel quite confident saying that there are very few people I know who I think should see it.
It's all about the horror of war. The setting is WWI and involves a very young man, boy really, who has no appendages because of a grenade. The rest of the moving cuts between his horrific vegetative physical state with voice-overs of his thoughts and flashbacks to his rather limited life experiences and a few fantasies or inner monologues.
This was really a soul-shattering movie in a lot of ways. After watching it I couldn't get it out of my head for hours after hours. I couldn't' get to sleep until mid way through the next day. It is just relentlessly brutal in giving detail of true internal psychological torture, seeing a wasted life sacrificed.
I didn't read the book, which I've been told is even more dramatic than the film. I honestly can't imagine that. I don't think I could read the book. Parts of it make me think of "All Quiet on the Western Front" but in far more isolated ways. There's no glory here.
Donald Sutherland's Christ is a fascinating character and compelling. Joe's flashbacks are all meaningful and relate to the "big questions" he's trying to sort out that only seem to provide answer that torture him even more. The scene with his girlfriend early in the movie when the old man says "don't make a whore out of her" is profound in its delivery.
It is fairly artistic in a very dark sense. It's too heavy for some people. They will claim it was boring but that is only for those who have no understanding of the weight of the matters because it doesn't involve them. Make no mistake, this sort of thing goes on every day as there are wars every day.
I'm all about defending and fighting for personal rights, but if this movie were shown in every public school in the world there would be far fewer people willing to fight for the causes of others and the promise of a few more dollars.
I've never seen a movie that moved me so much but in such a sad way. It was perfect in its execution, but then again some lessons are better left unlearned.
It's all about the horror of war. The setting is WWI and involves a very young man, boy really, who has no appendages because of a grenade. The rest of the moving cuts between his horrific vegetative physical state with voice-overs of his thoughts and flashbacks to his rather limited life experiences and a few fantasies or inner monologues.
This was really a soul-shattering movie in a lot of ways. After watching it I couldn't get it out of my head for hours after hours. I couldn't' get to sleep until mid way through the next day. It is just relentlessly brutal in giving detail of true internal psychological torture, seeing a wasted life sacrificed.
I didn't read the book, which I've been told is even more dramatic than the film. I honestly can't imagine that. I don't think I could read the book. Parts of it make me think of "All Quiet on the Western Front" but in far more isolated ways. There's no glory here.
Donald Sutherland's Christ is a fascinating character and compelling. Joe's flashbacks are all meaningful and relate to the "big questions" he's trying to sort out that only seem to provide answer that torture him even more. The scene with his girlfriend early in the movie when the old man says "don't make a whore out of her" is profound in its delivery.
It is fairly artistic in a very dark sense. It's too heavy for some people. They will claim it was boring but that is only for those who have no understanding of the weight of the matters because it doesn't involve them. Make no mistake, this sort of thing goes on every day as there are wars every day.
I'm all about defending and fighting for personal rights, but if this movie were shown in every public school in the world there would be far fewer people willing to fight for the causes of others and the promise of a few more dollars.
I've never seen a movie that moved me so much but in such a sad way. It was perfect in its execution, but then again some lessons are better left unlearned.
From Dusk Till Dawn
(1996)
The first half makes you think it's a real movie...
13 July 2007
And then Cheech shows up and all the great rising action just comes to a halt. Cheech is effortlessly hilarious from what I remember, but you'll notice he doesn't fit at all. The rest of the movie takes a quick turn to stupidville immediately after that. It's not done in a funny or entertaining way either. It's just lame.
For the sake of laziness I save the basic synopsis to the other reviews, but I want to point out that this movie actually had quite a lot of real potential in the beginning. Keitel's character and his loss of faith, his love for his kids, etc. could've played against Clooney and Tarantino's bond and it would've been compelling despite Tarantino's inability to act.
Unless it's entertaining for you to watch a movie get sabotaged half-way through you should avoid this one. If only the first half had been so terrible--there was actually a touch of substance for once in one of Quentin's movies, I should've known it wouldn't last--I would've turned it off then and not wasted my time.
The "4" rating is mostly due to Cheech Marin's 30 second onslaught of hilarity and the acting chops of all but Quentin in the beginning. They're so good at their craft that I actually thought for a minute it was an attempt to really say something.
For the sake of laziness I save the basic synopsis to the other reviews, but I want to point out that this movie actually had quite a lot of real potential in the beginning. Keitel's character and his loss of faith, his love for his kids, etc. could've played against Clooney and Tarantino's bond and it would've been compelling despite Tarantino's inability to act.
Unless it's entertaining for you to watch a movie get sabotaged half-way through you should avoid this one. If only the first half had been so terrible--there was actually a touch of substance for once in one of Quentin's movies, I should've known it wouldn't last--I would've turned it off then and not wasted my time.
The "4" rating is mostly due to Cheech Marin's 30 second onslaught of hilarity and the acting chops of all but Quentin in the beginning. They're so good at their craft that I actually thought for a minute it was an attempt to really say something.
Teenage Mother
(1967)
Possibly the Worst and yet somehow one of the Funniest movies ever
14 January 2007
I'm torn between rating this a 1 and a 10. The thing is, this movie is the finest example of something being so bad that it's utterly fantastic. Total 180...while still remaining terrible.
It was made in the mid-60s and looks like it. The dialog is horrible drivel that was clearly imagined by adults at the time who feared for their lives that their children might be holding hands or even more. This is an hilarious contrast with the cast that appears to be made up entirely of B Movie greatest hits type. The delivery of each line is inherently funny in how inhuman and out of place it all seems. Combine this with the message of "wholesome" conservative views--and I'm pretty socially conservative, but this is beyond ridiculous--that seems to tie in with the implication that attempted date rape is just a practical joke, chauvinism is endearing...I do'nt know what else to say. The plot is hilariously bad, the "romantic scenes" seemed so surreal that if a unicorn walked by it would've made more sense and generation gap is displayed as if the two parties are that of the Cold War. There's actually a scene where a father seems to just be giving up on his daughter, not because she's a slut or because she's going out go-go dancing to the worst surf music ever made, but because she's wearing boots of all things. I cannot stress enough how funny this film is due to the delivery of every poorly written line. Keanu Reeves is crying.
The seeming non sequitor of the sex ed teacher's discussion of her special video is intentionally shown in a way that makes it linger in your mind. You don't know how or when it's gonna come back to haunt you until the point of no return. You can't look back.
I saw this about 2 years ago, so I've forgotten about how awesomely bad it is for the most part, but i remember talking about it for weeks afterward. It's disturbingly comical and comically disturbing, though it was meant to be a serious film. If you think you can stomach how bad it is, the pay off will be worth it as you will undoubtedly site it as one of the funniest movies ever, and one of the worst. It's a two-fer.
It was made in the mid-60s and looks like it. The dialog is horrible drivel that was clearly imagined by adults at the time who feared for their lives that their children might be holding hands or even more. This is an hilarious contrast with the cast that appears to be made up entirely of B Movie greatest hits type. The delivery of each line is inherently funny in how inhuman and out of place it all seems. Combine this with the message of "wholesome" conservative views--and I'm pretty socially conservative, but this is beyond ridiculous--that seems to tie in with the implication that attempted date rape is just a practical joke, chauvinism is endearing...I do'nt know what else to say. The plot is hilariously bad, the "romantic scenes" seemed so surreal that if a unicorn walked by it would've made more sense and generation gap is displayed as if the two parties are that of the Cold War. There's actually a scene where a father seems to just be giving up on his daughter, not because she's a slut or because she's going out go-go dancing to the worst surf music ever made, but because she's wearing boots of all things. I cannot stress enough how funny this film is due to the delivery of every poorly written line. Keanu Reeves is crying.
The seeming non sequitor of the sex ed teacher's discussion of her special video is intentionally shown in a way that makes it linger in your mind. You don't know how or when it's gonna come back to haunt you until the point of no return. You can't look back.
I saw this about 2 years ago, so I've forgotten about how awesomely bad it is for the most part, but i remember talking about it for weeks afterward. It's disturbingly comical and comically disturbing, though it was meant to be a serious film. If you think you can stomach how bad it is, the pay off will be worth it as you will undoubtedly site it as one of the funniest movies ever, and one of the worst. It's a two-fer.
Best in Show
(2000)
ONe of the funniest movies ever
22 December 2006
This is the only Christopher Guest movie that rivals Spinal Tap and Princess Bride for sheer entertainment value, but somehow never gets near the recognition. The plot surrounds the contestants--dogs--and their owners as they venture into the world of competitive dog...OK, it's about a dog show. The owners truly are characters, as one would have to be to be so attached to their dogs. That's really all there is to it, but that makes it funny enough.
You'd never be able to convince me that a mock-u-mentary about dog shows would be funny prior to catching the hilarious scene where Levy and O'hara visit Larry Miller's house on TV...but that's really all it takes to convert any doubters. Spinal Tap was non-stop hilarity, joke after joke whereas Best in Show was had a few more lulls (and by that I mean say 3 minute at MOST where something riotously funny doesn't happen), but the big laughs are even bigger.
The casting in this one is great and even the typically out of place in, uh movies in general Parker Posey does a fine job. In fact, her tirade directed at Ed Begley Jr. and a pet store owner over a lost dog toy is probably the funniest running gag of the film.
What's amazing about this movie to me is how the writers somehow managed to weave a plot, simple as it was, around these great jokes so that it actually felt like it had direction. I guess there's a freedom in having such a minimal plot. Everyone's role is pretty well crafted here and the characters are rarely over-the-top. The realism of how pathetic they seem to the outsider is what makes it funnier than Mighty Wind or the uneven Guffman. I actually encounter wierdos like this now and then. If you like Guest's stuff at all, you should definitely own this one.
You'd never be able to convince me that a mock-u-mentary about dog shows would be funny prior to catching the hilarious scene where Levy and O'hara visit Larry Miller's house on TV...but that's really all it takes to convert any doubters. Spinal Tap was non-stop hilarity, joke after joke whereas Best in Show was had a few more lulls (and by that I mean say 3 minute at MOST where something riotously funny doesn't happen), but the big laughs are even bigger.
The casting in this one is great and even the typically out of place in, uh movies in general Parker Posey does a fine job. In fact, her tirade directed at Ed Begley Jr. and a pet store owner over a lost dog toy is probably the funniest running gag of the film.
What's amazing about this movie to me is how the writers somehow managed to weave a plot, simple as it was, around these great jokes so that it actually felt like it had direction. I guess there's a freedom in having such a minimal plot. Everyone's role is pretty well crafted here and the characters are rarely over-the-top. The realism of how pathetic they seem to the outsider is what makes it funnier than Mighty Wind or the uneven Guffman. I actually encounter wierdos like this now and then. If you like Guest's stuff at all, you should definitely own this one.
Santa Baby
(2006 TV Movie)
this should've made it to the big screen
10 December 2006
Wow is my only comment. McCarthy reveals so much depth and charisma in her acting abilities. I also found this story quite intriguing. Who is this daughter of Kringle?...This re-arranger of emotions who has held my heart captive for so long? I don't want to spoil any surprises for the possible late viewers BUT I will say it has a happy ending. Not in the massage parlor way either. My life is changed forever.
I should also note that the annoying song that goes with this movie made me not want to watch it. I would recommend that any other viewer who fears this will taint the actual viewing should swallow this pill in a small show of sacrifice. While not as astoundingly good as that one with Dudley as a drunken elf--for which I can't remember the title--it does stand out as a heart-warming cup of holiday good-spirit-nog. My soul is tinseled with good will toward my fellow man. Just what Christmas is about. I'm a better person for having watched it.
I should also note that the annoying song that goes with this movie made me not want to watch it. I would recommend that any other viewer who fears this will taint the actual viewing should swallow this pill in a small show of sacrifice. While not as astoundingly good as that one with Dudley as a drunken elf--for which I can't remember the title--it does stand out as a heart-warming cup of holiday good-spirit-nog. My soul is tinseled with good will toward my fellow man. Just what Christmas is about. I'm a better person for having watched it.
Brokeback Mountain
(2005)
Let's be honest
10 December 2006
Ang Lee's a fine director. Any intelligent person knows this. The photography was great, dialog seemed realistic, the acting...Well, what do you expect when the basic premise was envisioned by a character on South Park? To be fair, I found Ledger to be surprisingly convincing. On the other hand Jake's ridiculous accent, prop comic-looking mustache and "I wish I knew how to quit you" were pathetic. When this movie was released (you're welcome: I didn't say "came out"), it was promoted as a love story and about how people don't understand the community involved. Awfully preachy for a movie that got so many angry at the "hypocritical" religious community. Beyond that, little time was spent showing how the actions of the characters affected their families. The wives take up all of 15 minutes of the movie it seems. Neither is offered an explanation or apology as far as I can tell. They're relegated to shame--whenever someone cheats on someone else whether they're gay or straight it's the same universal idea--for being left behind, not good enough. If the two really loved each other and if it was really a love story, not politically motivated, then it could've been shot as a married hetero couple having an affair...oh but that would've been wrong (which IS true). The wives have to feel shame for trying to change men who are in effect cowards because they refuse to "be who they truly are." It's effective in making you feel for characters involved, but for me it was more for their families. There's a touching scene at the end that has an odd uncomfortable resolution where you'll feel this no matter what. Still, Gyllenhal's out of place acting (the rest of the cast do quite well) and the awkward push for the viewer to accept this as a pure love story are too much to make it anywhere near the masterpiece it's proclaimed to be.
2001: A Space Odyssey
(1968)
I registered simply to warn others of how bad this movie is!!
10 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
A quick synopsis before I give specifics into why this movie is so painfully bad that I intend to DEMAND my $2.71 for rental of it. It make me stoopid. OK, not really but I'd rather sit through an Alicia Silverstone movie marathon than this again.
2 minutes of black screen with, as one other reviewer described it: what sounds like dying hippos. I'd liken more to audio recording of 3 simultaneous root canals, drills and all, with no Novocaine. But I digress. Next, we watch a lot of apes fight for supremacy (I dare not call them monkeys) of what I don't really know, though the waterhole they bathe in might be a good guess. Though they have non-verbal communication, they haven't figured out how to use tools. One of them touches the monolith (3D black rectangle that does nothing...or does it? Oooo) and ta-da! Now he grasps the concept of tools and learns how fight off the other apes. I'm not really sure how that's evolution, seems to point to Lamarck more than Darwin, but hey...
The next segment shows some guy's complete flight to a space-station where he has a conference about a monolith that's on the moon. No one knows or cares about the old one, by the way. It makes annoying sounds that deafens the astronauts when they try to touch it because no means no. It calls it's boyfriend to beat them up. OK the last part isn't true, but it would've been much more interesting. What I just described basically takes 45 minutes of your life that you will feel were stolen from you, even if you'd just planned on doing macramé instead. The signal it sends out is rather annoying and pointing at Jupiter. "Let's definitely go there" say the astronauts. We've already got Rosie O'Donnell, why not follow where THIS large rectangle of audible annoyance points us.
Great, now we're in a space station where a computer called HAL is on-board to help the astronauts on their mission. Here the actors muster all their strength to completely phone in their parts in what would almost be considered slightly more fascinating than your cousin's Christmas letter telling you how their little baby has started to say real words like...who am i kidding? you can't possibly care. I personally root for the evil computer. It seems to me that evolution for man could just as easily mean learning not to build technology that can defeat mankind. Duh. This is NOT Kubrick's take. Everything is pretty obvious. What a ripoff!! I saw that in the Simpsons and it took 7 minutes for the whole thing AND it was funny. I also thought that the South Park spoof was cleverer and far better paced.
Dave makes it passed Hal and can complete his mission. Apparently his mission is to go hurtling through space toward Jupiter while watching the predecessor to Laser Loggins goes disco. There's some psychedelic rays shooting at the astronaut for a long time. Eventually he ends up in a sterilized house where he's old. It's like a bad Neil Young song in slow-mo. Then there's a fetus floating in space. All this to the soundtrack of the most played out, obvious, annoying selections of art music. While there seem to be a lot of technically important advances in how this film was shot and quite a controversy over the meaning or intended meaning of the movie, none of that can help the fact that it is completely unfulfilling in almost every way. The people who praise it so much are narcissists who look to show off just how intelligent they are by coming up with some grand interpretation that's really more about making them appear smart than anything else. I love "Dr. Strangelove..." and "Full Metal Jacket" and other brilliant Kubrick films. This is NOT among them. 2001 should only make a top 250 films ever list if it involved candidates for Mystery Science Theatre 3000, except that the complete lack of dialog for the first 25 minutes would ruin even that.
intermission--I'll do the rest of my complaining in the comment board.
2 minutes of black screen with, as one other reviewer described it: what sounds like dying hippos. I'd liken more to audio recording of 3 simultaneous root canals, drills and all, with no Novocaine. But I digress. Next, we watch a lot of apes fight for supremacy (I dare not call them monkeys) of what I don't really know, though the waterhole they bathe in might be a good guess. Though they have non-verbal communication, they haven't figured out how to use tools. One of them touches the monolith (3D black rectangle that does nothing...or does it? Oooo) and ta-da! Now he grasps the concept of tools and learns how fight off the other apes. I'm not really sure how that's evolution, seems to point to Lamarck more than Darwin, but hey...
The next segment shows some guy's complete flight to a space-station where he has a conference about a monolith that's on the moon. No one knows or cares about the old one, by the way. It makes annoying sounds that deafens the astronauts when they try to touch it because no means no. It calls it's boyfriend to beat them up. OK the last part isn't true, but it would've been much more interesting. What I just described basically takes 45 minutes of your life that you will feel were stolen from you, even if you'd just planned on doing macramé instead. The signal it sends out is rather annoying and pointing at Jupiter. "Let's definitely go there" say the astronauts. We've already got Rosie O'Donnell, why not follow where THIS large rectangle of audible annoyance points us.
Great, now we're in a space station where a computer called HAL is on-board to help the astronauts on their mission. Here the actors muster all their strength to completely phone in their parts in what would almost be considered slightly more fascinating than your cousin's Christmas letter telling you how their little baby has started to say real words like...who am i kidding? you can't possibly care. I personally root for the evil computer. It seems to me that evolution for man could just as easily mean learning not to build technology that can defeat mankind. Duh. This is NOT Kubrick's take. Everything is pretty obvious. What a ripoff!! I saw that in the Simpsons and it took 7 minutes for the whole thing AND it was funny. I also thought that the South Park spoof was cleverer and far better paced.
Dave makes it passed Hal and can complete his mission. Apparently his mission is to go hurtling through space toward Jupiter while watching the predecessor to Laser Loggins goes disco. There's some psychedelic rays shooting at the astronaut for a long time. Eventually he ends up in a sterilized house where he's old. It's like a bad Neil Young song in slow-mo. Then there's a fetus floating in space. All this to the soundtrack of the most played out, obvious, annoying selections of art music. While there seem to be a lot of technically important advances in how this film was shot and quite a controversy over the meaning or intended meaning of the movie, none of that can help the fact that it is completely unfulfilling in almost every way. The people who praise it so much are narcissists who look to show off just how intelligent they are by coming up with some grand interpretation that's really more about making them appear smart than anything else. I love "Dr. Strangelove..." and "Full Metal Jacket" and other brilliant Kubrick films. This is NOT among them. 2001 should only make a top 250 films ever list if it involved candidates for Mystery Science Theatre 3000, except that the complete lack of dialog for the first 25 minutes would ruin even that.
intermission--I'll do the rest of my complaining in the comment board.
Tell Your Friends