Change Your Image
TheFlickDick
Obsessed with movies and books. (i.e. I have no life!!!!)
Reviews
The Greatest Canadian (2004)
We stand of guard for thee.
I have to agree that this list is somewhat of an embarrassment.
This show was a bit of a shock to me. As Canadians we pride ourselves on our nation as a whole. Though we do have many Canadians who distinguish themselves, we have a tendency to defer to a national gestalt rather than single out one specific person. We pride ourselves on our clean air, safe cities, our cultural mosaic, and our health care system; that, despite its problems, is still the envy of many nations.
To celebrate a past or present citizen who contributed to this nation is something that is long past due. However, to rate them like a pop music billboard chart is absurd.
Within that top ten format the selections are a tapestry of the distinguished and the ridiculous. Many have objected that Don Cherry is on this list. I have to agree. Cherry, no doubt is a Canadian icon. It just seems ironic that an illiterate, ex-hockey coach is sitting pretty at number seven when Mordacai Richler, Margaret Atwood and - gasp - Glenn Gould are absent!
Perhaps we should take a long hard look at our nation the next time we choose to rate the contribution of it citizens. Perhaps we should look past the fleeting pop culture consumerism that has engulfed us to see what has got our nation to where it is, and perhaps a clearer picture of where we are heading.
Stephen McDonald May 19, 2005 Whitby, Ontario, Canada.
Secret Window (2004)
Jump out the window
Secret Window
Directed by: David Koepp
Runtime: 96 minutes.
I have often thought the best way to make a film based on a novel or short story by Stephen King is, never tell the audience that it's a film based on a novel or short story by Stephen King.
The curse of adaptation have never rested so heavily on the head of any author in history. ( Save perhaps Shakespeare. ) And never has so much been sacrificed by one single man to stoke the fires of the Hollywood smoke screen.
By It's very nature Secret Window does not appear Kingian. We have to delve a little deeper before we see the cliché cleverly disguised in what begins in an somewhat intriguing manner. But inevitably runs out of steam.
The setting, characters and motives are introduced in the first act. However the plot and the anticipation of twist' remains elusive. This is potent. An essential element of any thriller, it keeps us guessing,
Nevertheless the point of anticipation (or in my case, frustration.) is stretched just slightly further than it should be. And that is when the plot reveals itself like freshly stepped in bear turd on the forest floor.
Koepp then drags us through the rest of the film displaying only a minimum of directorial style. While his cast, far better than it should have been, plods along, digging only as deep as necessary to fulfill contractual obligations.
Depp and Turturro, despite fine performances, never really build any sinister chemistry. And the early exit of one of them leaves you feeling a little jarred.
The always watchable Charles S Dutton is given far to little screen time. This man needs more staring roles.
I forgave Maria Bello for Coyote Ugly and I don't blame her for this.
To anyone of influence in the film industry. Please lets have some better roles for women.
Someone told me Timothy Hutton was in this film. Funny, I guess I just must have missed him.
If you really need to watch a Stephen King adapted movie check out Brian De palma's 1976 classic Carrie' or Stanley Kubrick's 1980 creep out 'The Shining'.
To all King devotes who are really brave watch Dreamcatcher' and Secret Window' back to back, but save Secret Window for last.
Trust me you'll want to jump out of it !
Flaccid ! ! ! ! (Out of five.)
Go to the Movies
TheFlickDick@hotmail.com
The Chronicles of Riddick (2004)
You're not afraid of sequels, are you?
Chronicles of Riddick
Directed by David Twohy Runtime - 120 min (aprox)
I hate sequels.
Or, more to the point, I hate the disappointment sequels bring with them.
Being more profit than plot or character driven it's no wonder.
Nevertheless, like a flock of lemmings we dish out our hard earned cash (Or rather my Dad did for this one. Thanks Dad!) just to see familiar characters in new settings. And ultimately we end up sorely disappointed.
Add to this I don't like films with narration - In most it's simply a way to make up for a bad story by spelling out the plot or filling in the blanks.
To this Chronicles of Riddick is no exception.
We catch up with Riddick approximately 5 years after the events in Pitch Black. The universe is under threat of invasion by a force know as the Necronmicon led by the Lord Marshall (Colm Feore). In an attempt to recruit Riddick, Muslim holy man Iman (Keith David) with the help of Aeroen, (Judi Dench) of a mystical race of elemental beings, place a bounty of Riddick's head so large every mercenary in the universe is hunting him. Naturally Riddick takes exception to this and, after getting the better of a merc team heads off to find Iman and, well, demand an explanation.
This is the point the Hollywood cookie cutter goes into hyper drive.
While Twohy's 2000 film set the stage for this universe, Chronicles takes it in a all new, more fantastical place. Ornate mixtures of Egyptian, Greek and Etruscan aesthetics lean heavily on the Lucasian universe. (The Necro landing on New Mecca looked like stock footage of Star Wars Episode 1)
Diesel gives us a stoic, broody portrayal but offers us little further insight (save one tantalizing glimpse) into his origins.
The ever watchable and talented Dench is truly wasted as Aeroen. Poorly written dialogue and limited screen time she nonetheless manages to make the best out of her role.
Colm Feore is given so little to work with. The character is never quite a sinister As the trailers would suggest.
Vin Diesel has found a franchise character, however the strength of the character is eroded in this entry. From the poorly paced and plotted script ,to over the top heroics. (Not to mention he seems so much less sensitive to light) Chronicles takes us from character study to comic book in only a few parsecs.
I respond to the cool tag-line Your not afraid of the dark are you ?
The only dark I was afraid of was the 2 hours I spent in the theatre watching this.
One dick up (Out of five)
Go to the movies
TheFlickDick@hotmail.com
Blue Car (2002)
How do films like this get overlooked?
Blue Car
Directed by: Karen Moncrieff
Runtime: 96 min
How do films like this get overlooked?
Two weeks ago I watched this movie for the first time. And while I have spent many hours pounding out reviews for more popular films, Blue Car has managed to leave an impression.
Agenes Bruckner plays Meg. A young girl, frustrated with the role thrust upon her by her hard working, single mother. (Margaret Colin)
Looking after her younger sister Lily (Regan Arnold) and having no social life outside of school, she longs for the carefree days when her parents were together.
Enter English teacher Tony Auster (David Strathairn) who inspires Meg to enter a poetry contest. He acts a mentor and will inevitably judge her in the competition. Meg has made a connection with what she desires most, a father figure.
This is in time shattered when Meg realizes Tony's true intent.
Bruckner give a sincere portrayal by simply dropping us into a world with situations all to real. Vulnerable, strong, talented and willing to do anything necessary (legal or otherwise.) to achieve her goals Bruckner's Meg takes us through the gamut of human emotions while remaining grounded. This is one of the new school actress that will take the film industry by storm. And she will do it with her clothes on.
I have to give David Strathairn his due. Roles where you inspire young girls to get in touch with their inner poet, while you are getting in touch with your inner pedophile are, to say the least risky. ( I was never able to look at Richard Masur quite the same way after his role in Fallen Angel' )
Margaret Colin, in the only serious movie I have seen her in, proves to us our parents, no mater what illusions we have of them, are sometimes frail, fallible people just like the rest of us.
As little sad but so well put together, Blue Car is a testament to independent film making and worth and hour and a half of your time.
3 dicks up (Out of five)
Go to the Movies www.theflickdick@hotmail.com
Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation (2004)
I"m bad to the bone!!!!
Starship Troopers II - Hero of the Federation. Directed by Phil Tippett Runtime: To bloody long!
What do you get when you drop a dozen, gun toting, slap heads into an over sized juice can, in the middle of an alien desert, surrounded by a few thousand minivan sized arachnids?! Thrown in some lousy acting and a budget supplemented with Canadian Tire money, and yes, you guessed it!!! - Starship Troopers II - Hero of the Federation.
This is the type of film that makes you hate sequels. While I admit, the original, 1997 film directed by Paul Verhoven, had its many flaws ( i.e. P**s poor acting, cardboard characters, and a neo fascist ideology that still inspires me to vote Liberal.) it was good popcorn fun.
It's misguided little brother can't even say that.
With respect to the aforementioned fascist ideology (Which was expressed as caution in Heinlein's 1959 novel. And glorified in Verhoven's film.) S.T.2 has it only redeeming quality in the character of Capt Dax. Albeit a small one. Though not a great character, we still mange to feel a little sorry for a man who has seen past the hype of the global propaganda, and revealed the, 'Federation Meat Grinder' for what it is. Cliché yes, but at least a half hearted stab at disillusionment.
Many will check out this film out of perverse curiosity. Or a simple desire to see Kelly Carlson in the buff. Be forewarned light bulbs weren't included in the Canadian Tire money budget.
Flaccid (Out of five)
Go to the movies
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
Weak......
The Day After Tomorrow
Directed by Roland Emmerich Runtime: 124 min
Real generosity toward the future lies in giving all to the present. - Albert Camus
I know it's very first year university of me the begin with a quote. But for reasons beyond my under standing, It has been lingering in my mind.
It's simple, prophetic logic, to which most would agree on in principal, speaks clearly to environmental issues which are the basis of this film.
We see the torrential down pour, the tornados etc. Scary, very real stuff.
But I wonder how many of us would accept the proposed sacrifices?
Who would be willing to give up the SUV or the air conditioner not just for the sake of our own children, but for the children of many a faceless individual.
Not many I imagine
We see this in the films opening frames. A brilliant scientist (Played by the loveable dufuss Dennis Quaid.) with provocative global warming evidence, is marginalize (as are so many environmentalist / scientists) by state officials, who justifiably so, wish to protect the world economy. But this comes at the expense of the environment. A little ostrich syndrome.
History has shown us precaution is never a bad investment. Maybe not as profitable as clear cutting and strip mining, but profitable nonetheless.
Which begs the question, can we do anything to ensure a healthy, ever changing and highly unpredictable biosphere? Should we sacrifice billions of dollars to postpone the inevitable, natural evolution of our planets climate? Or are we, through global warming , precipitating our own destruction?
This is somewhat aptly conveyed. Whether we could change our ways or not is no longer the issue. The world is indeed powerless to stop the trend and is forced to face the grim reality. The northern hemisphere is lost. And all we can do is retreat. The characters in this picture are set against a cataclysmic backdrop. It's the characters reaction to this new environment (which is the real star of the picture) is what, sould make it interesting. This is where it falls flat. Emmerich has managed to pull every cliché out of the proverbial book, in attempt to provoke a tear jerk affect that, due to lack of character development, fails miserably. The characters are so poorly defined we seldom identify with or care if they die. Quaids cross country trek, to save his estranged son, though well motivated is clearly asinine. But the kind of asinine we can identify with.
(I don't have kids of my own but I'm pretty sure I would trek across half a frozen continent to rescue one of my sisters kids.) This is a survival film. But it stops right where the survival gets interesting. I would like to see what kind of world would evolve with North-Western occupation of the third world. Can we believe that after the US has retreated to Mexico and Central America they would be content to be guests? Or would they slowly begin to usurp control from their host nations? Would they have a choice, or become assimilated themselves? This is where the real drama would lie.
Sadly not much money could be made from a film like that. We will have to content with speculation. Or we can deny prudence and leave our children to bare witness to cataclysm.
I'll take a page from Emmerich's cliché book and say, the film left me a little cold'
1 dick up! (Out of five)
Go to the movies
Theflickdick@hotmail.com
Troy (2004)
Who has read the Illiad?
Troy.
Directed by Wolfgang Petersen 163 min.
Who has read the Illiad?
Not many people in current viewing audiences I imagine. I have had two botched attempts in high school and a recent skimming that left me with residual cerebral numbing. It doesn't surprise, though it is a fantastic story, it was written for an audience who's great, great grand children are still complete strangers to our modern society. So to convey such a epic it seems only logical that it be presented to a new generation (millennium for that matter) in film.
I'm always a little hesitant when it comes to film epics. Some do hold the majesty and literary integrity that we associate with Greek, Egyptian or biblical legends. (E.g.- The Ten Commandments) Some boldly fall flat on their bushy bearded, porcelain faces.
Troy is a move in between that.
Wolfgang Peterson has directed many enjoyable films (Most notably 1985's `Enemy Mine'.) More interested in story and character development than on gratuitous violence, this formula is not lost here.
Not bowing to a studios typical `Renny Harlin' bankable style Peterson manages to bring a steady if not slightly light handed approach. Large battle scenes start out in truly epic form but reveal the sad reality of ancient warfare. Brutal, bloody and slow. Smaller scale battles (E.g. the Myrmidon assault on the beach of Troy) and individual fight scenes are choreographed and filmed to perfection.
Brad Pitt is never quite convincing as Achilles. Aesthetically and athletically perfect he seems to lack the necessary depth necessary for his character. No doubt a casting decision based on box office cred, of which Pitt has in spades.
Pitt's performance is offset by the work of Eric Bana in the role of Hector. Bana's performance outshines even Brian Cox (Agamemnon) and Peter O'Tool (Priam) He doesn't suffer fools except for when the fool is his king and father. Tactical judgements are left in the hands of astrologers. And Priam is, to Hectors chagrin, all to willing to listen.
Loyal and skilled we see Hector as a man who would rather stay at home and raise his family than go to war. Torn between his love for his brother and the safety of Troy he sees through Agamemnon's plot to use the abduction of Helen as an excuse to invade Troy and control all of the Aegean.
Troy has some huge literary flaws that somehow, do not detract from the finished product. For one Hector does not kill Memelaus. After the ten year war (which feels like 10 minutes in this movie) Memelaus confronts Helen. He intends to murder her but is captivated by her naked beauty and she is spared.
The most interesting is Achilles is killed, by Paris, but before the Trojan Horse is brought into the city.
You can kill of Achilles early , but you bloody well can't kill of Pitt to soon.
The score is nice but a little to reminiscent of `Gladiator'
Troy is not a bad movie but not a particularly good one either. Promising much and delivering little the big screen offers little in spectacle. Be patient, wait for the DVD so you can view those well defined abs over and over while bypassing the tangled romance scenes that leave you longing for the arrival of the horse.
2 d*@#s up! (Out of five)
Go to the movies!
TheFlickDick@hotmail.com
Van Helsing (2004)
It the mash! The monster mash!
Van Helsing
Directed by Stephen Sommers Runtime: 132 min
OK, lets face it. This film is pap. It's cliché, hokie, and silly all at the same time. It's a CGI simulacra filled with attractive, athletic men and beautiful women with luscious curves and outfits that leave just a smidgen to the imagination.
Non-stop violence, bloodshed not to mention 5 classic literature (One is pleasant surprise!) icons that never seem to tire of constant celluloid exploitation.
Maybe that's why it was so much bloody Fun!
Being the horror fanatic that I am It was hard for me to contain my excitement when I heard of this film. However over the few months that preceded its release that excitement gave way to scepticism the more I learned about the intended plot and characters. Incorporating so many horror legends in one film that was barely 2 hrs long? No sure if that would work.
Though I'm still not sure that it acquitted its self on those grounds the plot threads do tend to touch and cross but not unduly or clumsily: No-one legend is left out in the cold. Each has a logical place (though be it stretched within the confines of the already fantastical plot) And all have a go at the spotlight.
Hugh Jackman has found a wonderful vehicle to pour all the angst that he never got to express as Wolverine. With a spaghetti western inspired costume and weapons that even by today's standards defy the laws of physics and technology, he nonetheless manages to keep us entertained.
But why the hell is he using a American accent?
Richard Roxburgh as Dracula gives a level, measured performance that never goes over the top. But the look is never quite convincing and never intimidating.
Kate Beckinsale exists solely in this film to give VanHelsing a potential love interest and keep us all awake and the 14 -35 crowd interested.
Boos for the in and out, ultra fake Eastern-Euro accent. Kudos for doing a great deal of her own stunts.
The essence of the Frankenstein monster is effectively and expertly portrayed considering the amount of screen time the charter is given to develop.
And a perversely enjoyable performance given By Robbie Coltrain as a character I won't reveal at this time.
I'm a werewolf biased person. So I won't bore you with how much I loved the wolf.
OK, maybe a little. A newly imagined man-wolf-wolf-man morph was inspiring! And the sheer ferocity of the creature makes you want to get on both knees with respect. The only character that inspires fear on any level.
Over all I think it was money well spent. Ten bucks and time that would have been wasted in front on the tube, XBOX controller in hand.
2.5 D@*%s up! (Out of five)
Go to the movies!
Alien (1979)
When your 11 everybody can hear you scream.
Alien 1979- Directed by Ridley Scot Runtime - 116 min (director's cut)
When you're 11.
. Every one can hear you scream
In the summer of 1979 my friend David and I hopped on a east bound bus to a local theatre where Dave's brother worked. We bought tickets (Blazing Saddles- Remember, it was 1979!) and were discreetly escorted to our seats with the help of Dave's older brother. We sat in the back giddy, and full of anticipation.
Were going to see Alien.
117 minutes later the giddy was but a memory. I distinctly remember walking the 7 km's home (Dave opted for the bus.) in full daylight, sweating, scared out of my wits.
So began my love-hate relationship with Ridley Scots classic 'Alien'.
Fast forward 25 years and this movie still has the capability to haunt me. Albeit the experience is more visceral than craven.
From the opening frames, with it's hieroglyphic like credits and haunting score complete with insect clicks and murmurs, it establishes an atmosphere of un-easyness that never subsides.
Weavers breakout performance, combined with the brilliantly original designs of then unknown Hans Rudy Giger (without whom this film may have been destined for mediocrity) produced a cinematic classic that has stood the test of time. Spawning increasingly dismal sequels but defying the stigma of remake. A testament to filmmakers craft of a bygone era.
Scott's bold, uncompromising attitude at the helm of the project defied conventional film-making and traditional thinking of the era. (In my mind this is when the woman's movement began.) Moody sets and largely restrained performances give Alien a gritty wake up call to many an idyllic futurist. Trends that we see today, hark all to loudly to a future imperfect. Former child actress Cartwright and British thespian Holm provide performances of studied, well-defined characters. Where Kotto and Stanton, as the surly labourers, seem almost improvisational. Giving a 'blue collar in space' or 'truckers in space' feel that writer O'Bannon intended.
Comic relief could almost come a cross as unseemly. (e.g. The character of Hudson in Aliens) Belaying the serious plight of these 7 doomed astronauts.
( Not to mention having your sense of disbelief bust a leaf spring)
The Directors cut has introduced additional footage integrated into the film. Most notably the much rumoured death scene of Capt. Dallas. And a magnificent shot of a seemingly sessile Alien as it stalks a oblivious Harry Dean Stanton. However these additions do detract to the pacing of the finished product making the 1979 theatrical release (Sharpened to perfection without any annoying 'digital' fixes and a DTS soundtrack to boot) a far better choice.
If you manage to see Alien in it's theatrical re-release you know few films benefit from being in the seclusion of a darkened movie theatre. Where there is no escape and everyone can hear you scream!
5 D*7?Ks up! (Out of five) Go to the movies
Alien (1979)
When your 11 everybody can hear you scream.
Alien 1979- Directed by Ridley Scot Runtime - 116 min (director's cut)
When you're 11.
. Every one can hear you scream
In the summer of 1979 my friend David and I hopped on a east bound bus to a local theatre where Dave's brother worked. We bought tickets (Blazing Saddles- Remember, it was 1979!) and were discreetly escorted to our seats with the help of Dave's older brother. We sat in the back giddy, and full of anticipation.
Were going to see Alien.
117 minutes later the giddy was but a memory. I distinctly remember walking the 7 km's home (Dave opted for the bus.) in full daylight, sweating, scared out of my wits.
So began my love-hate relationship with Ridley Scots classic 'Alien'.
Fast forward 25 years and this movie still has the capability to haunt me. Albeit the experience is more visceral than craven.
From the opening frames, with it's hieroglyphic like credits and haunting score complete with insect clicks and murmurs, it establishes an atmosphere of un-easyness that never subsides.
Weavers breakout performance, combined with the brilliantly original designs of then unknown Hans Rudy Giger (without whom this film may have been destined for mediocrity) produced a cinematic classic that has stood the test of time. Spawning increasingly dismal sequels but defying the stigma of remake. A testament to filmmakers craft of a bygone era.
Scott's bold, uncompromising attitude at the helm of the project defied conventional film-making and traditional thinking of the era. (In my mind this is when the woman's movement began.) Moody sets and largely restrained performances give Alien a gritty wake up call to many an idyllic futurist. Trends that we see today, hark all to loudly to a future imperfect. Former child actress Cartwright and British thespian Holm provide performances of studied, well-defined characters. Where Kotto and Stanton, as the surly labourers, seem almost improvisational. Giving a 'blue collar in space' or 'truckers in space' feel that writer O'Bannon intended.
Comic relief could almost come a cross as unseemly. (e.g. The character of Hudson in Aliens) Belaying the serious plight of these 7 doomed astronauts.
( Not to mention having your sense of disbelief bust a leaf spring)
The Directors cut has introduced additional footage integrated into the film. Most notably the much rumoured death scene of Capt. Dallas. And a magnificent shot of a seemingly sessile Alien as it stalks a oblivious Harry Dean Stanton. However these additions do detract to the pacing of the finished product making the 1979 theatrical release (Sharpened to perfection without any annoying 'digital' fixes and a DTS soundtrack to boot) a far better choice.
If you manage to see Alien in it's theatrical re-release you know few films benefit from being in the seclusion of a darkened movie theatre. Where there is no escape and everyone can hear you scream!
5 D*7?Ks up! (Out of five) Go to the movies