odor007 Reviews

Spun (2002)

POWERFULLY WATCHABLE AND SINCERE, YET INCOMPLETE...

[25 July 2004]

Director Jonas Akerlund, with a background in music videos, employs a select variety of sound, camera, and editing techniques, not to mention some effectively trippy cartoon graphics, to inject his vision of the crystal-meth binge into our psyche. Couple this with a band of completely eccentric meth-junkies, visceral costume work, a fantastic and eerie soundtrack by Billy Corgan, and bleached, washed-out cinematography, capturing the dull hues and tints of the grime infesting each characters' life, and the result is a compulsively watchable, almost addictive little piece of drug cinema. It's an homage to a wide array of films, most obviously Requiem For A Dream and Pink Flamingo's, but this isn't pretentious movie-making; the intentions are sincere.

Story-wise, the film doesn't have much going for it. Granted, many scenes are utterly spontaneous and enjoyable, and the dialogue has a certain consistency, but this film takes pride in the fact that it's a sensational experience, perhaps creating a parallel to the reved-up world of amphetamine abusers, and doesn't seem to care too much about story.

This, unfortunately, is the film's downfall, and it's greatest failure. By the end, the audience isn't sure whether this is a film that embraces the drug world, making it seem lighter and cooler than it really is, or a film condoning all substance use. Maybe it's a bit of both, and that's the issue - I feel that making a drug film is making a social statement. The movie needs to clearly either embrace drugs (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, for example), or explain why they ruin lives (Requiem For A Dream). "Spun" does neither. It's an experience, but because of it's lack of moral structure, one that you may soon forget.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003)

A LOW POINT IN THE CAREER OF RODRIGUEZ...YUCK!

[19 September 2003]

I loved both "El Mariachi" as well as "Desperado." They had a charming simplicity, a consistent filmmaking style, and fantastic action scenes. "Desperado," besides being packed to the brim with inventive action scenes, also occasionally slowed the pace, allowing the audience to enjoy some hilarious Tarantinoesque character scenes which are stuck in my mind, such as the opening scene with Steve Buscemi or the bar scene with Tarantino himself. Still, to this day, very few action movies I find as enjoyable as "Desperado," which was made for a measly few million.

Now, with a budget more around $26 million, Rodriguez attempts to end the mariachi trilogy with a bang, desperately trying to incorporate plenty of great characters, a complex political plot, and of course, some serious action - yet all of these attempts fail with the exception of Johnny Depp. The plot and story development are such

incomprehensible hack jobs that by the finale, no one has a damn clue what's going on. Maybe is doesn't matter, maybe confusion was the point, but then why write it? Doesn't Rodriguez realize that the success of his last two mariachi movies was in large part due to their simple stories? The plot also allows very little room for either Banderas or Hayek - Banderas seems like a supporting actor, only coming on the screen to kill a few bad guys and leaving the real acting to Depp. Salma Hayek basically has a cameo role, but has no lines, and only appears in flashbacks. So does Depp succeed with all the screen time? Most definitely - he's such a fantastic actor that even throwing him in such a mucky film can make things much better. To be honest, if it weren't for Depp's precise and direct performance, I probably would have left the theater around a half hour into it - Depp definitely saves the film.

Now onto the action, which, unfortunately, is another disappointment. Why? All because of their editing. Rodriguez apparently wasn't satisfied directing, writing, shooting, producing and scoring the film - he just had to edit it as well. Having an outside view editing a film can make things so much better - some of the best films of all time were created because of this essential collaboration between a professional editor and director working closely together. The action scenes were obviously edited by a real amateur, and it was also obvious the director edited them - an outside editor cuts things out objectively, while the director wants to cram all his ingenious shots into every scene - nothing goes to waste. So what is the result? MTV-style editing during every action scene, where angles changed so rapidly I had no idea what was going on except that I felt sick - it was almost laughable. Literally, no shot lasts more than .5 seconds. I will say one positive thing though - the movie did have a visual

luster...shooting in digital video was a nice choice, and everything does look really good when the editing doesn't ruin it. The cinematography, although visually pleasant, was another bad thing about the movie; by this time Rodriguez has made enough movies to have learned all the dumb little stylistic camera tricks in the book, and its unfortunate that he has no discretion. "Desperado" had visual continuity, while "Once Upon...." is the product of a filmmaker who obviously never went to film school, and who's philosophy on shooting is simply to point the camera at things with cool angles.

The other thing I couldn't stand was how during every action scene Rodriguez wrote some silly little slapstick-type thing to happen. "Desperado" had action scenes that were fun based on their inventive style - the fun WAS the action, whereas in "Once Upon...." Rodriguez knows the action is dull, and throws in stupid comedy, which only results in making the audience that much more unengaged.

Rourke, Mendes and Dafoe were all good and added some padding to the film, but the casting of Iglesias was such a big mistake - another example of nothing being taken seriously. Anyway, I definitely don't recommend this film - Depp is the only element of the film worth paying for, but overall I rate it like a 3/10.

Natural Born Killers (1994)

A VIVID AND INGENIUS BARRAGE OF ALL THINGS HUMAN...

[18 July 2003]

"Natural Born Killers" is without a doubt my personal favorite Oliver Stone film. What Stone has managed to do is mold an original and expressive film using violence not only as a plot structure but also as a creative womb. He uses violence to demonstrate his view of modern culture, society, and media. The effect is a dazzling and dizzying explosion of cinematic art, and one of the most thought-provoking films ever made. No matter whether you love it or hate it (and trust me, there's no ground in between), I don't think anyone can deny that "Natural Born Killers" is fascinatingly raw, unflinching, lingering, and in its own way, a sort of generation-defining rampage of violence and love.

I strongly suggest seeing this film for its unbound and captivating acting, its many political messages that tear through the aesthetic shell, its chaotic visual effect, and its overall assault on the senses. A haunting, shocking, horrifying, addictive, humorous movie that has been wrongly brushed aside.

Poltergeist (1982)

SILLY AND HIGHLY OVERRATED, YET IN THE END SOMEHOW SATISFYING

[16 July 2003]

The generation that was young during the cultural movement of the 1960's and early 1970's now are all in their 50's and 60's, and have young children (teenagers and kids in their early-twenties). This group of young adults, born in the eighties and raised in the 90's, are commonly considered the generation after the generation during Vietnam, JFK, and so on. But what about those in the middle of these two generations? Those that were born in the 70's and raised in the 80's? I believe that this group of individuals, now in their 30's, has been forgotten. Why? Because the 80's was and is totally insignificant, and doesn't even equal half of the importance of the 60's, 70's, or 90's. Should we even consider those raised in the 1980's a generation? Regardless, they definitely consider themselves a generation, and within that generation there are favorite 80's films. "Poltergeist," loved by those young during the 80's, is now mostly considered a silly and overrated escapade by all those that belong to another generation.

The rumor is that although Tobe Hooper technically directed this movie, the creative control and input from Spielberg was so concentrated and numerous that in some circles he's credited as co-directing the film. And by the end of this picture Spielberg's creative control is so blatantly appearant that it's sickening. This isn't surprising, considering Spielberg wrote and produced the film, but if Hooper was left on his own I believe this movie would have been much better. The reason for this is because Spielberg, widely considered the most formulaic and corny filmmaker alive (definitely so by yours truly), couldn't decide with "Poltergeist" whether he wanted to make a truly scary horror film or a fun-for-the-whole-family recreation of a Disney Land ride (complete with bright flashing lights and skeletons). Some parts of the film lean towards scary, and then Spielberg feels he's pushing a boundary or breaking routine, so he throws in bouncy music and comic punch-lines. Not to mention that there's literally about fifteen minutes of character development before the bizarre occurrences pop-up, and it takes about 10 seconds for the little girl (who, just like in "The Shining," made two years prior, can sense supernatural happenings) to convince her mom of what is actually going on ("It's the TV people mom"). So, after miniscule development, and after play-it-safe plot evolution, it's time for Mr. Lucas & ILM to come and save the day with some truly good special effects (one of the only positive things about this film in my opinion). But even in the midst of "terror," none of the performances are really convincing, and because of the lack in story, none of the haunted house-type situations seem conceivable. If you're 12 or 13, you'll probably really like this film (or if you were raised in the 80's), but if you're a more discerning film lover, comparisons to "The Exorcist," "The Shining," "Rosemary's Baby," and the rest of the greats are inevitable; and, unfortunately, "Poltergeist," can't stand a chance.

This film has great FX for its time, a few semi-creepy scenes, and one or two interesting cinematic moments, so I recommend it. But don't expect what you've heard, because it just ain't that good of a movie. 6.5/10

Hulk (2003)

A Film Bound By Its Own Genre...

[10/10 · 25 June 2003]

Ang Lee's "The Hulk" is a film that's so good, so well acted, so well written, and so engaging that I found myself constantly wishing that it wasn't centered on a silly green superhero. "The Hulk" is a film that puts all the recent comic adaptations to shame ("Spider-Man" and "Daredevil"), and is definitely the best superhero movie since Tim Burton's "Batman."

So why has this film been receiving such poor press? Why are so many people on this site bashing everything from the script to the CGI? It's simple really: American anti-intellectualism. Those that liked "Spider-Man" enjoyed it for the exact reasons intelligent people hated it--it was hollow, predictable, had no real suspense or character development, was flat and tawdry, and the action seemed crammed in just to keep the ignorant from being bored. Some claim that it was this fluff, this lack-of-seriousness, that made the movie "great": it treated the material as a comic book movie should be treated. In a way, I agree with this way of thinking, but only with a comic character like "Spider-Man" would this work: he's a superhero that, unlike the Hulk, has no dimension. He's a silly and flat character, and in a way, that should translate into a silly and flat movie (which it did). This is not to say that "Spider-Man" couldn't be better, because I feel it could have in a million ways. Hulk, on the other hand, isn't a good guy that fights crime day and night--he's far more complex and interesting. He's probably more bad than good, because his uncontrollable rages result in unprecedented destruction. Instead of simply catering to morons by having the movie be non-stop smashing, Ang Lee and his screenwriter James Schamus decided to research the character and create a film more about his struggle than his tumultuous panics. This care for the character Bruce Banner, his background, and his life shine through every frame, and this creates a sensation that's very rare in comic flicks.

Yet even Ang Lee, art-house master, knows that a summer comic blockbuster wouldn't be complete without some serious action, and the final action sequences are the most stunning and visually imaginative since Ang Lee's own "Crouching Tiger." In one scene, the Hulk, who can jump miles, jumps from a rocky canyon region to a silent desert while loads of planes and helicopters pursue him, trying to blow him to green sludge. For a moment, as he lands in this serene desert, he has lost his enemies, and he softly tumbles down a sandy hill. In the background we can hear the oncoming bombing assault. It's scenes like this that made "The Hulk" so enjoyable, fresh, and ingenious. Ang Lee only gives us action after he has invested our care into his characters, and it means so much more then the boring action scenes performed in "Spider-Man."

As far as the acting goes, it's top-notch for sure. Some claim that while Eric Bana under-acts, both Nick Nolte and Sam Elliott overact. Personally, I think this goes against the theory that comic films should be fun--overacting is what it's all about. Nick Nolte was so effectively creepy and bizarre that for me he carried the movie. Jennifer Connelly was beautiful and touching, and when the film was over she had made more of a mark than other actresses in recent action films that sit and weep on the sidelines. Sam Elliott was purely captivating, and for the first time in years captured the difficult decisions and emotions that are inherent in the military field within a very miniscule timeframe. And finally, Eric Bana, as Bruce Banner: I felt his performance was just what it should have been. He didn't try to steal the show from his green counterpart, and he stayed true to the original Marvel Bruce Banner: calm, reserved and shy (which obviously creates a parallel to Hulk). Schamus's script investigated more emotion and motivation behind the Hulk than any superhero film I think I've ever seen: and it's this serious tone that makes the movie so above and beyond the rest. This doesn't ruin the film at all (as some say), but just makes the movie that much more fascinating.

As far as the graphics go, I felt that they were FAR better than that of "Spider-Man" (where I was distracted by how bad the effects were). You can see just how difficult it must have been to create the hulk character, and the way he doesn't just appear but also interacts with his environment is great. Yes, there were times during action scenes were he seemed to be made of silly putty, but they never got as flawed as in "Spider-Man."

And finally, Ang Lee's hold on the film is crucial: the way he films it mimes a comic the entire time: wide angles and vibrant frames, and the editing swipes/fades/dissolves/ and split screens really recreate this sensation of turning the pages of a comic (I'm sure the creators of both of the last comic films wish they had thought of this). Great stuff.

In the end the movie had a great blend of seriousness and hokeyness, and made a far greater impression than any of the competition. Although it wasn't a great movie, it was a great action movie. I do feel that it was a film that was so good it felt limited by it's own source material, but that's complimentary.

Narc (2002)

A GRITTY AND UNFLINCHING URBAN ADRENALINE RUSH...

[25 June 2003]

Right off the bat "Narc" grabs your gut with a horrifically violent opening chase scene through the gritty urban back alleys of freezing Detroit. Once this primary sequence of events is completed, you feel like taking a breather, but the director has other plans for us; he builds premise and characters in a fantastically rapid and direct way, leaving out the baggage and bringing what's important. After a half hour into this raw narcotics movie, we relate to the struggles of the characters, understand what's at hand with the upcoming investigation, and are totally involved. What's to come is some very solid acting (good all around, but Liotta definitely steals the show), and enough intertwining plot twists to keep us guessing throughout. Although Carnahan can obviously direct, he's not the greatest writer, and the "who done it" plot seems somewhat elementary in its construction. This isn't to say that it's un-engaging or predictable, because it's certainly not, but it is the story itself that seems to keep this film from greatness. It's probably the best movie out that's available to rent, especially if you like unflinching suspense.

With so many terrible actors and directors currently in the business, Carnahan seems like a God-sent: someone who has that instinctive visual imagination that makes movies so addictive and enough intelligence to keep his films intact. "Narc," his second feature, has a rare combination of ferocity and gentleness; Carnahan seems to know not only how to construct an involving investigation, but also how to convey the complexities of the characters when not on duty. I give it a 7 of 10.

Panic Room (2002)

NOT GREAT CINEMA, BUT UNDENIABLY ADDICTIVE...

[19 May 2003]

Just the thought of "Panic Room" without Fincher at the helm is spooky--imagining Michael Bay or James Cameron or the likes in charge gives me amnesia. The possibilities for shredding this plot into total sludge are numerous, and it's a blessing that the director was someone who knows how to make an engaging, direct, and to-the-point film. And Fincher delivers, as always, with finesse and precision, making "Panic Room" his second best feature, second only to the gut-wrenching "Seven." Fincher handled this script with his unique visionairy style, and the effect is a cool attention to detail and great lightening/camera work. True--the plot had plenty of holes. BUT...it did provide edge-of-your-seat suspense and gripping plot twists. For the most part, the unfolding events were believable, and the ending was flawless. The ingenius cast performed right on target, and shaped unique characters out of an extreme situation. Bottom line? Don't miss it. It's one of the better recent-releases available to rent, and provides great fun that'll probably make you consider your very own "Panic Room."

Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown (1988)

Another brilliant film from Almodovar...

[4 May 2003]

Almodovar is one of those great foreign directors that makes us all think...why isn't American cinema this good anymore? Witty, honest, quirky, profound, truthful and dramatic, a film from Almodovar is always a unique and refreshing experience. The way he's evolved as a director over the past three decades is fascinating--compare, for example, "Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown," "All About My Mother," and his newest film, "Talk to Her." He's been all over the map, and the gorgeously slow camera movements along with the brutally honest script featured in "Talk to Her" seem to come from an entirely different source than the same director who made the hectic comedy "Women on the Verge..." He's gone from hilarious frenetic slapstick to a certain gay simplicity in "All About..." to the stunning emotional array in "Talk to Her." Yet what's interesting is that his career hasn't progressed from bad to good, or vice versa, as so many others has; his films have always been original and lovely, yet when compared, they all have startling differences in genre and pace.

Anyway, I highly recommend this movie, or anything Almodovar has ever made...he's one of the world's great directors, and his movies shouldn't be missed. His

communication with his actors and his artistic grasp on his projects really become noticeable, and watching Almodovar films is like an instruction course for those interested in becoming filmmakers. See it. ..

Pearl Harbor (2001)

POSSIBLY THE WORST "FILM" IN THE LAST CENTURY...

[1/10 · 3 May 2003]

This movie doesn't deserve my time or my thought (or anyone else's for that matter), yet I feel the need to save my fellow mankind from degrading trash like "Pearl Harbor," so I'm simply going to write a to-the-point review. First, the single positive element this film has going for it are the special effects. They were fantastic in the one scene of the film that they needed to be--the prolonged action scene. Yet I must ask...because this movie is about such an integral and vital part of history, yet is so appallingly horrendous in its acting, directing, and story, aren't these great special effects a complete waste? The film makes it abundantly clear that the makers of this movie care nothing about the significance of the events at Pearl Harbor, but solely about gaudy imagery and box-office dough. If this is the case, and boy is it ever, these special effects aren't in the picture to capture the emotions of a certain time and place, but rather to keep the ignorant drones that make up the majority of American society content in their seats. The special effects here serve offensive purposes and are utterly drowned in the midst of a plot (saying this movie has a plot is a massive compliment on my part) that is so terrible one can't even come to appreciate the effects. I can envision the makers of this film predicting that audiences would be bored after awhile, and the timing of the battle scene is precise in a way only Hollywood can be-- the effects aren't intended to be meaningful or historically accurate; they're just to try and keep us from storming out of the theater. Anyway, I'm not even going to go into the acting, story or directing...take my word for it, they were all awful. A handful of clever camera shots and wide, colorful cinematography were an agreeable viewing experience, yet in the end merely flaunted the film's high budget. The cute lil' threesome leads represent the future of terrible cornball cinema, and the Michael Bay/Bruckheimer combo was almost too much for my stomach to take. Please, if you have a brain, don't bother renting this movie. Maybe if you're writing a paper on the formula of bad films, then its ok, but otherwise, let this movie collect dust on the video store shelf. I especially don't recommend this movie if you know more-than-average about history, or if you're Japanese. The movie paints a lovely patriotic picture of the conniving Japanese, hell-bent on destruction on the first half...but then, later on, we get the famous "woke a sleeping giant quote"....oh, isn't it cute? The little Japanese, always filmed in robes sitting in a circle in some ancient outdoor meeting ground, have learned their lesson. Uh....I'm afraid things didn't actually happen like this people. Does anyone know what stereotypes are? This movie made America look like a wonderful combo of heroes and victims, and, although people think it captured history flawlessly, it neglected to mention that America went on to drop nuclear bombs on multiple Japanese cities, killing hundreds of times the amount of Americans killed during Pearl Harbor. The movie dedicated itself to showing the events leading up to Pearl Harbor (with the nauseating parallel plot of a 1940's love triangle), and then drops history with America as the hero's. I can't go on...

Contempt (1963)

A BORING, DULL, PRETENTIOUS, PREDICTIBLE WASTE.

[13 April 2003]

I'm sorry, but I have to voice my true opinions of this film. I can already hear the angry cries from fans, ready and willing to tear my head off for insulting such a "masterpiece." But please, spare me the hate mail, arguments and violent demands--just let it be. After all, this is merely my opinion!

Now down to business--I absolutely hated every second of this movie. In direct comparison to other films of the same time hailed (and actually deserving) of their revolutionary and genius status (works by Truffaut, Bergman, and Fellini come to mind), Godard's "Contempt" is a plain and flat examination of nothingness, and is therefore not much more than a torture to view. I desperately tried to love this film, and I really attempted to ponder and think of it as thought provoking art. I give credit to Godard for being avant-garde and experimental, possibly even ahead of his time, but the film only comes across as pompous movie making. I can envision Godard giving himself a pat on the back for being such a clever guy, and this narcissism tears through the celluloid, eventually catering primarily to narcissistic audiences that, just as Godard must have done, believed themselves to be nothing short of ground-breaking academics and ingenious intellectuals.

The film, when it's not way off track and stumbling, centers on an utterly disgusting and intolerable married couple--and we pay the $3.00 rental fee basically to see both of these self-obsessed grunts arguing non-stop for two hours. Is this cinema at its best? Is it beautifully realized art? Is this a brilliant filmmaker, unleashed, and on the top of his game? I really hope the answer to all these questions is no. I hated the characters, the annoying "experimental" color changes, the flat acting, the tawdry cinematography...am I missing something? Last weekend I had the pleasure of renting "8 1/2." Comparing the two films was inevitable, simply because they both share a great reputation and both are from Europe and were made in 1963. Fellini's film is truly a masterpiece--pulsating with life, joyous and fun, comic and dramatic, dreamy and artistic--this movie represents film at its best. "Contempt" falls flat on its face in direct comparison, and although they are very different films, I have to ask; if one film is so amazing and and other seems so dead and lacking, what's the point of the latter?

This is at best a good character-examination and a tormenting look at the anxiousness, paranoia, and questioning that comes with many marriages--but on film it just didn't seem coherent or feasible. It would have worked better as a book...no, wait, scratch that--it was a book before it was a film...so what did Godard find so fascinating about the book in the first place? Maybe he forgot to incorporate the passions he must have felt for the novel within the movie. After all, it must be very fatiguing constantly showing the world how much of a genius you are...

Phone Booth (2002)

WICKEDLY ENTERTAINING, BUT FAR FROM A GREAT FILM...

[11 April 2003]

This film follows in the footsteps and even surpasses some of the films of the last decade dedicating and priding themselves simply on a highly entertaining plot (both "Speed" and "Panic Room" come to mind). Although none of these films are truly amazing films (duh....), they are very fun if you're looking for a good use of $10 and two hours at the movies. "Phone Booth," ending after only about an hour and twenty minutes, succeeds where "Speed" and "Panic Room" could not--it never lags, and doesn't try to wrap everything up in a corny Hollywood bundle. From the first frame to the last you are entirely engaged and hardly can wait for the next plot development. "Phone Booth" is indeed very intense and almost so much so that at times it's hard to watch. As with all these rollercoaster films the dialogue was only average, but "Phone Booth" does blow-away its predecessors in two very important categories: Script complexity and quality of acting. Both Farrell and Whitaker are fantastic, and don't just make the movie believable, but really a nail biting experience. Farrell's transformation from a cocky and pretentious playboy to a fearful victim to a man pushed to his limits was truly solid, and finally establishes him as a fine actor (if only he could choose his projects better...Daredevil??). My real problem with the film was the complete hack direction job by Joel Schumacher...lime green split screens and other equally nauseating cheap effects prove that the director has no respect for the intelligence level of his audiences, and reminded me of the 1970's sex-ed films I was forced to watch in junior high. Schumacher obviously likes Farrell, and I will give credit to the director for bringing out a great star-performance as well as solid supporting roles. I also enjoyed the stable and to-the-point cinematography, but Schumacher really made an error with the crappy effects. Where "Speed" and "Panic Room" really failed was their lack of any thought-provoking moments in the script, and "Phone Booth" proved to be a taut physical AND psychological thriller . Anyway, I do suggest this film, rental or theater, as it's a rapid hour and a half and a good use of a few bucks. Very Fun!

The Pianist (2002)

BEAUTIFUL, DISTURBING, FLAWLESS...A MASTERPIECE!

[10/10 · 1 April 2003]

Polanski's "The Pianist" is an absolute masterpiece. There's really no way to describe it without writing pages, but there's a reason it's currently at #45 on imdb's top 100 films ever (and climbing). As a film student, I must say that this is probably the most brilliant direction job in the past two decades...Polanski's absolutely masterful sense of timing, his ingenious attention to detail, his passion, and his care for the actor's craft shines through to the end of this film--every color, every grain, every outfit, every face, every camera shot is an artwork, creating a film experience like few others. This movie also has an incredible combination of joyous scenes, horridly disturbing scenes, and scenes that are so powerful and beautifully-realized that it's hard to take--I've seen many films in my days, and I've cried during about ten of them--usually just teary eyes though. During this film tears were uncontrollably streaming down my face, and I sat in the theater, simply in shock at what an experience this film is. Afterwards, on the trip home with a group of friends, none of us talked once for the mile walk. Once getting home, I was so profoundly moved and had so many thoughts and feelings I couldn't read, watch TV, anything...it all seemed so unimportant and trivial. I was rooting for Almodovar at the Academy Awards for his amazing job on "Hable Con Ella," but I had not yet seen the Pianist--all I have to say is that it deserved to sweep every category of nomination. Brody absolutely, without a doubt deserved his award (his performance was one of the best, most precise, most accurate, and most heart-felt I've ever had the pleasure of watching), and it also deserved the Best Screenplay award. But I have a feeling that not even the Academy, notorious for it's payoffs and balanced out voting tactics, could let the show end without Polanski winning Best Director. The fact that "Chicago" won for Best Picture is a travesty, and I really don't know how that cast got up there and accepted that award, knowing how ridiculous their victory was...but that's the multi-million dollar politics of the Academy Awards. Anyway, I'm rambling, but EVERYONE must see this film--will go down in history as one of Polanski's best, Brody's best, and as one of the greatest cinema accomplishments of all time.

Eraserhead (1977)

Haunting, Inspiring, Genius

[2 January 2003]

David Lynch's "Eraserhead" is a film that stands alone. This is a film that you will never forget--either because you hate it so much and can't believe you just wasted 2 hours of your time, or because you are forever struck by the haunting genius that this film is--as I was. I have never been more terrified than I was while watching this film, and although I saw it some time ago, some of the

images from this film won't escape my head. This film is like a creepy

nightmare, crawling with anxiety. You never know what's going to happen next, and you want to cover your eyes and never set your eyes on any scene from the film again, but the lighting and grainy contrasts of the gorgeous black and white cinematography, along with the fantastic acting force you to keep on watching. I highly recommend this film to all those who love the surreal, experimentation, the world of the bizarre, and film.........yet for those of you that love "The Matrix" and "Pearl Harbor," and heard about this movie from a friend--my advice is to stay far away. Leave this territory to the intellectuals. Enjoy!

8 Mile (2002)

Silly and Ignorant...mediocre at best

[17 November 2002]

I went to see "8 Mile" because of three reasons; 1. Curtis Hanson, the director, who also did the wonderful "LA Confidential." 2. Kim Basinger, who is both beautiful as well as a talented actor. 3. Rodrigo Pierto, the cinematographer, who also did the cinematography for the fabulous, gritty, Mexican film, "Amores Perros." But despite all these pros, the movie was a disappointment. The script was no more than serviceable, and had nothing original or interesting about it. The acting was good from Kim Basinger, but wow--she was so mis-cast that I was surprised--they tried their best to cover her amazing beauty with make up, wrinkles, and dirty clothes, to portray her as a drunken trailer-park mom, but it was obvious she was only a few years older than Eminem himself, and never could be his mom. Mekhi Phifer was by far the best actor in the film, but again, the script was so average that not even his acting abilities could show through the crap. The film centered on the baby-faced (I'm sure neither him nor his fans want to see him that way), wannabe tough-guy Eminem who slowly ruins nearly every positive relationship he has around him, and then has to go back and apologize. During all this conflict, I kept wondering to myself...why should I care whatsoever about some poor white kid that wants to rap and who can't seem to express himself clearly? Besides all this, I dislike rap completely, but believe Eminem to be someone who is changing the music--he doesn't center on girls, cars, and jewelry, and seems to stay true to himself. But I was disappointed to see that the only rapping in the film takes place in the desperately dark and grungy clubs where ignorant verbal battles take place to gain respect in the terd-of-a-neighborhood. The rappers go at it one after the other in these clubs, and the audience eventually chooses who's insults they liked the best.

SPOILERS__ And by the end of the film, we see Eminem win the rap contest and walk back to work. The film seemed too long in the first place because of the lack of action and the horrible dialogue, but by the end the audience needed more--it was too suggestive. The "MC Bob" character was really cliché and stupid--he was the classic "Hollywood" character in these big dramatic films starring someone famous who provides the Jester-like comic relief. He's so annoying that at one point he shoots himself in his groin, and all we can do is laugh at the stupidity of it all. By the end you will leave unsatisfied and wondering--how else could I have spent that $10? I wouldn't even see this again on video. Eminem and Curtin Hanson are money-obsessed sellouts that never should be forgiven for this level of crap. And that's all I gots to say.

Kids (1995)

A MOVIE TARGETED AT EVERYONE, BUT ONLY LOVED BY THE IGNORANT

[6 August 2002]

Kids, a low budget, documentary style film about super rebel teens trying to grow up fast in the big city of New York, is a film that wants to have morals, a point, and shocking imagery, but by the end, is no more than another unintentional celebration of sex, drugs, and uh...skateboarding. Most of the people that have seen this movie seem to be from the good ole' heartland of America, and also seem to wish that this movie really represented the generation of teens today. Most of these people, straight out of Texas, Alabama, and South Carolina, seem to think that New York is really like Kids portrays...teenagers don't go to school, drink alcohol non stop, smoke pot wide open in the streets, p**s on sidewalks, and beat up people in the middle of parks filled with families. Well, I live in New York, and honey, it really ain't like that yo! This movie seems to forget about the police for one thing. In one highly unrealistic scene in the film, *SPOILERS AHEAD* the group of kids that the two main characters hang out with all beat up some black guy, bashing skateboards over his head repeatedly, all because he back talked to one of the little, 115 pound white kids in the "gang." They almost kill the guy! Now, "Kids" in supposed to be a film that has morals and life lessons, but seems only to be exaggerating how wild an urban jungle can really be! I know that if there was a fight, no, make that a beating, in a park, like in the film, anywhere in America, people would brake it up, and police would be called (if they weren't already there), and all these bad ass white kids would be spending a while in jail--now that's realistic, that's true to life--why do people WANT to believe that teenagers really act like the ones in this film? I live in Manhattan, go to high school in Brooklyn, and am 18 years old, and I don't know anyone that acts even close to the kids in this film. The whole point of the film is that Telly, a character that's like a little ball of hormones, has AIDS, has given it to someone already, and is now spreading it around the city. The film mostly follows the period when one of Tellys past love-buddies comes around to warn him of his disease--but at the end of the film, she gets raped while being unconscious, and Telly never finds out--only spreading it to another innocent girl. SHE DIDN'T EVEN WARN HIM AT THE END OF THE FILM; MEANING THAT THE ENTIRE FILM WAS JUST FIGHTING, DRUGS, ALCOHOL, ETC...WITH NO POINT, OR CONSEQUENCE! This may have some juicy hidden symbolism for adults, but for most ignorant teens, watching this movie seems cool--they want to be like the characters in the movie! Plus, Telly, a kid that has sex right and left, would in real life be a virgin until he was 35--he is grimy, pimply, scrawny, and has a lisp--in real life would a little loser like this really have sex with multiple virgins a day? I don't think so hombre. Obviously I'm not a fan of this movie, and I might even like it more if it didn't portray all teenagers as desperately trying to grow up as quickly as possible, experienced in sex, drug-addicts, etc. I also might like it more if so many idiots from Texas didn't think it was so real and revolutionary--THIS WAS A FILM, NOT REAL LIFE! Well, I hope I changed someone's mind.

Monster's Ball (2001)

Solid Acting without a hint of a moral

[27 July 2002]

Monsters Ball, a depressing examination of two humans that find love through sadness, was a good film, but not a great one. Granted, I saw this film with the highest of expectations. I was expecting great directing, a great plot, great dialogue, great cinematography, great acting, and once the movie was finished I was left dissatisfied in some, not all, respects. I did find the cinematography very good. There was a high attention to detail with camera shots, lighting, etc. The camera always stayed there to simply show you what was happening, and there were no stylistic camera moves, and no special effects...the cinematography just served as a way to give perspective on a tragic southern story. I thought the acting was solid, but not fantastic. Billy Bob Thornton was perfect as a character who is somber and drained of emotion, a character which doesn't require the greatest acting range, but didnt need to. He did a good job, but compared to his genius performances in Sling Blade and A Simple Plan, this role wasnt over the top, but I suppose it never needed to be. On the other side, I found Halle Berrys performance exaggerated. She cries and screams and groans, and I almost found it annoying and overdone. I also couldnt get drawn into the film, or the characters, or the plot, all because of horrible casting. Halle Berry is so light skinned, shes almost white, not to mention drop dead gorgeous, so she didnt seem rightly cast as the tragic figure she played. I also found Hanks (Billy Bob Thornton) change from racism to falling in love with a semi black woman to be way too simple and quick. There was no character examination about this life change. The only reason these two people ever came together is because Latisha (Berry), had hit rock bottom in life and she desperately needed someone, anyone, to take care of her. Because shes so beautiful, and because shes not the type of African American woman where you notice the darkness of her skin, of course Hank would quickly change his racist opinions and fall in love with her. Shes gorgeous and he probably just feels like a lucky man. If she was an actress that wasnt so beautiful, and was more noticeably black, that may have added so much more meaning to the film. I do recommend Monsters Ball, but I dont feel it lived up to its promise. Did Berry deserve that Academy Award, now that's the question. I forget who was nominated in the first place as competitors, but based on other films this year I would say probably not, although one can see the work she put into making this film, an effort thats not to be overlooked. I previously believed Halle Berry and Heath Ledger to be overrated in the movie business, but I now respect Halle Berry and Heath Ledger more as actors. Thornton has been much better though. Anyway, I give this film about a 6 out of 10.

Road to Perdition (2002)

WELL-MADE, VISUALLY STUNNING GANSTER FILM

[27 July 2002]

Although "Road to Perdition" didn't have the originality, the shocks, the controversy, or the emotion of "American Beauty," the first film by director Sam Mendes, it was an interesting, somewhat new and captive way of telling a classic American tale of a criminal/father in post-depression America. The highlight of the film for me was the stunning cinematography. Conrad Hall, also the cinematographer for American Beauty, really has a chance to work his magic in this film. Beautiful shots of the ocean and snow covered trees were an artwork, not to mention what may become a very famous cinematic scene where gun shots are only bursts of light seen through the heavy rain fall--bodies fall not with a thump, not as a reaction to a loud tommy-gun, but fall gracefully and in silence. Some critics say this approach was trying to stylize a classic theme, and that only the best films will prove themselves because the film itself will be what's stylistic, not the camera shots. Personally, I liked the new touches on the gangster theme that this film presented. As far as the acting goes, the definite highlight of the film for me was Paul Newman as Rooney, a town crime boss. Jude Law was also great as a determined hitman, although his part in the movie felt minor and understated. Tom Hanks, as the silent, no-emotion gangster errand boy in the beginning of the film was just what it should have been, and the more into the film you get the more he opens up as a father, and as an actor in a theatrical performance--in other words, almost any actor could have pulled off the performance Hanks did for the first part of the film. He was hard faced, hard working, and never showed emotion. But Hanks really only became wonderful once the father side of him opened--that's when the acting became noticeably good. Although the ending of the film was somewhat predictable to some people, it wasn't at all to me--but I'm not the type of person who is constantly guessing the ends of films--I like to just let the story carry me, and I loose myself in the plot, so I usually am surprised with endings, and this one was plenty surprising. By the end of the film I felt that I had been on a unique journey alongside a father and son. I liked the way both Hanks and his son mature during the trip, learn life lessons, and learn about one another--all in the context of a very exciting, action packed, revenge-based plot. For those worried about violence and gore, this film doesn't exaggerate things. The film is violent when it needs to be, and uses the violence to make a point about the life of both Hanks and his son. Yes, it's a violent film, but it's not stomach turning nor is it fit for the Disney channel. I highly recommend this film, but just don't expect "The Godfather". Mendes is a brilliant new director, and American Beauty was incredible, but although this movie is very solid and well made, it won't change your life.

Se7en (1995)

NOT SINCE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS...

[12 July 2002]

I first saw parts of "Seven" a few years ago, edited, on Fox. I dismissed it as a film with only the intent to shock, and as a film with no meaning other than an unintentional celebration of violence and gore. I did walk away from the film with my stomach turned inside out, and with certain scenes from the film (fans can guess which ones) playing over and over in my head, but I felt that the film didn't have the core or the heart or the meaning to make it a masterpiece. After recently watching it again, I have changed my mind completely. Although I still feel it isn't a masterpiece, in the same ranks as "The Silence of the Lambs" or "Psycho," I do feel it can very well be compared to these greats. I think "Seven" is just as good a film than "Cape Fear," another famous thriller, both the original and the remake, and better than almost all thriller films I have ever seen. I will admit that not since "The Silence of the Lambs" have I been so fascinated by a thriller--I loved everything about "Seven" from the grizzly and brutal corpse make-up to Kevin Spacey's short but brilliant act as John Doe, a serial murderer. I thought that the sets were fabulous, possibly the best I've ever seen. I thought the acting was good enough to completely change my opinions on Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt, both of whom I previously felt to be non-talents. Both the climax of the movie as well as the ending moments were so well done I had chills running down my spine, unable to move my fixed eyes--even though I knew the ending from previously seeing parts of the film, I was still completely caught up in the story--I was still anxious, fearful, sad, curious, and on the edge of my seat the entire time. This film brings you into the true-life world of a serial killer and his victims. It doesn't even stop to consider simplicity or suggestive filmmaking--it shows you every little sick detail. This in-your-face method really almost makes you feel disgusted, but you can't take your eyes away. I loved how Fincher wonderfully showed the parallels between not only Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman's character's, but between their job and how they each deal with it. I can't say enough about this movie without spoiling it or making this review unreadable due to how unorganized it is, but I do recommend this very intelligent thriller--if you have the stomach for it.

Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures (2001)

INTERESTING, INFORMATIVE, AND ENTERTAINING

[8 July 2002]

This was a very well made documentary focusing on the life and the films of the late and masterful, Stanley Kubrick. Everyone from Woody Allen and Nicole Kidman to family members are interviewed throughout this piece, showing how the director was seen by those most involved in his life. The documentary seemed to go chronologically through the more famous works of Kubrick, and stopped to tell tales of Kubrick's perfectionism, his conflict, personal struggles for both the actors and the director, and even unique technological achivements Kubrick made along the way. This documentary taught me quite a bit of things I never knew about Kubrick, one the greatest directors that has ever lived, and stays entertaining while being interesting and informative. If you loved movies like "Eyes Wide Shut," "Full Metal Jacket," "Dr. Strangelove," or "A Clockwork Orange," you're sure to appreciate the behind the scenes looks at not only the set and filming, but at the directors' rollercoaster of a private life as well.

Spider-Man (2002)

MEDIOCRITY AT ITS PEAK!

[1/10 · 10 May 2002]

I must admit I enjoyed the first 45 minutes of this film. I loved Tobey Maguire who was perfectly cast as the classic high school nerd. I loved watching him overcome the odds against the school bullies, and I liked the entertaining scenes where he is exploring his new spider-like abilities. But after that, saying that the rest of the film went downhill would be a compliment. Dull, predictable, terrible acting, and so desperately action-packed and backed by gaudy Hollywood special effects that it was sickening. I found the assaults on New York by the ?Green Goblin? to be violent, disturbing (especially after Sept. 11th), and offensive. I even had to wake up my slumbering buddy next to me so we could have a debate whether or not to leave the film. Basically, the people who don't understand the title to this review, love shows like "Survivor," drive an S.U.V. and thought movies like "Pearl Harbor," "The Matrix," and "Gladiator" were fantastic are going to be the people who loved this film. Yes, that's right, it's a film that targets the masses like no other, and apparently is playing many "film lovers" like puppets. Those who believe that this was the best film of 2002 (I'm not even going to discuss those who thought it was the best film ever made) need to catch the first ride out of the Texas trailer park and explore something called independent cinema--"Blade 2" and "The New Guy" aren't the only movies out right now. The only two elements where "Spiderman" had potential for decency were the special effects and the romance. The special effects were so visually flawed and half-assed that it became a distraction, and the romance, well; let's just say it wasn't top notch. The dialogue made me embarrassed to be sitting in the theatre, and the acting complimented this dialogue wonderfully-the only human touches this film had were intended to be as dull and straightforward as possible, but were only confusing--first Kirsten Dunst (M.J.) stands up for Spidey and likes him, and then she blows him off for half the film. And finally, after hours of agonizing torment, the makers of the film decide to end things by (SPOILERS AHEAD) having the obsessive Spidey actually TURN-DOWN M.J.'s confession of love--after hours of us knowing how much Spidey loves her, the film ends with "we only can be friends." I also loved the only scene in the film that involved a blur of ethnicity?the entire film is flooded with white actors, and I found it ironic that the only scene where minorities pop out is a rape-scene--that is until our hero conveniently comes to save the day! I thought this film was too bad for me to take the time to review, but I felt I had to attempt to persuade the moronic millions who claimed that "Spiderman" was a gem. HOPED I SAVED SOMEONE OUT THERE $10 and a few wasted hours!

Spider-Man (2002)

DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND SKIP THIS ONE

[1/10 · 5 May 2002]

The weekend was coming up, I had nothing better to do, so I fell into the trap of high-budget box office entertainment, and paid the $9.50 to see "Spiderman." After the first 45 minutes of the film, I was thinking to myself that I couldn't have spent the money any better--I was laughing at Tobey Maguire's reactions to his newfound spider-like abilities, I was getting drawn into the plot and looking forward to some action, and I even found myself rooting for Tobey Maguire who is perfectly cast as the classic and predictable high-school nerd. But things soon took a terrible turn. The acting became terrible, the plot became completely predictable, and the special effects became so unrealistic and visually flawed that I found them at the point of distraction. As a New Yorker, I found the city-assaults on New York by the "Green Goblin" not entertaining, but more of a recreation of Sept. 11th. But then, later on in the film, I found myself annoyed at how the makers of this film, obviously influenced by September 11th, put in all these scenes with the people of New York united against evil, and Spiderman flying by all these American flags. Is it too much to ask not to have scenes of bombs killing people, buildings being blown to bits, people running everywhere, and screams? But then is it too much to ask not to have corny things thrown into every scene just to prove to the movie-going public that the makers of the film care more about morals than profit? With this film I found myself smack in the middle of two extremes. Class, simplicity, style...these elements were not used by the makers of this film. Gaudy special effects, large explosions, and artificial and shallow love scenes were the things that made up this film. Spidey is a young nerd one minute; a raging maniac determined for revenge the next. Kirsten Dunst likes him one minute, and then she blows him off for a while. The love scenes that were the only human-touches this film had were meant to be as simple, dull, and straightforward as possible, but in the end were only confusing! I didn't even know whether I should take the time to review this film, but I hope I've helped someone. My advice...see "Panic Room" instead. It's also a big, box office smash, but is immeasurably better. Save your time and money on this one--unless you're a parent of smaller kids or under the age of 16.

Wild at Heart (1990)

Fabulous and original story telling...Lynch at his Best.

[28 April 2002]

People really just crack me up. I read reviews on this site saying that this film is a pointless piece of junk from a dull and overrated director, made only so that Lynch could show off his "trademarks". I read reviews saying that the Cannes jury must have been bribed the year this film won Best Picture. I read reviews saying that normally the reviewer is a Lynch fan, and that they loved "Twin Peaks," but that this film did nothing for them. I really just don't understand. Does originality mean anything in this day and age? Have new and wonderful ideas on ways to tell a story lost their value in our world? How is it that so many human beings, with a brain in their cranium, can hate movies like "Wild At Heart," or "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," or "Being John Malkovich?" Maybe I'm a moron, or just a complete individual, but I really feel like I'm the only person who thought that this film was an incredible work of art. I thought that the acting was great, that the story was fascinating, and that the dialogue complimented the film wonderfully. What people don't seem to understand is that film is not about endings that explain everything and wrap it all up for you in a neat little package. Film isn't about special effects, loud explosions, and $500 million budgets. When watching a Lynch film, one can't expect it to be like a Spielberg movie...you have to look at it as an art. And art doesn't tell you what to think, it's completely interpretive--that's what's so great about music, poetry, paintings, sculpture, writing, ect. In the world of art you aren't told what to think, and you can have your own opinion that never can be wrong. If you look at film as art, than Lynch is the van Gogh of the film industry. His films are smart and intriguing, and draw you into a plot that grabs hold of you and never lets go. I can't say any more about this...you either like Lynch or you don't I suppose, but I really just feel sorry for those that can't understand his films--you are missing out. I highly recommend this film...don't miss it, Lynch fan or not.

Gosford Park (2001)

DISAPPOINTING...OSCARS??!!!!?!?!??

[5/10 · 18 February 2002]

Well I must say this was a disappointing film, especially considering it was by Robert Altman, one of the great American directors. This film was long, tedious, dull, and slow, and I was struggling to hold still in my seat I was so anxious for the film to end. For me, the only thing that made me pay any attention was Maggie Smith who played a hilarious British rich snob, and her lines in the film were great. Yet other than that, although it was a great cast, this film, uh.... why don't we say SUCKED. It was amazingly hard to follow, the lighting of the house that the film took place in gave me a headache, and although the ending was good, I found that I couldn't care less what happened. Altman uses an hour and a half to build up the characters, but he has so many characters in the film that there is absolutely no character development--the audience is too confused and bored to care about breaks in the story. In the previews to the film, we find out that the film is about a group of rich guests going to a British country home for a hunting party, and one of them is murdered. But by the end of the film, we don't even clearly discover who the actual murderer was, and I had no clue who did it, and didn't really care, until someone told me. On top of all that, because almost of the characters were either Scottish or British, I found it difficult to understand. I would almost like this film more if it weren't being nominated for an Oscar, especially best picture, because a film like David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" deserves an Oscar much more than "Gosford Park." I do think that Altman did a great job creating a really closed- in and claustrophobic feeling within the house, and every scene that was shot outside made me feel relieved and free from the madness of the characters within the house-yet this was Altman's genius, and for me one of the only highlights of the movie.

Body Double (1984)

ANOTHER GREAT THRILLER FROM DE PALMA

[16 February 2002]

Well, Brain de Palma has done it again. "Body Double" is a thrilling murder mystery full of dreams, reality, flashbacks, obsession, erotica, and the occasional scene of very graphic, unrelenting violence. For those people on this site that said they could see the twists and turns a mile away are simply lying--there aren't even so much as HINTS of what happens. This film has a great ending, good acting, and a wonderful plot--another fun night with a movie from de Palma. This film has enough reverses and flipped identities to remind us of many David Lynch films, yet holds it own. Solid piece of work.

The Exorcist (1973)

GREAT HORROR FILM WITH A STYLE ALL ITS OWN

[16 February 2002]

The exorcist is a wonderful horror film that delivers direct, up close and personal terror. **POSSIBLE SPOILERS** This film is a true original because the main scare of the film--the daughter possessed by our friend Mr. Devil--can't hurt anyone. Almost the entire time she is possessed she is tied to a bed, and we know there won't be any surprises or jump-outs, yet we remain terrified. The make-up work and the acting in this film are incredible, and this is definitely one of the top ten best horror films ever made--up there with classics like "Rosemary's Baby" and "Carrie." I highly recommend renting this film--very scary, very creepy--you won't regret it. The script must have been so controversial I can't even imagine the battles over this film--the things the girl does, and the things she says related to Jesus are probably the biggest direct cinematic attack on religion ever filmed (the film isn't against religion, in fact it glorifies the power of priests and such, yet it must have been hugely controversial--see it and know what I mean).