bdiebold Reviews

Jet Lag (2002)

Easy target, but surprisingly good

[8/10 · 4 July 2004]

I can see how this movie would be an easy target for criticism. It might appear fluffy and without depth, sort of easy and implausible.

But I think it's better than that. First of course, are the performances. Both actors are terrific and both have long been favorites of mine. A special call-out, though, has to go to Binoche, who just couldn't be any more delightful. An absolutely fantastic actress. She's so wonderful, the only problem in the movie is why doesn't he fall in love with her any faster?

Second is the basic intelligence of the dialog. The conversations are very engaging, occasionally wry, sometimes sweet, with some sharpness along the way.

Finally, there is a meditation in here on film in general, and romantic comedies in particular. The movie is able to move back a bit, consider itself, and resist the temptation to be cynical.

Intolerable Cruelty (2003)

Under-rated!

[8/10 · 22 April 2004]

I'm not sure why people are so down on this movie. I thought it was actually quite excellent. Clooney and Zeta-Jones are terrific, with excellent chemistry, and the writing is exceptional. The entire cast is very good.

It's acted in a kind of over-drawn style, reminiscent of their previous "O Brother Where Art Thou". Perhaps that turns some people off, but I enjoyed it.

I think what I particularly liked about it was that there is an undercurrent of sweetness lying underneath the glibness, the money, the betrayels, etc.

Two thumbs up here.

8/10

Clueless (1995)

one of the best (the best?) adaptations of a Jane Austen novel

[9/10 · 12 April 2004]

Terrific movie -- one of the best (if not the best) screen adaptations of a Jane Austen novel.

Great job by the actors: Silverstone is surprisingly excellent, and Rudd is very appealing. Dan Hedaya is as great as always, and the supporting characters from her school are first rate.

This movie is a far more faithful version of a Jane Austen novel than many other efforts. In particular the recent "Mansfield Park" was simply awful. Heckerling brilliantly captures the spirit, while transforming the setting.

9/10

Battlefield Earth (2000)

Ugh

[2/10 · 9 April 2004]

The only reason I gave this a 2 instead of a 1 is that I sort of enjoyed Barry Pepper, plus one of the chicks is kind of hot. Otherwise, this is a total dog.

Have to give special props to John Travolta, for possibly one of the worst performances of cinematic history. He's so awful, he's not just in a bad movie, it's like he's in an SNL parody skit of a bad movie. Someone should let him know that acting a bad guy doesn't necessarily mean acting badly. All his bad guy characters are caricature villains. Forrest Whitaker, who actually has a little talent (unlike Travolta), is very nearly as awful.

Maybe I'm too hard on Travolta, but I doubt it. He was good in Pulp Fiction, and I guess okay in Get Shorty. Otherwise, he's been pretty awful in this second phase of his career.

Anyway, this is a truly terrible movie.

Mission: Impossible (1996)

Ego vehicle

[2/10 · 9 April 2004]

It's disgusting Tom Cruise turned a clever, fun, ensemble show into yet another big effect vehicle for his mammoth ego. I could hardly believe my eyes when in the first few minutes Cruise (his movie, I hold him responsible) kills off his entire team (which consists by and large of far more talented actors) just so he can do his lone wolf vengeance thing ("this time it's personal!"). In those few minutes, he destroyed any relationship the movie had to the show.

It's a disgrace.

I've never liked Tom Cruise, but his astonishingly arrogant appropriation and destruction of the Mission:Impossible theme is a new low.

Aside from this, the movie itself is utterly formulaic, uniting the implausible with the predictable. Jean Reno is good in anything, but no one can save this.

Dungeons & Dragons (2000)

Just awful

[1/10 · 7 April 2004]

Easily one of the handful of worst movies I've ever seen. It's just awful. What's astonishing about it is that there actually is a little talent here (Jeremy Irons, Thora Birch, a few others), which could not be more badly used.

Irons in particular appears to be acting as badly as possible, maybe so it's clear that he's not serious about this bowser, though Birch is awful too. The two leads are awful, especially the Wayans character, though the dwarf is a closer runner-up.

There's just nothing here. It's a giant waste of time and money. It's astonishing someone spent millions making this dog.

Significant Others (2004)

Hilarious

[5 April 2004]

This is a terrific show. I just happened to stumble on it one night on Bravo, and was immediately hooked. It's hilarious. I hope they avoid the excesses of Woody Allen style nebbishness and neuroses, but it's pretty great so far.

I hadn't realized it was improv, though in retrospect I guess it sort of has that feel.

Props to Bravo for some interesting new directions. Keen Eddie is also quite good. It's nice to see a network taking a few chances, since the regular main network fare is just abominable. I haven't watched anything on a regular network in prime time in quite a while.

The Last King (2003)

Terrific movie

[9/10 · 27 March 2004]

I've watched this twice now, since A&E has been broadcasting the show this weekend under the title "The Last King" -- presumably because American audiences can't be expected to know or care who Charles II is.

Anyway, I don't understand the earler negative review at all. Hard to believe we watched the same show. The one I watched is a fantastic, very human, extraordinarily well-acted, and surprisingly faithful period piece.

While the acting in general is at a very high level (special props to the actress who played Lady Castlemaine), Rufus Sewell is simply remarkable. He communicates intelligence, self-indulgence, simple human decency and moments of power and passion wonderfully well. A terrific performance. I suppose because of his dark, somewhat moody good looks he only gets cast as bad guys by Hollywood (Helen of Troy, A Knight's Tale), but he deserves better.

Two thumbs up!

The Medallion (2003)

terrible movie, but...

[18 February 2004]

Yes, this was an awful movie, and not even fun awful, in a sort of guilty pleasure way. It's just kind of stupid. The "romance" between Claire Forlani (who's normally pretty engaging -- great in Mystery Men) and Chan was about as bad as it gets in movies, even though there have been many terrible pairings recently.

However, Christy Chung deserved a bigger part. She had a tiny little role, but a couple of great action sequences, and is clearly capable of more. Someone should give her a bigger chance.

The Warrior (2001)

violent, but remarkable

[9/10 · 29 December 2003]

It's not a perfect movie, but it is a remarkable one. Brutally realistic combat scenes that are just shy of over the top, brilliant cinematography, and surprisingly good characters (considering) add up to quite a ride.

Vastly superior to Braveheart. Very different from Crouching Tiger, and I'm not sure why people keep bringing that one up. I guess because they're both Asian and have Zhang Ziyi in them?

Anyway, it's not for the squimish, but it is a pretty remarkable movie.

Greenfingers (2000)

Flat out terrific movie

[10/10 · 26 April 2003]

This is a terrific movie. Clive Owen and Natasha Little are as great a couple as there is, and Helen Mirren and the rest of the cast could hardly be better. Wonderfully acted, intelligently directed, and very sweet. It's just a quiet little gem of a movie.

Action (1999–2000)

Totally hilarious

[26 September 2002]

I never understood why this extremely funny and wonderfully cast show wasn't a bigger hit. It really was very, very good. Too bad it didn't get the audience it needed to continue. Oh well. Jay Mohr was perfect in the lead, and Ileana Douglas is a treat. Cameos by Sandra Bullock and others were hilarious.

The 13th Warrior (1999)

A few comments (long)

[10/10 · 26 September 2002]

I feel the need to comment to a few of the reviews I read from the first page, which I must say were totally off-base.

A few notes, at random, and in no particular order.

Several reviewers are evidently confused about the relationship of the movie to a textual source. Specifically, they don't get the point, because they misunderstand what it's trying to do. The movie is based on the novel "Eaters of the Dead", by Michael Crichton. This novel is a fictionalized history, written in the form of an epic translation (which it isn't), and recounts what happens when a group of Norsemen, accompanied by an Arab observer end up at war with a remnant population of Neandertals. Yes, Neandertals. It's not completely ridiculous, though the most recent evidence for neandertals that I know of (I'm an archaeologist) in northern Europe is about 25k before present. It didn't happen -- it's just Crichton's device, and it's a fun one. Neandertals are very close to modern people, but not the same. They are in some sense Other, and to xenophobes like medieval Norse they must have seemed, well, something like Grendel is discribed in Beowulf. When Crichton wrote this, originally in the 1970s, even less was known of Neandertals than now, thus the brutish characterization, exaggerated a bit by the movie.

Once this background is adequately understood, several criticisms should disappear:

A. One reviewer complains that the movie isn't faithful enough to the original text, apparently believing in this case the text written by Ahmed ibn-Fahlan, and published a few years ago. This reviewer appears unaware that this is a literary conceit on the part of the actual author, Michael Crichton.

B. Meanwhile, a second reviewer complains that the movie is insufficiently close to the Beowulf myth. As implied by the above, this criticism goes nowhere, because it is not a simple retelling of Beowulf. "Eaters of the Dead" is Crichton's effort to fictionally historicize Beowulf by placing it in the context of a struggle of Norse against a remnant population of neandertals. "The 13th Warrior" is a pretty accurate retelling of the encounter as envisioned by Crichton, and its relationship to Beowulf is as tangential as Crichton's.

C. A review complains about the ragged mobs of bad guys, clad in bear skins for no good reason. The reason is that there is good evidence to suppose Neandertals had a ritual life oriented in some way around cave bears. They might be ragged mobs because the book, and movie, are emphasizing their primitiveness, relative to the modern humans they are fighting. I had more difficulty with Neandertal cavalry, but there isn't any particular reason to believe a remnant population of Neandertals couldn't observe the use of domesticated horses, steal some, and figure it out from there.

D. I didn't think that was the lamest love interest subplot ever by far. First, the woman was gorgeous, so it can't be a waste. (heh, okay) Second, it underscores the relatively casual attitude of the norse toward sex, especially as initiated by women. This is obviously not a universal trait in medieval western cultures, and is a nice historical touch. It would have been sappier if he'd stayed or she'd followed, but neither happens. It's a moment of comfort and connection in a hopeless situation, and works well in that context.

E. We have no idea how a complex Neandertal society might work -- there's no evidence to suggest they might ever have had one. For them to coalesce briefly around a few charismatic leaders, and disperse when those leaders die, is no stretch at all. In fact, it's the most likely scenario. I'm not that'd happen in the middle of a battle, but maybe it would. Who knows? After all, if they had a structured society that *didn't* depend on the presence of charismatic leaders, they'd be more visible in the archaeological record, and might have been more of a threat. It'd be a different situation, certainly. Anyway, it's Crichton's story and it works.

I have no particular rebuttal to those who didn't like the characters or the acting or whatever, except to say I think they're dead wrong. And the reviewer suggesting this as MST2K material ... well...evidently doesn't know much about 13th Warrior OR MST2K. (Trying to be nice here). Hint: MST2K makes fun of *bad* movies, not good ones. I love the characters and thought the chemistry was terrific. Visually, it's stunning.

The movie just works great on a lot of levels. It's just a quietly great movie. Certainly on my top 10 list, and probably top 5. A lot of my friends avoided it in the theater, but when I show them the video, I haven't seen anyone not like it. I think it will have a solid second life. It should.

(Apologies for length)

Mystery Men (1999)

Great fun

[9/10 · 4 July 2002]

This movie is a lot of fun. What makes it great especially are two things: one is the straightforward way the characters embrace the stereotypes, with discussions of their costumes and superpowers. There's an endearing earnestness to the parody that's very appealing; the second is basic sweetness of the characters and the quality of the chemistry. Claire Forlani deserves particular note as the object of Mr. Furious's desires. There's a boatload of talent here. I realize some with high expectations may have been disappointed, but this movie is a lot of fun, and kind of sweet.

The 13th Warrior (1999)

An absolutely terrific movie

[10/10 · 4 July 2002]

This is a quietly great movie. Terrific cast. Banderas isn't at all bad, but his co-stars steal the show, especially Vladimir Kulich. This movie bears watching over and over again; the details are terrific and the performances totally on key.