WeaselWoman13 Reviews

Destinos: An Introduction to Spanish (1992– )

Serves its purpose well

[4 May 2004]

Sure, everyone in our class pretends to hate "Destinos," and I'm sure our Spanish-speaking foreign exchange student is comatose through these things, but I think they're rather fun. The story itself could probably have been played out in a half hour, but they drag the plot out so much it keeps you in suspense. I seriously care what happens to Raquel in the next episode, though it's rather frustrating in how roundabout a way they choose to present the story. One mustn't forget these are, above all, educational, rather than taut thrilling dramas, and they serve the former purpose quite well. I think they really have helped to improve my Spanish, especially my listening skills.

And they're funny. They're not really supposed to be, but they are -- like any soap opera, the acting is bad and the story is a little overdramatic. Throw in Raquel's hideous outfits, the ineptitude of the characters, the repetitiveness, and the number of episodes that are entirely about food or numbers, and you've got some wonderful opportunities for mockery -- and I don't say this disparagingly; it's endearing how cheesy it is.

So, if you're a Spanish teacher or just someone who'd like to improve their Spanish listening skills, I'd give this series a thumbs-up. If you're looking for real entertainment, I'd look for a real telenovela. ; )

The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones: Hollywood Follies (1994 TV Movie)

He vos nut a GERMAN!

[20 June 2003]

I admit that I only watched this film because it had Erich von Stroheim in it, and didn't even finish watching it, and know nothing about the Indiana Jones series, so maybe I'm missing something here, but so much about this movie was so terrible that it wasn't even funny.

It wasn't ALL bad -- actually, the sets and costuming were excellent (the 1920s - such an aesthetically pleasing time period!). And the bits of the actual movie "Foolish Wives" were good, because they had the authentic Erich in them. The most painful parts seemed to occur whenever the main characters had dialogue. Some of the lines exchanged between young Indiana Jones and the heroine made me want to retch. There are some actors whose delivery and skill can make a cheesy piece of dialogue work -- these two do not belong to this group. They were trying to be youthfully cutesy, and the results were not pretty. The heroine says things you'd never expect anyone to say in normal conversation, lines that sound clumsy and forced, especially out of her mouth -- she doesn't seem comfortable in her role.

And then there's Erich von Stroheim. True, the guy did seem to be having a lot of fun playing the role -- and the back of his head was identical to Stroheim's (you couldn't really expect much more; Stroheim was unique, no conventional Hollywood pretty-boy, and you'd be hard-pressed to find someone whose looks were remotely similar). Actually, the scenes with Stroheim would have been enjoyable IF he hadn't used that overdone corny fake German accent. Did he do any research at ALL? Did he bother to look at any of the talkies Stroheim was in? Erich von Stroheim was Austrian. Austrian! Austrian!! And there's a huge difference between an Austrian and a blatantly false German accent. It was embarrassing -- I might have been able to enjoy it and root for him if he had been a bit more convincing, but I couldn't get over the way he was mangling Stroheim's delicate growl, with that lilting Austrian twang, into the voice of a hysterical cartoon Nazi.

Whew, I needed to get that off my chest.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Worst. Episode. Ever.

[2/10 · 16 June 2002]

The following may contain slight spoilers that are necessary examples for my tearing up of the film.

You know, all of the comments that praise this film so highly fascinate me thoroughly. I saw it this evening and I am astonished that the popcorn stayed down through the whole thing.

This is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long, long time. A long time. Episode I gave faint prophecies of Mr. Lucas heading down a long and tasteless road, but this is just ridiculous.

The acting was one of the most visible flaws. Hayden Christensen (sp, but I don't care) managed to be almost as irritating as the urchin that played Anakin in the first episode. He stumbled through the movie like an overgrown goose and pouted like a Backstreet Boy who's been served regular Coke instead of diet. But, then, what more can you expect from an actor (I use the term loosely) who is gushed about so freely by the writers in teen magazines? He's obviously coasting through the film on his pubescent-glamour-ape looks and his intensely honed sulking skills.

Natalie Portman, on the other hand, isn't such a bad actress, but many of her lines are horribly silly, and her enigmatic tough-and-prissy character is fantastically irritating at times.

Padme Amidala wears a different outfit in every scene. Every scene change, she's put on some new dress or tight-fitting-imperial-looking gear, and they grow more ridiculous each time. How does she do it? She only carried two small suitcases along with her when she traveled; they must be Tardises, or else she wouldn't be able to fit her entire wardrobe and elaborate headgear in those things.

The plot and script: Also terrible. Cliche after cliche after cliche. Cliched lines and cliched phrases were driven far into the ground by their inept deliverers. It was almost too much to handle, even for the connoisseur of tripe.

Does anyone else notice that old George seems to be inventing and adding in new aliens just to have more aliens? Also, did anyone else notice some inconsistencies here? No gore spills out from the lightsaber wounds and severings; they are instantly cauterized. Someone please explain all the blood to me when Obi Wan slices that guy's arm off in Episode IV. R2-D2 can fly, too. Since when can R2-D2 fly?!!

This sorry little film had the logic of a Max Fleischer cartoon and a lead actor fit for "Mystery Science Theater 3000" fodder. However, it has a few redeeming qualities. As always, the special effects are dazzling, beautiful, exciting eye candy. The aliens and beasts he creates are wonderfully bizarre.

I'm not sorry I saw it. I've never had such a good laugh for a long time. Go see it, trust me, you'll leave the theater in tears and in stitches.

The Man with the Golden Arm (1955)

Brilliant film; groovy soundtrack.

[8/10 · 4 June 2002]

A dark and painful look at the perils of drug addiction, Sinatra is wonderful in this film. Just watching his frenzied writhing and screaming and destructive rage near the end of the film is enough to make anyone think twice about trying heroin; maybe they should show this to kids in health class instead of the mindless drivel we are compelled to endure year after year.

It's the story of a man who is simply trying to make a new, clean life for himself after being in prison, trying to rid himself of his drug habit and his job of dealing cards in illegal gambling operations, who is pulled down, pulled back into the muck by the evils of human nature. He is being taken advantage of by his employers, the drug dealers, and even his enigmatic, crafty-yet-stupid wife.

Even if you didn't like the film itself, it's worth seeing just for the soundtrack. It's all heavy, swinging jazz with large drum and brass sections. This, with its groovy, yet slightly sinister sound, helps set the mood, along with the grinning, snaky drug and card dealers, who always seem to hover like vultures around Frankie Machine.

I recommend this to anyone -- especially if you like film noir, zoot suits, fedoras, or jazz.

A Midsummer Night's Dream (1968)

This is the silliest stuff that ever I heard

[5/10 · 24 March 2002]

This adaptation of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" seemed like it was trying to be a liiiittle too arty. It resulted in looking downright silly to me. Here's a rather lengthy list of reasons why.

First of all, the male characters' costumes looked like simple modern suits with ruffly collars added. The females were all wearing extremely short mini dresses, making it very clear that the movie was made in the 60s.

Puck, Titania, and Oberon are running around naked and green. I don't mind the naked part, but...must they be green? It bothered me slightly - it's a neat way to think of fairies and spirits, being green. But if they were going to take that route, they could have done a slightly better makeup job - the makeup seemed thick and shiny, stopped on certain parts of the body, and also seemed to be irritating Oberon's eyes - they looked redder-rimmed and puffier through each shot.

The lovers get muddier and muddier as they go through the woods. This is slightly exaggerated. I mean, what were they DOING? It wasn't THAT muddy, and they weren't falling down on their face every few minutes! People simply don't get that muddy walking in the woods!

When we did this play at the school, it was stressed that we should USE our body gestures and hands, and so after having that pounded into my mind, the actors' almost completely inanimate bodies really bugged me, and Oberon seemed to be telling himself "Must not move face must not move face must not move face..."

Puck's tongue thing was really odd, and the way the spirits teleported around...priceless! And don't you love it when all the little fairies come jumping out of the trees and the camera flashes around? Deliciously weird.

Speaking of the camera - how about that camera work? It reminds you a little of those "Blair Witch Project" trailers.

And what kind of animals were those in that forest? Where did they get those sound effects?

However, I did love the rude mechanicals. They were just as I would imagine them (and I recognize Snug from Keeping Up Appearances!). And Puck went on to be Bilbo Baggins - it's so perfect! All the actors were good - it's just that the film was put together so strangely. It was an extremely interesting approach, but they got a little too creative. 5/10.

I Was an Adventuress (1940)

Sophisticated, witty, wonderful

[10/10 · 24 March 2002]

It's such a pity that this charming film is so difficult to find. It's one of the many wonderful classic films that should be available on video, but seems to have been regrettably tossed aside.

Funny and sophisticated, it never ceases to make me laugh. Peter Lorre and Erich von Stroheim are a perfect pairing. After seeing this, Stroheim became my other favorite actor, next to Peter Lorre. They're both such great actors (my two favorites, actually), and they work together splendidly and comically. Really, there should have been so many more movies starring this duo of striking, charming gentlemen.

Vera Zorina, as the female accomplice to the two crooks, and Richard Greene, as an upperclass man she falls in love with, are both quite good as well. I recommend it to anyone who's lucky enough to get a chance to see it.

It's one of the few times that Peter Lorre gets to play a character who is funny, cute, sweet - someone the audience, and the characters in the movie, are supposed to love. Sure, he's a kleptomaniac, but he can't really help it -- no one, besides the ill tempered Andre, can stay angry at him for long. (In one of the final scenes, Paul Vernay, Richard Greene's character, can't help but grin and laugh to himself as he realizes the charming kleptomaniac has acquired most of his possessions once again.)

I give this witty film a well-deserved 10/10.

Jeepers Creepers (2001)

Immortal sadistic demon from the age of swing!

[3/10 · 18 March 2002]

Warning: For the purpose of tearing up this movie, spoilers are included. Plow forward at your own risk.

I don't usually watch horror movies, but I had no choice but to watch this on the charter bus as there was not much else to do. Although the demon was pretty cool looking and I liked when Derri shouted "INBREEDING," the rest of the movie was pretty damn terrible. Somehow it didn't seem right that Joel, Tom, and Crow weren't in front of it.

Unnecessarily gory and disgusting, this movie didn't scare me, only grossed me out. The two main characters are complete idiots. Yes, let's crawl down this dank and stinky tunnel in front of the abandoned old church with dozens of crows roosting on it; that sounds like a good idea. Nothing else to do. I guess they never stopped to think that there would be an unstoppable demon (who really loves old jazz) who's after their sight organs storing his junk down there.

After they've seen a pit crammed with mutilated corpses and were almost run over by a psycho-piloted truck, you'd think they would listen to the wise old lady giving warnings over the phone. But, no, they just curse at her and get some hapless cops to help them. It's not really the cops' fault, though, as those idiot kids should have just driven on home and reported the guy, who, although he's a sadistic creature from Hell, has a convenient, easy-to-remember vanity license plate.

And, I'm sorry, but the male lead looks incredibly stupid when he's scared. A few minutes into the movie me and my friend couldn't help but burst into giggles every time he put on that thin-faced, poochy lipped, bug-eyed stare.

I wonder what the musical selection will be in the sequel? Perhaps the demon will pick up prostitutes to the tune of Cab's "Minnie the Moocher," or graft farm animal parts onto the kids while jamming to "A Chicken Ain't Nothing But A Bird." I'd go and see that.

Mad Love (1935)

Lorre is at his best; Clive and Drake leave a bit to be desired

[8/10 · 18 March 2002]

Luckily, Peter Lorre's excellent performance in this chilling film isn't overshadowed by the (in my humble opinion) subpar acting skills of Frances Drake and Colin Clive. I can't judge the actors themselves as I've never seen these two in anything else, but in this film Frances Drake's flustered squealing and Clive's sometimes-underacting sometimes-over-the-top-with-exaggerated-flailing-of-the-hands style got a bit irritating. They seem to be a potentially good pair of thespians, but most certainly not at their best here.

Mr. Lorre's portrayal of Dr. Gogol is creepy, yet heart-rending - I cannot help but feel sorry for this lovelorn soul. He does terrible things, yet one cannot consider him evil -- his somewhat contorted view of the world leads him to believe that he is the only one for Yvonne, and his crimes are not for money, for greed, but for love. One might say that he has Yvonne's best interests in his heart, whatever he does, because, in his view, whatever will get her with him will be better for her in the end.

His eyes half-lidded with ecstasy during the initial scene as he watches the voyeuristic horror play.his pleading, desperate, almost puppy-like appearance as he attempts to woo Yvonne.his frightened and confused face shifting to sly determination as he descends into madness (well, further than he already was, anyway).his insane excitement during the final scene as he believes his dream of bringing the statue to life has come true. Peter Lorre played the character brilliantly and, although, with its oft-used mad-doctor premise, this movie could have turned into something MST3K grade with a bad actor in it as Gogol, it's a thrilling psychodrama (if you'll disregard some of the sillier elements of the plot).

8/10. Although I wax poetic about Lorre's performance, Drake's and Clive's just weren't all that spectacular to me. Otherwise, an excellent and entertaining movie that I recommend highly.