Change Your Image
MicktheGreat
Reviews
I Heart Huckabees (2004)
Average plot made better with great acting
*PLOT SPOILERS* Albert (Schwartzman) is troubled with philosophic problems that have come to the surface following a strange series of coincidences. Seeking answers, Albert visits Bernard (Hoffman) & Vivian (Tomlin), a husband & wife pair of existential detectives who specialize in solving just the type of life problems that Albert is facing. In comes Catherine Vauban (Huppert), a competing philosophic detective, who seeks to steal Albert and his fellow philosophic wonderer Tommy (Wahlberg) from Bernard & Vivian. Add in the ultra-smarmy Huckabees up-and-comer Brad (Law) and his girlfriend/Huckabees model Dawn (Watts) and you have "I Heart Huckabees".
David Russell, who co-wrote and directs the movie, does a fine job in direction using peculiar imagery and very vivid dream sequences that stand out in the movie. However, the plot of the movie gets bogged down at times with overly absurd ramblings and events (some of which come across as merely gimmicky).
Where the plot of "I Heart Huckabees" is average, the acting is excellent. This is truly an ensemble cast who seem to really get into their roles. Tomlin and Hoffman have incredible on-screen chemistry and are able to make certain scenes funny that might have otherwise failed. Law does an fine job with a role that is different from what we're used to seeing him do. However, Wahlberg steals the show and carries several scenes with his surprisingly nice comedic timing and the personality he adds to his role.
Overall, "I Heart Huckabees" is an extremely unique movie that fails a few times in the story but succeeds in the acting department. Ultimately, it is an enjoyable experience.
GRADE: B
Saw (2004)
Good story with some really bad acting...
*PLOT SPOILERS*
Two men wake up in a barren room, chained to pipes, unable to remember exactly how they got there. Adam (Whannell) is a young photographer. Dr. Gordon (Elwes) is a successful physician. Another man lies in the middle of the room in a pool of his own blood apparently from a self-afflicted gunshot wound to the head. Adam & Dr. Gordon soon discover that this is the work of the Jigsaw killer, a murderer who specializes in building elaborate plans for his victims to kill themselves or others. While Adam & Dr. Gordon attempt to escape from the madman's deadly game, Detective Tapp (Glover) and Detective Sing (Leung) search for the Jigsaw killer. Soon, we discover that Adam & Dr. Gordon are somehow connected and no one is as they seem.
Whannell co-wrote the story along with director James Wan. The plot of "Saw" is superb with interesting plot twists, nice shock moments, and is nicely structured. Likewise, Wan does a good job of painting the picture very dark and disturbing. Also, Wan does a fine job of portraying the "room" as being utterly bleak and seemingly inescapable.
However, the acting in "Saw" is the ultimate downfall of the film. Whannell does a decent job of adding humor to the movie but is not very good in the scenes in which he is intended to show deeper emotions. Elwes is absolutely terrible towards the end of the movie. He completely fails to pull off the movie's most demanding scenes which comes towards the end of the film. Glover and Leung are OK (and they have decent chemistry), but they are both under-used in the story. Potter is nothing special in this movie.
Overall, "Saw" is an excellent story, is directed nicely, has some good twists, and establishes a very disturbing atmosphere. I just wish the acting had been even remotely up to par.
GRADE: C
'Salem's Lot (2004)
Good but could've been a lot better...
***POSSIBLE MINOR SPOILERS***
I remember seeing parts of the original 1979 movie being replayed on TV when I was about 10 years old or so. I can't remember much about it other than the scene with the boy vampire floating outside Mark's room (which creeped me out) and I seem to remember another scene where Barlow burst through a kitchen floor or something and instantaneously killed a couple of people (maybe I'm just imagining this scene in the original but it scared me at the time)
Anyway, I heard that TNT was doing a remake of it and was excited to see it considering the solid acting credits it had in it (actors like Rob Lowe, Andre Braugher, Donald Sutherland, Rutger Hauer, and James Cromwell...all good actors in their own right). Well, the results turned out to be somewhat mixed...
The acting ranges from the good to the average. Hauer (probably best known for Roy Batty in "Blade Runner") is absolutely awesome as Barlow--my only complaint being that he doesn't have enough screen time in this remake. Braugher is good as the English teacher Matt Burke (who seems to be one of the more insightful characters in the movie). Cromwell is good (again suffers from not enough screen time--his confrontation with Barlow and then Burke are memorable). However, I thought Sutherland stole the show as Straker--he was very creepy in a way that transitioned between the absurd and the serious.
Lowe's performance is average as Ben Mears, the main character. He acts kinda "wooden" in this role and it really seemed like he wasn't all that interested in the job.
Some of the effects were annoying too. The one that sticks out most was the scene where Floyd Tibbits comes through the vent after Ben. Those effects struck me as absolutely ridiculous and looked extremely fake. Also, the scenes of the boy vampire floating outside the windows (happens a couple of times) weren't nearly as potent in the remake as they were in the original.
However, the vampires walking-on-the-ceiling effect was very well done.
Overall, this remake was good but not great. It seemed rushed at times and then at other times stalled. The acting is not very consistent nor are the special effects. I really think this could've benefited from three episodes rather than two, that way the remake could've perhaps had better evolution of the characters. But it does make me want to go back and watch the original 1979 version and read the book...so on that level it succeeds.
6/10
12 Monkeys (1995)
Twelve Monkeys is both interesting and a bit annoying...
***POSSIBLE MINOR SPOILERS***
I saw Twelve Monkeys last night for the first time all the way through. I had seen bits and pieces of the movie a long time ago but never the whole movie. I have to say that I was intrigued by the movie but was a little disappointed by a few things.
First, I thought the acting was basically good. Bruce Willis was superb as James "Bob" Cole, as he was pretty sympathetic all through the movie. He seemed both willing to go back into the past but unsure of whether or not he could really do anything or if it would even make a difference.
Madeline Stowe was good for most of the movie as Dr. Kathryn Railly, the psychiatrist. Yet, I thought her transformation at the end of the movie was a little sudden. She went from being a pure skeptic and psychiatrist to a pure believer and love interest pretty quickly once she went back to Philly without Cole.
Brad Pitt was certainly memorable as crazy Jeffrey Goines, but I thought his performance was TOO over-the-top and actually pretty annoying. All of the hand motions and the long, mumbling speeches were a bit tiring. I couldn't help but think that Jeffrey was just a hyperactive version of Tyler Durden (Fight Club) or even David Mills (Seven)--all of whom use hand-gestures to excess.
I thought the directing was really good from Terry Gilliam. He made the future look very bleak and the way he shot the insane asylum--with its white lights (so white that the only words that comes to mind are antiseptic or clean...maybe if you see the movie, you'll understand what I mean)--was brilliant as it seemed like an absolute daunting and absurd place.
The ending was a little strange too. I think there's about two or three ways you could evaluate how the movie goes. That fact will frustrate those looking for closure, but personally, I like deciding how I think the story was meant to end.
Overall, the acting ranged from the great to the annoying but the directing was very good and the story is certainly interesting.
I give it a 7/10
Troy (2004)
Good epic movie but NOT the best epic ever...
Like most people, I've read The Iliad, The Odyssey, and various other mini-plays about the Trojan War. For the most part, I enjoyed these great Greek dramas. So, when I heard that Troy was coming out, I was both anxious to see it and worried that Hollywood would mess it up. Fortunately, Troy succeeds on most levels...not all, but most.
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***
As far as acting goes, there are a few great performances. Brian Cox is absolutely sinister as Agamemnon and I was genuinely glad to see him die (although it's completely different here than in the traditional Greek stories). Sean Bean (Boromir in Lord of the Rings)was very convincing as the great tactician Odysseus, who has the consummate politician's charisma and leadership skills.
However, Eric Bana as Hector and Peter O'Toole as Priam steal the show. Bana makes Hector the most sympathetic character in Troy as he is fighting for his family despite the fact that he disagrees with what Paris and Helen have done. O'Toole as Priam perfectly pulls off the long-time leader who is seeing his city burn around him. I wouldn't be surprised if Bana and O'Toole both got nods for Academy Awards.
The rest of the performances were only OK or terrible. Brad Pitt as Achilles and Rose Byrne as Briseis were good but nothing special. Orlando Bloom is OK as Paris (an average performance from Bloom is a big deal following his terrible acting in Pirates of the Caribbean). Diane Kruger as Helen, Garrett Hedlund as Patroclus, and Saffron Burrows as Andromache were pretty annoying. Brendan Gleeson was under-used as Menelaus.
The fight scenes were good (Hector's death, Achilles' death, and Patroclus' death were all great). However, there were some deaths that bothered me. I don't remember Menelaus dying in the Iliad which happens early on in the film. Priam's death was way too sudden. Agamemnon's death was necessary but I like the classic telling of his death more (where his wife kills him upon his return). The death that bothered me the most was Ajax's death. Not because it wasn't cool but because the mini-play, "Ajax", is one of my favorites (in it, Ajax goes crazy and kills himself).
Overall, I think Troy should be considered a success. The fight scenes, death scenes, and acting are all generally good. The setting is great and it definitely has the "epic" feel to it. A good epic but certainly not the epic film to end all epic films.
8/10 (due to performances by Bana, Bean, O'Toole, and Cox)
Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)
Not as good as the first, but still a great movie...
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***
I had my reservations before seeing Kill Bill Vol. 1 last year due to the amount of gore, killing, etc. However, after I saw it, I appreciated Kill Bill for its precise wit, unique storyline, vivid cinematography, and incredible music. And I thought that the violence was tolerable because it was done in such an over-the-top, fantastical way.
Kill Bill Vol. 2 is an entirely different movie. Gone are the one vs. an army battle scenes (the Bride vs. the Crazy 88's) from the first movie and there is little to no gore in this movie (except for at the end of the Bride vs. Elle Driver fight...I'll leave what exactly happens as a surprise if you don't already know...). The musical score and choice of songs are not nearly as impressive as in the first movie. Even the cinematography is not as crisp and uber-cool as the first Kill Bill.
However, that does not mean that Kill Bill Vol. 2 is a bad movie--only different from Kill Bill Vol. 1. The storyline in Vol. 2 is much more methodical and the characters are given more depth this time around. And the movie is still full of crisp dialogue and humor (Pei Mei's training of the Bride is one of the funniest scenes from recent memory). Vol. 2 with its slow pace and depth is ultimately a deeper movie than Vol. 1 with its nearly nonstop action and comical gore.
Chia Hui Lui (Pei Mei) is absolutely hilarious. Daryl Hannah does very well as the sadistically cruel Elle Driver. And Michael Madsen (a Tarantino mainstay) provides a solid performance as the hick/slob of a killer named Budd. David Carradine is great as Bill. The way Carradine portrays Bill with a calm yet unpredictable demeanor gives the impression that he could go off at any minute. Plus, we get a brief Samuel L. Jackson cameo as Rufus, the organ player.
However, Uma Thurman's performance is the best of the movie. She brings an undeniable charisma to the Bride and does just as well as she did in Vol. 1 if not better. I think she deserves a nomination for Best Actress and would be surprised if she wasn't at least considered for a nomination.
In the end, it's very hard to compare Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 as they are very different. In my humble opinion, Kill Bill Vol. 2 is not as good as the original but is still a great movie worth watching.
8 out of 10
Concert for George (2003)
An Incredible Experience
I had the opportunity to see a little bit of my friend's copy of Concert for George a while back and I liked what I saw so I went out and bought it. I was not disappointed.
All of the songs are solid and most of them are great. The concert is divided into three sections. The first section is Indian music, the second section is Monty Python, and the third section is George Harrison's music. All three sections are worth watching but it is the third section that excels with musicians such as Eric Clapton, Paul McCartney, Tom Petty, Ringo Starr, Jeff Lynne, Billy Preston, and various others.
Some of my favorites are "Here Comes the Sun", "Photograph", "All Things Must Pass", "Wah Wah", and "Handle With Care". However, my absolute favorite is a toss-up between "Something" (performed brilliantly by Clapton and McCartney) and "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" (a song in which Clapton displays his musical ability and his vocal vulnerability).
A great, great concert.
9 out of 10
Secret Window (2004)
Decent movie but nothing special...
-POSSIBLE SPOILERS-
Secret Window is the story of a reclusive writer named Mort who, upon finding out that his wife is cheating on him, moves out to a cabin in the woods to focus on his writing career. Eventually, he is confronted by a stranger named Shooter (with a heavy southern accent) who accuses Mort of stealing a story that he had written. What follows is the struggle between Mort and Shooter and how it affects the lives of those around them.
There are a few things to like about this movie. Depp (who plays Mort) is great again and brings a lot of tics to a character that may have otherwise been extremely boring. Likewise, Turturro is brilliant and solidifies his position as one of the most underrated actors in Hollywood. Even the ending of the movie is not all that bad as there is a pretty good twist. I actually predicted the ending before it happened but I've talked to other people who didn't make the connections during the movie and they thought that the ending was pretty solid.
The problem with this movie is the story (or everything up to the end). The plot is very slow at times and seems to drag on. The best scenes are the interactions between Depp and Turturro. The other scenes are pretty boring for the most part.
Ultimately, even the great performances of Depp and Turturro couldn't save this movie for me. I would rent this movie but I wouldn't pay the high price to see it at the theater.
6 out of 10
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Dawn of the Dead is a successful remake on most levels...
Dawn of the Dead is a remake of Romero's earlier work of the same title. The story basically revolves around a storyline of a zombie epidemic. Fighting for their lives, a group of survivors barricade themselves inside a mall in attempts to stay alive. The group consists of a tough cop (Rhames), a nurse (Polley), a couple (Phifer & Korobkina) expecting a child, a suburbanite (Weber), a mall security guard (Kelly), and a cast of other characters.
-POSSIBLE SPOILERS-
I felt that this movie worked on most levels. I've seen the Romero original before (although it has been a few years ago) and I thought that this was just as good as the original (if not better...). I thought that the characters portrayed by Rhames and Weber were both done very well as I felt bad for those guys and felt that both of them just wanted to do the right thing. Phifer's character also has a speech in which he tells Rhames his concerns regarding the birth of his child that is briefly moving. The action is intense, the zombies are very bloodthirsty, and the story flows well for the most part.
My few complaints are that I thought Polley's character was under-developed. I also felt that there were a few slow spots in the movie that seemed to be there just to waste time. Also, some of the characters (notably the girl with the dog, the young security guard, and the snobby guy with the boat) are extremely annoying and for the most part serve no real purpose in the film.
Overall, I was impressed. I typically hate most of the contemporary horror movies (from the last 10 years or so) that seem to have terrible storylines, horrible dialogue, etc. I was pleasantly surprised awhile back with the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake and I was pleasantly surprised with the new Dawn of the Dead. Hopefully, filmmakers will take a note from these two movies and make GOOD horror movies.
7 out of 10
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
As potent a movie as I have ever seen...
I have heard from many people that for one to write a credible and efficient criticism of any medium, he/she must be able to observe the medium objectively (or at least somewhat objectively). I think that it is necessary for me to first say that I don't feel as if I can review this movie objectively. I am a Christian and have been one for some time. I grew up knowing the story of Jesus and seeing rather bland interpretations of that story but "Passion" is the first interpretation that has been intensely moving to me, altogether horrifying, and relatively accurate of the Biblical text.
On terms of cinema, Mel Gibson does a brilliant job with constructing this movie in terms of camera usage. The scenes are shot wonderfully. Likewise, I was glad with his decision to use Latin and Aramaic in the movie rather than English. Plus, the actors have the look of people who belonged to that particular culture.
Some may complain about Gibson's adding in of events that are taken from church tradition and not necessarily from the text. I am not Catholic and am unaware of many Catholic tradition regarding the crucifixion; however, I was not bothered overall with Gibson's vision and usage of tradition in the portrayal.
Other criticisms are mentioned regarding that the movie focuses entirely on the crucifixion and not much on the resurrection or the teachings of Jesus. In my opinion, I don't think this is an issue. Gibson set out to make a movie portraying the passion of Christ specifically in the event of the crucifixion. In that sense, that is exactly what he does.
The most popular criticism is that the movie could be mistaken as Anti-Semitic. I completely disagree with this criticism. True, the film portrays many Jewish leaders as treacherous and many Roman soldiers as bloodthirsty. However, I DO NOT feel that the message behind the film (or the Bible) is that the Jews are bad people. Rather the important message is that Jesus was betrayed by everyone around him. Betrayed by his closest friends (Peter's denial, John's fleeing, Judas, etc.), betrayed by his kinsman (the Jewish officials), and betrayed by strangers (the Romans).
Ultimately, I gave this movie a 9/10. Why not a 10? Because I don't know if I will ever want to see the "Passion" again. That's how powerful it was to me. Regardless of where you stand on Christianity, Gibson, or religion in general, I feel that this is an extremely important movie to view for its artistic and thematic messages.
9 out of 10
Narc (2002)
Unappreciated movie with great performances...
-POSSIBLE SPOILERS-
Narc is the story of two detectives investigating the case of a murdered undercover cop. Tellis (Patric) is the tortured cop with the good heart. Oak (Liotta) is the tough-guy cop with the personal vendetta against those that murdered the undercover cop (who just happened to be his ex-partner).
All of this sounds very routine. The plot is not all that unusual. Dirty cops, plenty of criminals, the drug element, etc. So why should anyone see this movie?
Because the performances by Patric and Liotta are brilliant. This is the best performance that I have ever seen by Liotta (yes, I have seen Goodfellas) and Patric lives up to his talent as an actor in this film. As a viewer, I really felt for both of these characters.
The final scene where Oak and Tellis are interrogating two suspects is a great segment of the movie. There are so many twists and turns at the end that it really holds your attention. I loved the part where Tellis confronts Oak and reveals that he knows about all of his connections to the case. It's a very tense moment and these actors have great chemistry in this scene.
My only complaint is the amount of cursing in the movie. It seemed like every other word was a curse word. Yes...I know that cops and drug dealers use "bad" words but it the high amount of expletives at times seemed redundant and unnecessary.
Overall, this is a great unappreciated movie that more people should know about and watch.
8 out of 10