Change Your Image
dye-3
Reviews
Brief Interviews with Hideous Men (2009)
terribly boring
This is an incredibly boring film.
The pretentiousness is unparalleled, as other reviewers have said. There isn't anything insightful here, it's just a mismatch of overly-dramatic monologues that don't make a coherent point either individually or in the aggregate.
Before I judge Krasinski (the director) for the writing, I should consult the book from which the film was sourced. But such would be too tiresome. Whatever the original text offered this film discards. It also wore me out on Krasinski. I recommend skipping this one and avoiding his other work in the future. He's just not content with the trite, but funny, Jim from The Office. This is one actor / director who wants to reach deeper and will sacrifice coherence to pretend it.
Flick (2000)
Unengaging
Another reviewer compared this film's pace to a soap opera's. I think that's appropriate commentary, but it only captures part of the problem.
The film is about a couple of novice drug dealers so I suppose it's reasonable that they lack the look and demeanor of real criminals. Unfortunately, so also does every other character in the film. The "big time" drug buyers look like spongy, average business people rather than sinister, dangerous organized criminals. Not one of them looks like he or she could buy drugs, let alone distribute them. In a film with terrible scenery, props, and wardrobe, it takes a lot of work on the part of the actors to keep the film convincing. This film's actors lack the character to make this a convincing film about (even small-time) crime.
Other areas of disappointment are cinematography, lightning, and music. Each detract from whatever substance the film has.
I'd pass on this one: there are plenty of low-budget gangster moves to choose from that are both less boring and more assuring.
El laberinto del fauno (2006)
Don't Drink the Kool-Aid: Pan Sucks
Pan's Labyrinth (hereafter "Pan") is, perhaps, the most disappointing film I've seen this year. This is so largely because of the sweeping praise the film has received by both critics and the general public. (As of this writing the film is at #47 on IMDb's top 250 list; how tragic).
The film is difficult to categorize because of its strange blend of seemingly incompatible elements. The grotesque violence -- akin to that of gangster films like Goodfellas and The Departed -- is an ill fit for a fantasy film that aims to charm the viewer with ferries and a plot driven by an adolescent girl's interaction with a fantasy world. This really is a film that scatters wartime action scenes amidst Narnia-style childish indulgences. To my ethnocentric American mind, this seems like a tremendous mistake. Does this strange mix work for the rest of the world?
Pan also fails to deliver a visually-appealing viewer experience. Most of the film feels soiled, dark, sticky, and unappealing. This might have worked if the foul scenery of Spain were contrasted with surreal fantasy scenes, but the film misses that boat entirely. The few minutes we spend in fantasy scenes are nearly as dismal as the time we spend engulfed in lackluster forests and a grungy military installation. The fantasy characters, too, are nearly as vile and detestable as the human villains in the film. The movie fails to give the viewer anything to hope for but the closing credits. This seriously inhibits any hope the viewer might have developed for a pleasant outcome for the film's more likable characters.
I concede that the story was not completely contrived and banal. But just because it wasn't familiar doesn't mean it was interesting. Unfortunately, Pan fails to engage the viewer enough that even unpredictable fantasy events can be found exciting. Where's the adventure in the little girl's trials in the labyrinth? Where is the suspense in her escape from the silly underground creature? Why do I find it so difficult to care for the girl's welfare as she is pursued by the evil Captain at the end? It is, of course, because this film is simply mediocre. But its European setting would suggest otherwise to the average American mind.
After watching the film I understand the current surge of film-lust I've seen for Pan. I think the fact that this film sports a more novel, albeit boring, plot than films we commonly see in this country helps some to inflate its better qualities. What would otherwise be considered just good performances are given high accolades. Silly special effects and awful c.g. become passable (seriously people, that frog character and the growing root effects could be generated on my P.C. over lunch). To be honest, I think this film benefited a great deal from its distribution in Spanish: to the starry-eyed American viewer it takes on an exotic feel. If presented in a more average American mode, perhaps its fan-boys would've found this film as empty and unengaging as I did.
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
Oh Goodie, another drug flick!
"Requiem for a Dream" (hereafter "Requiem") may be well-acted, expertly-directed, and perfectly explicative of the situation drug users find themselves in but I'm not in a position to tell you about any of those things. I know nearly nothing about making movies and know even less about drugs. So instead of singing praises for how well this film portrays a certain kind of lifestyle, or for discussing its artistic merit, I'll restrict my comments to experience watching the film. In short, it was boring.
The film has very little plot. It's quite evident from the beginning that it sets up a parallel between drug abuse by the mother of the main character, the main character himself, and his friends. The film makes it quite clear that it'll track their comings and goings as they sink further into addiction and watch the substance of their lives slip away. It tries to weave these parallel stories together in a way that dramatizes their experience. It turns out that this is not a really engaging way to arrange the events of an film. It's kind of, well, boring.
The film uses lots of dizzying imagery to, I suppose, express what the drug-influenced characters may be feeling. These effects irritate the senses. There's nothing interesting about watching a character on screen act kinda crazy and see his fridge come to life. Similarly, it's not fun to be subjected to erratic camera movement or any of the film's other visual effects. When time is condensed and the camera moves about the scene swiftly, the viewer is often left remembering why he or she doesn't spin in offices chairs for fun: because being dizzy is not enlightening or interesting, it just makes one feel sick.
Let me close by saying that I really don't understand the drug film genre. Films of this type often seek to tell us how awful our lives can be if we become addicted to drugs. But I don't think this is such a valuable service. I, for one, I already knew that; reason helped me conclude such without Hollywood's help. I therefore cannot imagine that films like this can actually be deterrents, instead they stand as documentation of what it must be like to live a horrible existence. These films can't really be artistic, per se, they can just give us a look into a much worse life than reason allows us to pursue. If that kind of thing gives you your kicks, by all means watch the film. If, however, you prefer films that tell stories about complexities inherent in living reasoned, well-examined lives this film will prove to be just a bore. Skip it and watch a film that offers substance instead of pseudo-experience.
Escanaba in da Moonlight (2001)
"Escanaba" smells suspiciously fecal
I picked up this movie without any understanding of its background. I knew nothing of the U.P., I didn't have a clue what a Yooper was, and I have always hated hunting because it's a boring redneck sport. For these reasons I really can't offer a review that analyzes the authenticity of the performer's accents or judges the situation to be true to a U.P. hunting experience. I can, however, give you a complete outsider's opinion: this film super-sucks.
It was excruciatingly painful to watch this film. The characters' quirks became devices of torture for audience members: after the second time someone broke into singing, "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot," I wanted to gag myself. Anything funny about the character Jimmer Negamanee was ruined by the actor's awful over-acting. True to past performances, Jeff Daniels didn't bother playing the part of Rueben Soady, the main character in the film, instead he settled on playing that familiar Jeff Daniels character we've seen in other movies.
This film really keeps the important details to itself. If you are adventurous enough to watch Escanaba, don't expect any real plot development. The movie first introduces the buck-less social pariah Jeff Daniels. That's right, he's an outcast because he hasn't killed a deer. Lame? You guessed it. The movie resolves itself predictably with a foolish buck-bagging scene disguised as a religious experience. Laughably ill-conceived? Right again! The meaning and significance of everything the viewer is subjected to between these two scenes is anyone's guess. There is a nauseatingly over-extended fart scene to endure, a number of demonic possessions, some urine-splashing foo, some boring ritualistic pre-hunt deer testicle consuming nonsense, and numerous other scenes whose meaning cannot be fully deciphered.
Truly, Escanaba in Da Moonlight is an obstacle course for the viewer. If you're anything like me you left this movie kind of grumpy and feeling thoroughly violated. I had to take a shower and some Advil to take away the pain. On the other hand, if you're a Yooper you'll probably really enjoy this film: there's a lot of inside humor in there just for you! Reach right into that cracker-jack box and claim your prize! As for this group of L.A.-raised college gentlemen, we've seen your world and we were less-than-enchanted.
My Dinner with Andre (1981)
popular philosophy is garbage
This kind of movie frustrates me. The substance of this film is watered-down pseudo-philosophical tripe that is popular among the "free thinkers" of our time. Leave it to Hollywood to misinterpret the works of great intellectuals (Heidegger, Berkeley, Foucault) and produce something incoherent and meaningless out of it. If you think this movie does a suitable job explicating the philosophical topics it pretends to discuss then you're probably an idiot.
"... it also produces a disgusting hodgepodge of patchwork observations and half-rationalized principles, in which shallow pates revel because it is something useful for everyday chitchat, but the insightful, feeling confused and dissatisfied without being able to help themselves, avert their eyes ..." - Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge edition, Gregor translation)
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
a disappointing film on many levels
I saw this flick opening night with some friends who are big fans of the book. I have not read the book, but have only heard good things. I was hoping this film would capture the brilliance of Adams' work as it's been shared with me. Unfortunately, the film failed to deliver. This flick really has no plot. Most of the film's events come as complete surprises; I suppose that randomness was supposed to add to the *wackiness* of the whole experience. It quickly became nauseating. In this case, I wish I'd watched ANY of the advertised films in the trailers instead of the feature film. That's a HUGE claim: "The Adventures of Shark Boy and Lava Girl" was in there .. {shudder}.
The characters in the film are empty and shallow. Sam Rockwell's character was mildly amusing at best, Marvin (the Jar-Jar Binks of the movie) was predictably dull, and the Vogons were just lame. I really didn't care about any of them, so being a part of their adventure was really boring; the love story was horribly ill-developed, The President's search for the question of the meaning of life and the universe was trite, and the mouse experimentation explanation for the existence of the Earth was, well, stupid.
Let's take inventory at this point ... the film lacked both a plot and interesting characters. How does a movie redeem itself when it lacks these two essential elements, you ask? IT DOESN'T! There was no one to like and nothing to be interested in. I'm serious, people, you'll find yourselves staring at the floor, playing with pocket lint, or perhaps making a mental shopping list during the showing. We're talking about streaming nonsense ... take a pillow or a book, perhaps a deck of cards: you'll need something to pass the TWO HOURS it'll take for this disaster to wrap itself up! In the process of editing this flop, someone should have realized that there is no substance to the film and promptly cut out 30 minutes of what we'll generously call "content." I wanted so badly to like this film and have it be good that I waited through the entire thing for it to turn itself around. What a disappointment. Honestly, "Future War" and "Cyborg" didn't get 2 hours to torture me, why did this film get special treatment?
I suppose the worst part of the film is that it's a disgrace to the book. Leave it to Hollywood to take something interesting and original and, in an attempt to package it for the mass stupids, ruin everything appealing about it.
It's at a time like this that I wish I had a genie in a lamp and 3 wishes: I'd first wish that the producer and director of this film were forbidden from making more films; second, I'd wish that this film be taken from the theaters immediately; and third, I'd wish for the film to be rewritten with only two characters: Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen, and that it be released on DVD as not one film but as an series of films about their travels through the galaxy. This way the public will know what the film is really about, and can judge it as absolute garbage without having to see it for themselves.