Haiku Tunnel (+) -- It's funny. Not "in danger of herniating yourself" funny, but amusing nevertheless, especially if you like a good shot of office and work humor. Josh Kornbluth--noted for his stage work here in the S.F. area--gives his hapless temp a certain amount of sympathetic appeal, even if he's not entirely believable as anyone's secretary. It's a lot like Office Space: a decent satirical look at the work world, though probably not as good as it could have been. Posted 9/14/03.
Hamlet (+) -- A visually interesting presentation, great story (naturally), and good (though sometimes uneven) performances make Olivier's 1948 film of Shakespeare's masterpiece worth seeing. The quality is not quite as high as film historians would have you believe (witness the aforementioned uneven performances), but there's more than enough quality within to make this a worthy rendition of the story. Posted 6/10/06.
The Hammer (+) -- After hearing Adam Carolla talk up his movie ad nauseam on his radio program, it was kind of jarring to finally watch the thing. The verdict: a little cheap here, a little stiff there, a little too personal here and there--but overall, almost perfect for one man's vanity piece. I'm not sure this film signals quite the bright future some have suggested--this really is a very personal role--but the movie is more than good enough on its own singular merits. Posted 11/14/08.
Happenstance (Le battement d'aile du papillon) (+) -- Bring on the Gallic inscrutability. Actually, it's not really so inscrutable, but the movie does present a complex story--more a series of vignettes, really--about tangentially related events in the lives of a handful of Parisians. If you're something of a philosophe, and don't mind subtitles, you might dig this one. And it does have the ever-watchable Audrey Tautou, though not nearly enough of her for my taste. (By the way, the French title means "The beating of a butterfly's wings," if you were curious.) Posted 2/17/04.
Happy Accidents (+) -- If all sci-fi were like this, it would attract more than just ultrageeks. Actually, there's very little here in the way of technojunk; this movie is much more about interpersonal dynamics than quantum mechanics. But it's smart and clever enough to keep you involved with its premise for all of its running time. Posted 4/28/03.
Happy Feet (~) -- Somewhat impressive, somewhat stupid. That doesn't help, I know, but I'm not quite sure what to make of this movie. The stuff about the plight of the natural world at the hands of man is effective and moving, to be sure, but the story and songbook used here are a dumb way to go about presenting that viewpoint. Maybe this is what it takes to drive the point home to the mall crowd. Who knows? For the rest of us, this one can only be a mixed bag. Posted 5/9/09.
Hardball (+) -- Hmmm...a baseball movie wherein baseball is more of a background element. Interesting concept. It takes a while to find its stride; in fact, it's kind of a "stealth" movie all the way around, but the ultimate result is effective. I'm tempted to knock it down for a fairly cheap, tear-jerking ending, but given the overarching themes, I think I can let it slide. Posted 3/1/03.
Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle (+) -- Asian stoners. What will they think of next? Well, what they thought of here is a shitload of stupid, some egregious product placements...and a whole lot of funny. You may hate yourself for it, but you'll laugh out loud throughout this film. The attitude is just right throughout, and the jokes hit for a very high average. Special props go to Kal Penn, who owns every scene he's in, and seems like a...uh...natural in his role. Overall, you get 90 minutes of plain, stupid fun. You can do worse. Posted 9/24/06.
Harry Brown (+) -- Small movie, big body count. It's nice to see some left ambition in this world. This film is not for the feint of heart, to be sure; its various stabbings and shootings are depicted in brutally realistic detail. Still, the film scores major points with its affecting story of an old, emphysemic Royal Marine (Michael Caine) with a taste for vigilantism. Never has "exterminate all the brutes" seemed so sane a policy. Give it a look. Posted 5/4/11.
Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets (--) -- The news is getting worse all the time. If this flick had been a pure movie all the way, it would be bad; but given its origin in print, the result is actually abysmal. Not only is the transition from page to screen unimaginative, but much of the cinematic aspects are just plain wrong: many scenes are awkward, the kids have regressed as actors, the big name cast is mostly going through the motions, and even at well over two hours, the story feels strangely edited and out of joint. There are a few pleasures, mostly in drawing up memories of the reading experience--and it's tough to go wrong when Dobby is in the house--but that's not enough to rescue this mess. Posted 5/9/03.
Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone (~) -- Not awful, but certainly a disappointment, considering the source material. Very lifeless and flat. The kids are fine, but the supporting cast doesn't quite live up to their pedigrees. (Especially Richard Harris as Dumbledore; a cigar store Indian would have been more lively.) This was mostly made for money, and that's hardly magical.
Heartbreakers (–) Utterly banal, except for Jason Lee. At least Jennifer Love Hewitt is easy on the eyes. Posted 11/21/02.
Heist (+) -- This would probably get a worse rating but for writer-director David Mamet's touch. There's some typically clever Mamet dialogue here, enough to crack a few wise smiles throughout the proceedings. Posted 8/26/02.
Hellboy (+) -- Can you really go wrong with a big, red demonyPerlman. (Can't that guy's face ever get a break?) A couple of leaps of illogic in the plot weigh it down, but most of the movie goes down as good fun. Posted 4/24/05.
Henry VBranagh film. It's undeniably a classic, though I must admit that there are some flaws here. For me the whole Falstaff back-story scenes seem flat, though whether the fault lies with this production or the source material (!) is debatable. What stands without question is that when Branagh's Henry is on screen, this movie is electrifying; no wonder everyone was so impressed. Posted 8/8/03.
Hidalgo (+) -- There are problems, including inconsistency in the script (a jumble of languages spoken somewhat randomly) and most notably a long and unnecessary digression in the middle of the movie. So why the positive review? Mostly on the strengths: the movie's visually impressive presentation, a solid core story, and Viggo Mortensen's excellent, understated performance as Frank T. Hopkins. This is the kind of expansive epic adventure that used to be done so well, and with a little tighter focus, Hidalgo might have joined those classic ranks. It still deserves a look. Posted 4/25/05.
High Fidelity (+) -- As with Grosse Pointe Blank, more good work from John Cusack. The scene with Tim Robbins in the record store is by itself a reason to watch.
High Sierra (~) -- The movie that made Bogart Bogart. He's good, the same commanding presence on the screen we always think of. But a lot of the rest of this film doesn't play so well. The supporting cast is weak, and the story takes too long to make its point. As a movie milestone, it's good to watch, but if you're just looking for a good film, I'm not so sure. Posted 5/30/05.
Hilary And Jackie (+) -- Classical music, boring? Not with these gals in the house. In addition to some great music, wonderfully staged, you also get very good performances from the lead actresses--especially Emily Watson; if she doesn't really play the cello, she's incredible at faking it--in a story that is amusing, uplifting and ultimately heartbreaking. Nice work. Posted 3/28/04.
His Girl Friday (+) -- A clever romantic comedy wrapped around a biting satire of the newspaper business and politics. It's somewhat dated, of course; the film came out in 1940, and today would be about television journalism rather than newspapers. But the script remains clever throughout, and appealing performances by leads Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell give the viewer something to hang his hat on. The final scoop: worth a look. Posted 5/8/06.
The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy (~) -- Weird. All the jokes are there, almost word for word, yet everything is strangely flat and not nearly as funny as it was on the page. The story starts out faithful, but veers off in some weird directions before coming to an ending which is profoundly false vis-a-vis the books. At least they got the visuals right, and some of the spirit remains. Not worth paying to see, but a forgivable effort. Let your taste for comedic sci-fi be your guide. Posted 9/25/06.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (~) -- Boy is this thing bloated. As if there were any doubt, this is a story that could easily have been told in one movie; perhaps a long movie, to get every rich detail, but one movie nevertheless. Instead, because of obvious and pure greed, the producers decided to stretch the thing out into three movies, mostly by stuffing into the proceedings every drop of backstory and subtext that could be mined from Tolkien’s original tale. The burdens of that approach are apparent: a great deal of expansion on the tangential concern about the Necromancer (Sauron, for those who only saw the previous movies), none of which matches the tone of the actual, by-the-book story at all. The resulting film is discordant and needlessly uneven. But, then again, there are moments of brilliance here: the Riddles in the Dark episode is flawlessly presented, and the rescue by the eagles is one of the most amazing sequences I’ve ever seen in a movie. There’s no point in denying yourself, if you’re a fan; go ahead and watch this flick (and the upcoming two). Just don’t reward the greed by spending a dime on it; get the disc from the damn library. Posted 10/20/13.
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (~) -- The map within the frontispiece of this film should read, “Here There Be Bloat.” Again, the tidy little story gets the stretched out treatment; the result might be more impressive for someone completely unaware of the original book. Perhaps. For the long-time fan, the result is much more problematic; the initiated viewer is constantly aware of how much story stretching is going on, of how much of what he’s seeing is not in the original tale. That’s distracting, if nothing else, and negatively impacts the viewer’s experience. Ironically, then, this is probably a movie that one would only recommend to die-hard fans--exactly the people who will be most annoyed by the story manipulations. What’s done is done, but the “three movie arc” decision really was a huge mistake. Posted 8/20/14.
Holes (+) -- A movie that tries to cover an awful lot of ground. It seems at first like it's bound to fail, but the threads of this artfully constructed story come together in the end for a nice payoff. There's a disquieting note that runs just below the surface--a flicker on the bullshit meter regarding how a young man really would react to such injustice--but it remains buried deep enough that it doesn't spoil the fun. Definitely worth a look. Posted 10/5/05.
Hollow Man (--) -- I must give credit for some truly eye-popping special effects: the anatomical visuals are simply amazing. The bad news is, those effects appear in the service of an otherwise bad--indeed, downright unpleasant--movie. Kevin Bacon's lead character is thoroughly repellent even before he goes off half-cocked; there are scenes of truly repugnant violence; and the final sequence veers into explosion-riddled stupidity. Hollow Man is, ironically, only the shell of a worthwhile movie. Posted 3/28/04.
Hollywood Ending (+) -- It would be premature to say that Woody Allen is "back" here, but by an objective and fair standard, this is a funny movie. It doesn't click right from the start, but once the ball gets rolling it becomes an nice bit of work. Posted 4/16/03.
Home Fries (~) -- A so-so story. Drew Barrymore's appeal only goes so far.
Hoop Dreams (~) -- Every documentary has a test it must pass: is its subject so engrossing that the viewer must keep watching? This one, though well conceived and presented, doesn't quite meet that standard. Maybe it's because I've fallen off the basketball bandwagon in the last few years. Or maybe the film just doesn't have enough premise to seize the attention. Nor does it help that it is staggeringly long (clocking in at almost 3 hours). Buckle in for a long haul if you decide to give it a try. Posted 1/20/06.
Hope Floats (~) -- Not quite the stinkburger that most reviewers said it was; but it won't be a tragedy if you never see it, either. Best for Sandra Bullock fans.
The Hospital (~) -- A strange experience--a movie so stylistically different from today's films that it might as well be from another country. And the '70s cultural vibe, on display throughout, pushes the film even further away, making it almost like a movie from another world. There are positives here: several fine and typical moments cynical, satirical absurdity in Paddy Chayefsky's script, and a stand-out performance from George C. Scott which holds everything together. But that oddly spare style is distracting. Tough to recommend, yet tough to ignore, too. Check in if you feel like it. Posted 11/28/07.
The Hours (~) -- I'm not impressed; guess I get to go sit in the corner for a while. Everyone else loved this one, so maybe I'm the problem. To me, the story seemed both contrived and overly convoluted; better to tell one story clearly and lucidly than to lose yourself in three intertwined tales. The weakness is almost overcome by good performances from a great cast, but it's not enough for me. Posted 12/31/03.
House Of Flying Daggers (~) -- I'm beginning to think this "chop socky" thing has run its course. We've seen all of this before: the super-skilled fighting, the tragic love, the fight for justice. At this point, repetition is setting in. However artfully choreographed they are, these souped up combat scenes are starting to blend with one another. And the "fight against the corrupt government" plot is so worn it's all down to tattered silk threads. (Side note: hey, Chinese people: how about actually fighting against a corrupt government, instead of just staring at it on a movie screen?) Still, Chinese cinema has made enormous strides, and the now standard quality level--particularly the stunningly beautiful cinematography--shows here too. If this is your genre, you'll probably want to see this movie; if not, you can probably let it fly by. Posted 12/4/06.
The House Of Mirth (--) To call the pace of this movie languid would put an undue strain on the concept of languidity. It really has some trouble holding the attention. And there are too many actors in here--Gillian Anderson, Eric Stoltz, Dan Ackroyd, Anthony LaPaglia--who are too modern in their usual on-screen personae to seem in the proper context in a period piece like this. (They're not bad, in terms of performances; just out of place.) And finally, the gist of the story--obnoxious rich bitch gets her comeuppance--is hardly designed to spark much empathy in today's audience. Posted 7/19/03.
The House Of Yes (~) -- Not bad, considering it has Freddie Prinze Jr. and Tori Spelling in it. (They both acquit themselves well, surprisingly enough.) But this is really Parker Posey's show, and her chewing the scenery is not quite so entertaining.
How The West Was Won (~) -- Alternatively entertaining and asinine. Yes, movies were different back in the day, especially westerns, which hardly exist nowadays. Still, you kind of wonder when musical numbers randomly break out in the midst of the story of westward ho! expansion. Anyway, there's a lot of hokum here, some decent action scenes, a hilarious cameo scene with John Wayne as Sherman and Harry Morgan as Grant at Shiloh--visually incongruous barely begins to describe it--and just a little bit of regret about, you know, all that stabbing Indians in the back. And the bad restoration job on the DVD I watched--including distractingly viewable seams between the original Cinerama panels--didn't help. As a time capsule piece, I guess it may be worth a look, once in a while. Otherwise, not the best work of an admittedly all-star cast. Posted 1/31/11.
How To Train Your Dragon (+) -- You know the drill by now. This film has all the standard characteristics of today's CGI animated wonderworks--enough so that it shouldn't rise anywhere above run-of-the-mill status. And yet, somehow, it does. There's something in this piece that gives it more life than the usual fare. The art direction, the voiceover acting, the setting...I don't know; it's something ineffable that leaves the viewer thinking, "I enjoyed that more than I should have." Maybe I shouldn't trust that result, but I think we can get away with it here. Posted 9/30/11.
Hugo (+) -- Martin Scorsese finally discovers subtlety. It's worth noting, perhaps, that if even one of the characters in this movie had simply told the honest truth from the beginning, much trouble could have been averted. Then again, we wouldn't have had much of a movie. And this is much of a movie: a wonderful, deeply involving--at times riveting--story about life, hope, and redemption that also makes a powerful case for the director's pet passion of film preservation. The film's look is gorgeous; the 3D aspects, even in a 2D presentation, never overwhelm the storytelling. And pitch perfect performances from the terrific cast (even from Sacha Baron Cohen's almost over the top station inspector) bring the story alive and make for a deeply affecting movie experience. A must see. Posted 1/21/13.
The Hurricane (+) -- Excellent biopic based on Ruben Carter's memoirs. According to the reviews, the filmmakers fudged the details a bit, but Carter's story remains powerful, and Denzel Washington brings the former champ vividly to life.
The Hurt Locker (+) -- I need to be cautious here. This is a good movie. A good movie. But this is not a Best Picture movie. I suspect that award had much more to do with the politics of the award-givers, and what they wanted to say, versus the actual quality of this film. The performances ring true, the direction is well done, and the scenes look for all the world like they really were filmed in Iraq in 2004. But again, this film is less a narrative plot than a series of scenes/vignettes on the subject of war and what it does to people (a.k.a. the Saving Private Ryan effect). I'm starting to think that this represents a trend in moviemaking on the subject of war; why the reluctance to show a real war story, instead of just a pastiche representing feelings about the conflict? Is there something there that filmmakers are trying to hide? Avoid? What's going on here? Answering those questions might eventually yield some real Best Picture war movie material. Posted 3/10/11.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Recently Read
Our Daily Meds
by Melody Petersen
A sobering reminder, if one were needed, that the doctor is NOT your friend. Especially when he's on the take from the drug companies.
That's the biggest takeaway from author Petersen's exposé of the pharmaceutical industry. It's one thing to state the notion--which by now is fairly obvious--that the drug companies are the province of sleazy lowlifes. Given all we've seen the last decade and a half--a sickening torrent of prescription drug commercials for every ailment ever imagined by the marketer's mind; heavily-hyped medicines being recalled by the government for being downright deadly, let alone ineffective; the lack of substantive drugs to cure sickness, versus an avalanche of pills designed to symptom-treat (not cure) chronic conditions--it hardly comes as a surprise that Petersen's well-researched pages reveal the corruption that has sunk all the way into big pharma's core.
But it is striking and surprising to learn from those same pages how deeply compromised this nation's doctors are. Our Daily Meds provides voluminous examples that demonstrate that, apparently, doctors in this country have never met a bribe they didn't like. Petersen makes a strong case that all of the expensive dinners, luxury vacations, and hefty cash payments that doctors take from the pharmaceutical companies has had direct negative effects on the health of people both in this country and possibly around the world.
That said, the book does suffer minor flaws, the biggest of which is a certain repetitiveness. One story of corruption tends to blend into another as the pharma companies use the same tactics, over and over again, to get their "new" drugs out to the market and to encourage doctors to write millions of dubious, often needless prescriptions to boost sales. One also must note that Petersen is not the best prose stylist; the text contains a distractingly high number of passages that could have used better editing.
Nevertheless, Our Daily Meds delivers what the nation's consumers and patients need the most--a harsh dose of reality. Reading this book will give you a clearer idea of just how distrustful you need to be when you walk into your doctor's office. If nothing else--or you're not in the mood to read it for yourself--at the very least we should all as serious questions whenever a doctor writes a prescription: Is this drug approved for this application? Is this a new drug, or has it been on the market for a while? Is there a generic version of this drug available?
Those questions may actually save your life someday. And if everyone starts asking those questions thanks to Petersen and her book, then the author can congratulate herself on a job well done.
by Melody Petersen
A sobering reminder, if one were needed, that the doctor is NOT your friend. Especially when he's on the take from the drug companies.
That's the biggest takeaway from author Petersen's exposé of the pharmaceutical industry. It's one thing to state the notion--which by now is fairly obvious--that the drug companies are the province of sleazy lowlifes. Given all we've seen the last decade and a half--a sickening torrent of prescription drug commercials for every ailment ever imagined by the marketer's mind; heavily-hyped medicines being recalled by the government for being downright deadly, let alone ineffective; the lack of substantive drugs to cure sickness, versus an avalanche of pills designed to symptom-treat (not cure) chronic conditions--it hardly comes as a surprise that Petersen's well-researched pages reveal the corruption that has sunk all the way into big pharma's core.
But it is striking and surprising to learn from those same pages how deeply compromised this nation's doctors are. Our Daily Meds provides voluminous examples that demonstrate that, apparently, doctors in this country have never met a bribe they didn't like. Petersen makes a strong case that all of the expensive dinners, luxury vacations, and hefty cash payments that doctors take from the pharmaceutical companies has had direct negative effects on the health of people both in this country and possibly around the world.
That said, the book does suffer minor flaws, the biggest of which is a certain repetitiveness. One story of corruption tends to blend into another as the pharma companies use the same tactics, over and over again, to get their "new" drugs out to the market and to encourage doctors to write millions of dubious, often needless prescriptions to boost sales. One also must note that Petersen is not the best prose stylist; the text contains a distractingly high number of passages that could have used better editing.
Nevertheless, Our Daily Meds delivers what the nation's consumers and patients need the most--a harsh dose of reality. Reading this book will give you a clearer idea of just how distrustful you need to be when you walk into your doctor's office. If nothing else--or you're not in the mood to read it for yourself--at the very least we should all as serious questions whenever a doctor writes a prescription: Is this drug approved for this application? Is this a new drug, or has it been on the market for a while? Is there a generic version of this drug available?
Those questions may actually save your life someday. And if everyone starts asking those questions thanks to Petersen and her book, then the author can congratulate herself on a job well done.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Resurrection, on Film (sort of)
I used to have an old personal web site, the late crescent & crossbones productions, whereon I had voluminous movie write-ups--almost every film I watched for nearly a decade--in the site's Reel Reviews section. Until now, on this blog, Reel Reviews was limited to the plain up, down, or indifferent signals (+, --, or ~, my foolproof, copyrighted system of film review notation) in the recent postings Reel Reviews box, over yonder there at the right. No descriptions offered.
Until now, that is. I've decided to port over those old c&cp Reel Reviews pages to this blog. This will mean, among other things, several super long posts covering one whole listing of movies. (The old Reel Reviews was always organized alphabetically.) I may need to break those posts in two, or three, or whatever seems appropriate. There will also be direct links to each movie's capsule review, much as I've recently done with the books I've written up for Recently Read features. I've begun with the S page--a product of the recently viewed Stagecoach--and will port over other pages as occasion permits.
Why am I doing this? Several reasons. One, I hated the idea of all that old stuff going to waste; I made a lot of effort in putting together that database of remarks about the movies I see, and I'd like to keep it viable and available, for myself if no one else. (Much of this blog functions as a journal for myself, as much as it does a window for the rest of the world to see through.) As I move those old pages over to Malchats Matters, they will not only be available and browesable, but searchable, too--a handy feature offered by Blogger.
There's also the fact that I'm trying to jump start myself through efforts like this; trying to recapture some of the gumption and momentum I used to have in my life. If it's possible to get that from engaging myself in minor pursuits like writing movie and book reviews, I'll take it.
So the next time you want to sit down in front of the tube and watch that not-so-recent movie, come to Malchats Matters for some straight dope on whether it's a good flick, worth it if you're bored, or an utter waste of time. From here on out, you'll have the answer at your fingertips.
Until now, that is. I've decided to port over those old c&cp Reel Reviews pages to this blog. This will mean, among other things, several super long posts covering one whole listing of movies. (The old Reel Reviews was always organized alphabetically.) I may need to break those posts in two, or three, or whatever seems appropriate. There will also be direct links to each movie's capsule review, much as I've recently done with the books I've written up for Recently Read features. I've begun with the S page--a product of the recently viewed Stagecoach--and will port over other pages as occasion permits.
Why am I doing this? Several reasons. One, I hated the idea of all that old stuff going to waste; I made a lot of effort in putting together that database of remarks about the movies I see, and I'd like to keep it viable and available, for myself if no one else. (Much of this blog functions as a journal for myself, as much as it does a window for the rest of the world to see through.) As I move those old pages over to Malchats Matters, they will not only be available and browesable, but searchable, too--a handy feature offered by Blogger.
There's also the fact that I'm trying to jump start myself through efforts like this; trying to recapture some of the gumption and momentum I used to have in my life. If it's possible to get that from engaging myself in minor pursuits like writing movie and book reviews, I'll take it.
So the next time you want to sit down in front of the tube and watch that not-so-recent movie, come to Malchats Matters for some straight dope on whether it's a good flick, worth it if you're bored, or an utter waste of time. From here on out, you'll have the answer at your fingertips.
Reel Reviews -- S
The Saint (+) -- It came and went with hardly a notice, but this flick deserved better. Val Kilmer brings a nice touch to the role of Simon Templar, and though the story ultimately gets a bit absurd--cold fusion, eh?--it still manages to entertain.
A Scanner Darkly (~) -- I'm two days removed from watching this movie, and I'm still not sure what to make of it. Is the paranoia trip focused on the government? Corporations? Every one of us? It's tough to tell. The performances work, I can say that. And the rotoscoped animation is OK; it serves its purpose in a few places, allowing touches of visual flair that would have just seemed weird in total live action. But...something's missing. You're pretty much on your own here; watch if you must. Posted 2/14/11.
Scary Movie (~) -- It has its moments; I'll give it that. Some of them are laugh out loud moments. On the other hand, some of the gross out stuff goes a little too far; there's almost a "no limits" aspect here, and it often backfires. You can make a good joke without going overboard, if you're willing to make a little effort. Proceed with caution. Posted 4/16/03.
The School Of Rock (+) -- I actually wanted, for a brief time, to give this a negative review. After all, it doles out cliche after cliche, even as it mocks cliche after cliche. But I can't do it. The movie is too infectious--mostly due to Jack Black's performance--and you just can't help but admire its energy. No one's playing hall monitor today; this one gets a pass. Posted 3/8/05.
The Score (+) -- A qualified approval: it's well done, but it doesn't quite have that spark. It's nice seeing some classy actors do their thing (DeNiro, Brando, Norton), but with a movie like this you expect the dialogue to crackle a little bit more. Posted 10/17/02.
The Scorpion King (~) -- A real howler. By all rights a horrible movie, but if you watch it with the right expectations, you can get a lot of laughs out of this supertanker full of 'teh stupid.' Think "Conan Jr." and you've got the right idea. Just don't take it seriously. At all. Really. Posted 5/21/09.
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (+) -- After five minutes, I really wanted to hate this movie. It seemed determined to prove that video games really do make you stupid. Plus it seems to declare, in giant flaming letters, the end of the "Michael Cera era"--you get the worn out feeling of watching the same guy playing the same character in the same kind of movie...And yet, somehow, the movie finds away, through all of its visual hokum, its all-too-clever hipster/millenial street cred, and all of the reworked Matrix and Kill Bill moves, to rise above and deliver enough wit, good cheer and fun times to make for a movie that's impossible not to enjoy. A neat trick, and worthy of our appreciation. Posted 8/15/12.
Seabiscuit (+) -- You're going to hate me for saying this, but yes, the book is better. Not that this flick is bad. The filmmakers did a wonderful job of recreating the era, down to the smallest details. And the performances by Tobey Maguire, Chris Cooper and Jeff Bridges are first rate, capturing their subjects with impeccable accuracy. But the written story is so rich that you miss too much if you only see this movie. Posted 9/12/04.
The Searchers (~) -- John Wayne was once the biggest star in Hollywood--quite a feat if all of his characters were as big a dick as the man hunting for his lost niece in this flick. Wayne is here at his iconic--if dickish--best; he's not the problem. This is almost a really good Western movie, taking in Wayne, the spectacular scenery, some heavy duty cowboys vs. Indians shit...Yet, in the end, there are problems. Both Wayne's character, and his niece, make 180º reversals at the climax which seem all out of step with what has gone before. These inconsistencies seem only to serve the purpose of a (somewhat) happy ending. That weakness pulls down the rest of the movie. Posted 2/7/11.
The Secret Garden (+) -- Engrossing right from the start. This is a children's story done right: a well-told tale presented with imagination and charm, a terrific performance by young Kate Maberly in the lead role as the orphaned girl who brings life back to her uncle's house, and a delightful belief in discovery and redemption. A beautiful work, one you simply can't miss. Posted 9/18/07.
The Secret Lives Of Dentists (~) -- A married couple is having problems. Why do we care? Well, mostly, we don't. There's little about the focal family that's particularly engaging. The film only perks up--and earns the "so-so" grade--when Denis Leary is on the screen, playing the voice in the jealous husband's head. Without him, it drags. Posted 2/25/05.
Secret Window (+) -- Even the presence of Johnny Depp seems not to be enough to save this film during its uneventful first two thirds. But then things get interesting, as Depp gets nutty, and the ending is something to...uh...savor. Give it time to do its thing, and you'll be rewarded. Posted 2/25/05.
Secretariat (~) -- This is standard issue, boilerplate Disney movie--little more than you would have seen on the "Wonderful World of Disney" TV program 40 years ago (right when Secretariat was about to go on his historic run). It veers wildly between charming and cartoonish, presents plenty of well-worn schmaltz and platitudes, and--one suspects--fudges not a little bit on the truth. That's not to say that there are no entertaining moments here; a very appealing cast elevates the proceedings by their presence, and insomuch as the film reminds you of the true glory of Big Red, it serves as a worthwhile memorial. But one suspects this could have been a great deal more than it is. Posted 10/28/11.
Serenity (+) -- Flawed but entertaining, much like its television predecessor Firefly. The biggest flaw: sometimes the main plot feels less interesting than the secondary shenanigans--the action, the wit, the developed character interactions--but the overall story works, and is never so subordinate as to ground the whole flight. And when this ship soars, it soars. I'd be on board for more movies with this crew. Posted 4/21/07.
A Serious Man (~) -- I watched this movie on DVD, though I'm guessing if the Coen brothers could have distributed it on bagels they would have. Let's just say, if Ahmadinejad is ever convicted of anything at The Hague, his punishment will probably involve watching this movie on a continuous loop. This film won't be everyone's cup of Manischewitz, and it's not an especially great movie in general terms, but it's not a waste of time by any means. There are good moments, occasional funny moments (if not barrel rolls of laughter), and enough effective storytelling that, by the end, you do care about what happens to the protagonist. Worth a look on a rainy day. Posted 3/24/11.
Seven (+) -- Brad Pitt is edgy, Morgan Freeman is tired, Gwyneth Paltrow is the lamb, and Kevin Spacey is a world class creep. And they all do it very well. Not for the squeamish, but the rest of us shouldn't miss this one.
Seven Psychopaths (~) -- So here’s a film about filmmaking. Makes sense; that’s been going around a lot lately (see “last two Best Picture winners”). Actually, if you want to get technical, this is more of a film about script writing, but let’s not quibble. And it wants to satirize all of the the cliches of violent, shoot ‘em up movies...mostly by wallowing in those cliches. And it really really really thinks of itself as clever. Unfortunately, that’s not what the audience thinks, and it’s the audience that counts. There are good moments and some quite likeable actors here--if not likeable characters--that keep the thing moving and hold the viewer’s attention through most of the running time. But this film just isn’t what it cracks itself up to be. Posted 10/20/13.
Seven Samurai (+) -- A positive review, but a tenuous positive. I didn't like this quite as much as I thought I would, and goodness gracious is it loooonnnnggg. But there is enough good here that make it worth the effort, if you've got a couple of days to kill. The bulk of the praise should go to Takashi Shimura for his amazing performance as the leader of the samurai. The rest of the movie is uneven, but provides enough laughs and adventure to satisfy a true movie fan. Posted 9/7/04.
Seven Years In Tibet (+) -- Most people didn't like this one, but I disagree. Brad Pitt makes an effective Heinrich Harrer, and even if the German mountaineer's relationship with the young Dalai Lama wasn't really what is depicted here, the story we do get is still pretty effective. Watch it and judge for yourself (but set aside some time--this is a long one).
Sex, Lies and Videotape (--) -- The lead off of Steven Soderbergh's hit and miss career, a turgid study of the lives of four boring people. Characters aren't enough, folks; we need reasons to care about these people. Those reasons don't show up here. Skip it. Posted 9/10/06.
Sexy Beast (+) -- This one earns its wings mostly on the performance of Ben Kingsley; he's a riot. It's also fairly stylish, with the kind of flair that keeps you smiling most of the way through. Interesting sidebar: it's a movie about criminals, but there's barely any hint of finger-wagging at the characters' misdeeds. You're never led to think, "When are the cops going to bag these guys?" Is our society so inured against concepts of right and wrong? Something to ponder as you laugh at Kingsley's lunatic. Posted 5/4/03.
Shackleton (+) -- Not a "movie" per se; an "A & E" production in two parts, more like a mini-miniseries. Despite that lack of pedigree, it's not bad. It moves slowly in parts, some of the story seems contrived, and you get the distinct impression that you're watching British TV (which, in a sense, you are). But the scenery is spectacular, and Branagh brings his chops to bear; that makes it watchable. Posted 4/8/03.
Shadowlands (+) -- A good one, mostly on the strength of two powerful, emotionally vibrant performances by Debra Winger and Anthony Hopkins. It's a strong story, a strong love story, and a meditation on life and what it all means. You could do worse for yourself than to spend these two hours. Posted 3/15/05.
Shadow Of The Vampire (+) -- Willem Dafoe sucks…and there's your story. A stylishly done bit of horror-satire, with Dafoe as the Nosferatu who literally chews the scenery of John Malkovich's movie-within-a-movie. Don't worry--it's not really scary...just entertaining.
Shaft (~) -- The remake, with Samuel L. Jackson in the title role. Not awful, but it didn't need to be made, either.
Shallow Grave (+) -- My new bumper sticker: "Friends don't let friends bury a dead body in order to keep a suitcase full of cash." You see, this is what happens when people aren't as clever as they think they are. The story is predictable, but the movie stays engaging nonetheless. The tension between the mismatched-but-bound-by-a-secret flatmates (including a very young Ewan McGregor) helps keep the film worthy of your attention. It's not to die for, but it's still entertaining. Posted 2/26/06
Shallow Hal (+) -- Not quite the laugh riot that most Farrelly Brothers movies are, but in this case I think it's intentional. This movie has surprising depth; some jokes and scenes are funny, but many are played straight up, and at some points it's actually moving. And don't get scared off by the subject--even if you're fat and touchy about it, you'll like this movie. Posted 2/14/03.
Shanghai Noon (+) -- Nothing earthshaking; just standard adventure-movie fun. Jackie Chan lightens up and plays this one for broader laughs, and Owen Wilson provides his typical dose of goofy charm.
Shaolin Soccer (~) -- "Weird" barely begins to go into it. Even for a comedy, this movie has a strangely skewed outlook, one that can only be partly explained by its Chinese origin. There are a lot of cross-cultural references here, elements that seem to have been tossed into the script without any real understanding of the original meaning or sentiment. But there are some cool kung fu routines, as well as a nice undercurrent to the story--about believing in one's self--that assures the viewer that the movie's heart is in the right place. I wouldn't pay to see it, but I don't regret watching it, either. Posted 5/30/05.
Shark Tale (~) -- Here's a prime example of how familiar voices are distracting in animation. The story would have played much better with less famous actors supplying the sounds. And, of course, a little more "snap" in the story would have helped. There are good moments, but too often the story...flounders. (I know, I know...) On the other hand, there's nothing egregiously wrong here, and some fun can be had, if you don't expect too much. It's probably not worth the price of admission, but let's call it a decent rental. Posted 4/2/06.
Shattered Glass (+) -- So here you have it: another object lesson in why popular people suck. The movie certainly makes the case that journalist Stephen Glass was popular with his coworkers--until they found out he was lying about just about everything. The film presents a well-constructed story that starts plainly, then patiently peels away the layers to reveal how far back Glass's deceptions went. It leaves some wiggle room about why Glass did what he did, but while motivation remains obscure, the reality of the damage makes for more than enough compelling viewing. Good craft and fine performances total up to a compelling, at times riveting, film. Definitely one to see. Posted 6/23/07.
The Shawshank Redemption (+) -- An elegantly made prison movie. How often do you see that? It's quietly good, a solid story that holds the interest over the course of it's stretched out length. And, even in a prison, there are guys you can root for, as the principles ably demonstrate. Worth a look. Posted 7/18/05.
Shine (+) -- Not your typical Saturday night fare. A movie that makes some demands on you, but the payoff is worth it if you make the effort. Great work by Geoffrey Rush as the mental case pianist.
The Shipping News (~) -- When people think about a good time at the movies, the word "somber" rarely comes to mind. You get plenty of that here. The story's thesis--that there's a place where everyone belongs--is not so bad, and it is gratifying when Kevin Spacey's hapless schlub finds some measure of redemption in the end. But that's not enough to lift this movie high enough for most viewers. Posted 3/10/06.
Short Cuts (--) -- You can't really call someone's creative work 'pointless,' can you? Well...of course you can, and here's a fine example. Slice of life vignettes about uninteresting people yield uninteresting results. I only got about an hour into this one, so maybe it got better as it went along. I'll never know--I can't envision going back for more. Posted 10/9/05.
Shrek 2 (~) -- The promise here--appropriately, given the ogre theme--is like land in Florida: a lot of it turns out to be swamp. The film has its moments, but given the wit and fun of the original, we should get hours, not moments. The Puss in Boots character is a hoot, but he disappears for long stretches of the story. And the use of music, so fresh and hip in the original, sounds decidedly stale here. (It does not help that they picked some of the worst songs ever recorded.) I'm glad I saw (and paid for) a matinee--at $9, this would have been a rip-off. Posted 6/4/04.
Sideways (+) -- A beautifully done movie, with a half-hilarious, half-touching story. Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church create a wonderful symbiosis as mismatched friends: one who would barely be alive but for being pulled forward, the other who would probably be dead if he wasn't being held back. Together they're amazing. You need to see this movie. Posted 11/14/04.
Signs (+) -- Yep, more evidence that I do love Shyamalan's directorial style. And the story's not so bad either; I liked the subtle misdirection of the plot (you're expecting it to be the universal story, but no, it's really about a personal struggle.) Posted 6/6/03.
Silver Linings Playbook (+) -- You’re not likely to like this one right away. The dysfunction is very up front and in your face, right from the start, and it’s tough to find much that’s likeable in the main characters. But, much as with the lead characters themselves, the audience will find a slow thaw creeping over them, until the climax comes and you find yourself rooting for these misfit toys much more than you thought you would. And, if you’re from Philadelphia, you’ll know that they got a lot of that Eagles fan stuff spot on. It worked for me, at least. Posted 10/20/13.
A Simple Plan (+) -- Excellent cautionary tale about the dangers of getting too involved with dumbass rednecks.
The Sixth Sense (+) -- I see a very lively film career for writer/director M. Night Shyamalan. Not just clever, moody and emotionally true, but it stands out like a sore thumb for its deliberate, assured pace compared with the rest of today's frenetic films.
Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow (--) -- Dumb with a capital D-U-M. It's visually interesting throughout, to be sure, but this film also contains some of the stupidest hokum ever to be put on screen (like serious confusion about time and place, for one example). Watch it if you must, but don't pay a dime to see it. Posted 4/17/09.
Skyfall (+) -- An entertaining bit of very self-aware mayhem. This film completes the franchise reboot, and does so with a lot of wit, plenty of style, and some really audacious action sequences. I guess from here on out the series will really be like a new version of the good old days, at least until Daniel Craig is too old for that shit (in about 5 months, probably). So the future is promising, or in doubt, or who knows? Whatever happens, at least we have one more Bond flick that’s truly worth a look. Posted 12/23/13.
Slacker (--) -- Quite the disappointment. This one got a lot of buzz when it came out, but watching it showed a movie which seemed mostly pointless. And if these folks are typical of Austin, that town's rep for coolness is grossly undeserved.
Sleepwalk With Me (~) -- A dork has relationship problems. Does that sound like an entertaining movie to you? If yes, then I guess you’ve found your film. Otherwise, you’ll probably find this flick dull, flat, and frequently off-putting, with only the occasional laugh breaking in on a disappointing and dreary narrative. And what's with Birbiglia playing a fictionalized version of himself? How is that supposed to work when the story is so personal and peculiar that anyone who has any familiarity with the film's star couldn't possibly be expected to view him as playing anything other than his actual self? That odd choice probably doomed the thing right from the start. Posted 10/20/13.
Sliding Doors (+) -- Even if Gwyneth Paltrow hadn't given an excellent dual performance as the parallel universe versions of one young Englishwoman, this flick would still get bonus points for "best gratuitous use of a Monty Python quote."
Slums Of Beverly Hills (+) -- If you like quirky, this is just your flavor. It's funny without being obvious, "coming of age" without being trite, a "family" movie without being schmaltzy, and a period movie without being showy about its details. Oh, yeah, did I mention funny? Mostly low key funny, but at least a few laugh out loud moments, too. Find it and enjoy. Posted 5/11/05.
Small Soldiers (~) -- I saw this one a while back, and I don't remember much about it. I recall thinking it was OK, that the effects were kind of neat, the story wasn't bad…but it's all pretty vague. Can't really recommend, but can't really pan it either. You're on your own here.
Smilla's Sense Of Snow (--) -- A few redeeming moments, but a bit on the bleak side. And the plot point involving a meteorite is patently preposterous. If you're big on mysteries, maybe; otherwise, you can skip it. Posted 5/18/02.
Smoke Signals (+) -- A thoughtful, entertaining and occasionally touching look at life on and off the reservation. Very sophisticated and ultimately heartfelt story of family hurting and healing. One of those "little-movie-that-could" types; definitely look if you're into that sort of thing. Posted 9/16/02.
Snakes On A Plane (+) -- Silly, strange, but surprisingly fun. A much better movie than you'd expect, especially when viewed with the pre-release hype as nothing but a distant memory. It didn't change film forever, but you can do worse with two of your hours. Posted 4/16/09.
Snow White and the Huntsman (+) -- I dug it, more than I thought I would. The filmmakers hit all of the right fairy tale marks, and do it with just enough of their own stamp and style to make a very archetypal story seem fairly original. The cast is good in their roles, even the eternally dumped upon Kristen Stewart, who maybe deserves a bit more respect than she’s getting. All in all, a good trip to fantasyland. Posted 8/21/13.
The Social Network (+) -- I have no use for Facebook, yet a movie about Facebook's (possibly larcenous) founding works for me. It just goes to show that, in the right filmmaker's hands, any story can be worth your time. Especially notable is the use of Justin Timberlake--seemingly a case of stunt casting--who almost steals the show as a thinly veiled version of Napster's Shaun Fanning. As for the accusations of wrong-doing by Mr. Zuckerberg...well, "not proven" as they say in Scotland, but the kid sure doesn't come across very well here. You may judge for yourself, by seeing this film. Posted 8/19/11.
Solaris (+) -- We're talking Soderbergh's remake here, not Tarkovsky's Russian original. Having never seen the original, I can't say if Soderbergh is copying the original or channeling Kubrick. Something is clearly being referenced, especially in the early scenes, where the spare style almost exactly echoes 2001 (some shots are dead-on callbacks to Kubrick's masterpiece). Parallels even exist between the stories, though the vision here is not quite so epic. Eerily quiet, moody and atmospheric, this film won't be to everyone's taste, but fans of non-shoot 'em up sci-fi should give it a look. Posted 2/14/06
Something's Gotta Give (+) -- The positive review comes largely on the strength of Diane Keaton's energetic performance. She injects such life into her character that it becomes difficult not to be interested in this otherwise slight and predictable story. The biggest quibble: when the happy ending finally comes, you can't help feeling that she wound up with the wrong man. It's a credit to Keaton that you actually care about that. Posted 3/7/05.
Space Cowboys (~) -- I guess it's OK if the geezers get to go for a ride once in a while. It's all very predictable, but Eastwood, Jones, Garner, and Sutherland deliver performances you expect from seasoned professionals. If you've got nothing else to do, you could sit down and watch this one and not feel like the time's been wasted.
The Spanish Main (+) -- One of those good, old-fashioned, Saturday-morning matinee pirate adventure movies, if you know what I mean. Mad props to Paul Henreid, who is a hoot as the cocky bastard in charge of the ship. Tune in to TCM the next time this one shows up on the schedule; your buckles will definitely be swashed. Posted 7/18/05.
The Spanish Prisoner (~) -- I watched this movie last night. I'm still waiting for it to make its point. Well, that's a little harsh, and it is a David Mamet film, so you know it has its moments, but it takes too long to get going, and it never really clicks. Besides, the clever machinations come across as a little too clever; the plot twists, given a sober view, would require something like prescience to play out. It crosses too far over the belief border. Posted 3/1/05.
Spawn (+) -- There's been a lot of press about The West Wing lately, but this is how I like to see Martin Sheen play a politician: sleazy, and in serious need of an ass-kicking. Michael Jai White, as the titular super(anti)hero, ultimately provides the required foot. Plus John Leguizamo gets off a few good lines, and the effects are awesome.
Spellbound (~) -- Alfred Hitchcock's supposed classic. I say supposed because, though the film has much to recommend it, it never really clicked for me. Maybe Gregory Peck didn't convince me, or the laughable idea of Ingrid Bergman--roughly 21 years old at the time of filming--as a psychiatrist pushed my suspension of disbelief too far, or...actually, I can't really put my finger on it. You can watch it, and you'll probably like it, but you can also forget it, too. Pick your poison. Posted 3/15/05.
Spellbound (+) -- A documentary about the national spelling bee, not Hitchcock's film (see above). Multiple compelling individual stories come together to form an engrossing narrative, told without frills but nevertheless with plenty of drama and suspense. Viewers can't help but root for each child, regardless of the background and influences that bring them to the competition--an unexpected result, given the dangers inherent in stories of parents who push their kids. An insightful film. Posted 7/18/06.
Spider-man (+) -- Great fun--spectacular yet emotionally true summer movie. The effects never overwhelm the story; some movie people could learn a few things from that fact. Posted 6/8/02.
Spider-man 2 (+) -- Yes, I think it is better than the first. A world of credit goes to the cast for an entire collection of wonderful performances, all deep and emotionally resonant. And it helps that the script is more interested in questions about personal identity and responsibility than in blowing things up. I'd go along with a third in the series, if they're willing to keep up the quality. Posted 7/10/04.
Spring Breakers (~) -- An unusual premise for a movie: make your story about some very unlikeable characters, then make them even more unlikeable, then put them in perhaps the most hateful setting our society has to offer--Florida during THAT time of year--and then make them even worse still. I'm not sure I get it. On the other hand, I must admit that this is a highly skilled presentation; there's art going on here, almost to a fault (director Korine's flair for visuals and oddly syncopated storytelling sometimes gets in the viewer's way), and that fact does redeem, to some extent, what would otherwise be an ugly and pointless exercise. Ultimately, I'm not sure what end this movie serves, or if I really get it, or if there's even something to get. You're on your own here, I guess. Posted 5/23/14.
Spy Kids (+) -- This one surprised me. I expected it not to live up to its hype, and then it went ahead and lived up to it. Very enjoyable. We'll see about that sequel…
Spy Kids 2 (~) -- A movie that is often clever and funny. A movie that is often flat and not engaging. Not a great combination. There's way too much emphasis on gimmickry; the "heart" stuff feels tacked on in comparison. But the actors are likable and compelling, in their own way. Don't pay for it, but if you've got time to kill...posted 9/27/04.
Stagecoach (~) -- It's good. Classic good? Maybe. Most of the movie is entertaining, though it suffers through some dead spots. Still, plenty of by the book Western flair, some good characterizations, and the amazing views of Monument Valley make it worth at least a look, if not deep love. Posted 1/30/11.
Standing in the Shadows of Motown (+) -- Beyond the jaw-droppingly deep roster of classic songs featured here, you also get an insightful documentary about the Funk Brothers, the band behind the stars in Motown's hit parade. The film makers made a clever decision, featuring concert performances of the old songs, performed by artists other than the original--making a powerful case that it was the music, not the headline performers, that made the hits into the hits. More power to them; these musicians changed our musical landscape forever. Posted 2/25/05.
Star Trek (+) -- (The J.J. Abrams remake) Better than I expected. Lots of nods to the stories so well known to everyone who watched the original series (mostly in reruns) all those years ago, and that vouches for the filmmakers’ sincerity in rebooting this franchise. And the cleverness of the plot, in the service of bringing new ideas to this and future efforts, promises something more than just another set of rehashes when the inevitable line of sequels comes knocking on our cineplex doors. All in all, a promising (re)start. Posted 10/20/13.
Star Trek: Nemesis (~) -- This really and truly may be "it" for the franchise, and I can't say leaving off wouldn't be a bad idea. Nothing particularly memorable hits the screen here. In fact, it plays like a standard issue Star Trek movie, and that doesn't fly anymore. And, beyond the tired formula, it suffers in comparison with other recent sci-fi: too slow, plodding, unimaginative, and technically lagging. The only real benefit: seeing old friends, perhaps for the last time (at least in this context). For die hard fans, it's enough. Others can skip it. Posted 2/21/05.
Star Trek: Into Darkness (+) -- There has to be a temptation to downgrade this effort, both for some obvious fanboy bait and a certain lack of originality. This second movie is not a shot for shot remake of that second movie; more like a mirror image of the first; or perhaps it’s a photographic negative where the picture is the same but the tones are reversed. However you want to put it, what remains for the viewer is much of what we got with the previous movie in this reboot sequence: an appealing cast crafting their own versions of these well-known characters, and just enough respectful recognition of what went before to make a remake/reboot seem not quite so obnoxious. Indeed, any who’ve never seen the originals of this series might even be getting a better experience; without the clouding effects of fandom obscuring the weaknesses of the original, new audiences may be able to judge this film for what it is: more than good enough. Posted 1/8/14.
Star Wars: Episode I--The Phantom Menace (~) -- Better when you saw it in the movie theater, surrounded by fans of the series, and without much critical perception. In retrospect, the story's weak, the dialogue is clunky, and it's not particularly original. Compared to its sequel (see below), however, it's Citizen Fucking Kane.
Star Wars: Episode II--Attack of the Clones (--) -- Wretched. Badly acted, some really terrible dialogue (woodenly delivered), nonsensical in plot...even the editing is bad. At least it looks nice. Posted 6/16/02.
Star Wars: Episode III--Revenge Of The Sith (~) -- Strangely satisfying, despite the drek that preceded it (see above). Here you will find: actual acting (amazingly enough), a decent storyline, something to say (obvious allegories for our time, which seems to be in season lately), and at least one example of rather artful film making (the final sequence). Many flaws remain, but you don't have to be embarrassed about having watched this one. Posted 3/28/07.
State and Main (+) -- David Mamet leaves the big city for small town New England but, thankfully, he takes the rapier wit with him. Good, funny work from the ensemble cast, and the script provides just the right mix of cynicism and idealism.
The Station Agent (+) -- It's not for everyone, but if you like a film with an honest outlook and a laconic and dry style, you will feel right at home here. Interestingly, none of those involved really tries to make any of the principal characters likable; they just allow them to be what they are, and you either take it or leave it. I say take it. Posted 11/30/03.
The Straight Story (+) -- Given that David Lynch directed this thing, I kept expecting the old guy to find a severed ear somewhere. But no, it's just a simple story about an old man's journey to mend fences with his estranged and ailing brother, and for the most part Lynch--dare I say it?--plays it straight. Only Lynch's signature--his almost sensual attention to details of surroundings and environment--shows a familial resemblance to the director's other projects. Most amazing--apart from the late Richard Farnsworth's wonderful performance as Alvin Straight--is how Lynch (who can be the artiest of art house directors) shows so much respect for the simple folks in this story. The result? A straightforward yet powerful story that is shot through with real emotion. Do yourself a favor and watch this movie. Posted 12/15/04.
Strange Days (~) -- So-so sci-fi thriller. Ralph Finnes is good, and his performance keeps you interested. It could have said a little more about new technology's role in creating our emerging dystopia.
Strictly Ballroom (+) -- The first of the "Red Curtain" trilogy (with Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge! rounding out the series). It can be a bit tough to get into if, like me, you are mostly baffled by dancing, but by the end it is tough to resist. The sweetness and charm win out. Posted 3/18/03.
Stuart Little 2 (~) -- I shouldn't give this one the so-so review, because in plain fact it's not really that good. Certainly not equal to its forerunner, or to its source material. But there must be some credit given for the artistry of the CGI animals. And besides, this one demonstrates that even after all these years, Geena Davis is still something to behold. Posted 9/7/04.
Stuck On You (~) -- Those Farrelly brothers--they're quite the enigma, aren't they? They've made a couple of the funniest movies of the last decade or so (There's Something About Mary and the wildly under appreciated Kingpin), but apparently, "funny" is not really their thing. At least judging by some recent outings. Here's a case in point. It was "sold" as a comedy, and there are certainly some funny moments, good gags, humor-laden premise, etc. But then again, they seem to be more interested in making a point about people and what makes them who they are. The boys deserve credit for trying, but they didn't completely pull it off. Maybe they'll nail it with the next try. Posted 2/21/05.
Summer of Sam (~) -- Spike Lee tries to capture 44 caliber thrills, and it almost works, but it's a little long and doesn't make the expected impact.
Super 8 (+) -- The moviemaking version of a Mobius strip: Spielberg produces a movie by JJ Abrams, who channels a young Spielberg and makes a movie that combines Jaws and Close Encounters (and a dash of Cloverfield, with even the barest pinch of E.T.), which…you get the idea. I'm tempted to downgrade this one just for being an orgy of self-referentialism, but the bottom line is that this is a wildly entertaining flick, and really doesn't need to apologize for anything. So just watch it and enjoy. Posted 3/24/13.
Super Size Me (+) -- Strangely exuberant, for a muckraking documentary--but I guess that's what it takes to get the message across these days. Morgan Spurlock's enthusiasm is certainly welcome; it's probably the only thing that got him through his hellish one month fast food only experiment. Just as with the book Fast Food Nation--though perhaps not as scathingly--Super Size Me stands as an indictment of the industry, as well as us consumers who give it so much power. An absorbing and important film. Posted 6/6/04.
Superbad (+) -- This one comes out of the gate like a house afire, then glides down the back stretch and final turn with a little bit of fade. Still, you get a comedy that delivers a lot of great, laugh out loud moments and finishes near the top of the leader board. For a teen comedy, it's hard to expect more than that. Posted 5/9/09.
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street (+) -- Occasionally too over the top, but the film brings us nice direction from Tim Burton, beautiful cinematography, and just the right touch of insanity in a surprisingly effective story. All in all, we'll call it a fine mess. Posted 5/9/09.
Sweet and Lowdown (~) -- More chameleon-like work from Sean Penn, as a heelish jazz guitarist, and an adorable performance by Samantha Morton as the mute woman who loves him. As for the story itself...you never get bored watching it, but there's also something missing. The tale just doesn't click. On the other hand, if you dig jazz, you'll love the soundtrack, and the performance sequences are amazing (you'd swear that's Penn playing those tunes). Posted 3/20/05.
Swimming Pool (+) -- Priggish English mystery writer meets slutty, French teenage girl; it's "The Odd Couple" for the 21st Century! Seriously, this is an engrossing psychological study that deftly balances humor with intrigue. (Not to mention that it's hot, hot, hot; the appearance on the screen of Ludivine Sagnier, as the sexpot Julie, puts every man in the theater in danger of having a Paul Reubens moment.) The only problem: the "twist" at the end seems to have some inherent problems, leaving some unanswered questions that hint at inconsistency. But that's a quibble, and one minor enough not to require a downgrade of opinion (besides, maybe I just missed something). Posted 8/31/03.
Swimming With Sharks (~) -- A wildly inconsistent movie, to say the least. Moments of outright hilarity give way to deep drama in roller coaster fashion, and the swings come across as too violent. The principal actors, Kevin Spacey and Frank Whaley, playing the psychotic boss and terrorized underling respectively, give good performances. But the pitch is too steep, and the ending just doesn't ring particularly true. Probably not worth it. Posted 5/11/05.
Syriana (~) -- Everybody's guilty. Including you. So seems to be the message of this work. It would be nice if there was story to go along with that sentiment. Remember, kids: a viewpoint does not a narrative make--and you know how I feel about narrative. As it stands, the food for thought goes hand in hand with the muddle of disparate plot threads. They do all weave together eventually, but from a film-making standpoint, clear expression of a central idea is lost (or at least suffers). Overall, a tough call--I know these are issues we should all be interested in, but you need to bring some keen interest and wide-ranging knowledge to play at this table. If you think you've got the intellectual grit for it, dive in. Otherwise, just go with a light comedy. Posted 4/20/07.
A Scanner Darkly (~) -- I'm two days removed from watching this movie, and I'm still not sure what to make of it. Is the paranoia trip focused on the government? Corporations? Every one of us? It's tough to tell. The performances work, I can say that. And the rotoscoped animation is OK; it serves its purpose in a few places, allowing touches of visual flair that would have just seemed weird in total live action. But...something's missing. You're pretty much on your own here; watch if you must. Posted 2/14/11.
Scary Movie (~) -- It has its moments; I'll give it that. Some of them are laugh out loud moments. On the other hand, some of the gross out stuff goes a little too far; there's almost a "no limits" aspect here, and it often backfires. You can make a good joke without going overboard, if you're willing to make a little effort. Proceed with caution. Posted 4/16/03.
The School Of Rock (+) -- I actually wanted, for a brief time, to give this a negative review. After all, it doles out cliche after cliche, even as it mocks cliche after cliche. But I can't do it. The movie is too infectious--mostly due to Jack Black's performance--and you just can't help but admire its energy. No one's playing hall monitor today; this one gets a pass. Posted 3/8/05.
The Score (+) -- A qualified approval: it's well done, but it doesn't quite have that spark. It's nice seeing some classy actors do their thing (DeNiro, Brando, Norton), but with a movie like this you expect the dialogue to crackle a little bit more. Posted 10/17/02.
The Scorpion King (~) -- A real howler. By all rights a horrible movie, but if you watch it with the right expectations, you can get a lot of laughs out of this supertanker full of 'teh stupid.' Think "Conan Jr." and you've got the right idea. Just don't take it seriously. At all. Really. Posted 5/21/09.
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (+) -- After five minutes, I really wanted to hate this movie. It seemed determined to prove that video games really do make you stupid. Plus it seems to declare, in giant flaming letters, the end of the "Michael Cera era"--you get the worn out feeling of watching the same guy playing the same character in the same kind of movie...And yet, somehow, the movie finds away, through all of its visual hokum, its all-too-clever hipster/millenial street cred, and all of the reworked Matrix and Kill Bill moves, to rise above and deliver enough wit, good cheer and fun times to make for a movie that's impossible not to enjoy. A neat trick, and worthy of our appreciation. Posted 8/15/12.
Seabiscuit (+) -- You're going to hate me for saying this, but yes, the book is better. Not that this flick is bad. The filmmakers did a wonderful job of recreating the era, down to the smallest details. And the performances by Tobey Maguire, Chris Cooper and Jeff Bridges are first rate, capturing their subjects with impeccable accuracy. But the written story is so rich that you miss too much if you only see this movie. Posted 9/12/04.
The Searchers (~) -- John Wayne was once the biggest star in Hollywood--quite a feat if all of his characters were as big a dick as the man hunting for his lost niece in this flick. Wayne is here at his iconic--if dickish--best; he's not the problem. This is almost a really good Western movie, taking in Wayne, the spectacular scenery, some heavy duty cowboys vs. Indians shit...Yet, in the end, there are problems. Both Wayne's character, and his niece, make 180º reversals at the climax which seem all out of step with what has gone before. These inconsistencies seem only to serve the purpose of a (somewhat) happy ending. That weakness pulls down the rest of the movie. Posted 2/7/11.
The Secret Garden (+) -- Engrossing right from the start. This is a children's story done right: a well-told tale presented with imagination and charm, a terrific performance by young Kate Maberly in the lead role as the orphaned girl who brings life back to her uncle's house, and a delightful belief in discovery and redemption. A beautiful work, one you simply can't miss. Posted 9/18/07.
The Secret Lives Of Dentists (~) -- A married couple is having problems. Why do we care? Well, mostly, we don't. There's little about the focal family that's particularly engaging. The film only perks up--and earns the "so-so" grade--when Denis Leary is on the screen, playing the voice in the jealous husband's head. Without him, it drags. Posted 2/25/05.
Secret Window (+) -- Even the presence of Johnny Depp seems not to be enough to save this film during its uneventful first two thirds. But then things get interesting, as Depp gets nutty, and the ending is something to...uh...savor. Give it time to do its thing, and you'll be rewarded. Posted 2/25/05.
Secretariat (~) -- This is standard issue, boilerplate Disney movie--little more than you would have seen on the "Wonderful World of Disney" TV program 40 years ago (right when Secretariat was about to go on his historic run). It veers wildly between charming and cartoonish, presents plenty of well-worn schmaltz and platitudes, and--one suspects--fudges not a little bit on the truth. That's not to say that there are no entertaining moments here; a very appealing cast elevates the proceedings by their presence, and insomuch as the film reminds you of the true glory of Big Red, it serves as a worthwhile memorial. But one suspects this could have been a great deal more than it is. Posted 10/28/11.
Serenity (+) -- Flawed but entertaining, much like its television predecessor Firefly. The biggest flaw: sometimes the main plot feels less interesting than the secondary shenanigans--the action, the wit, the developed character interactions--but the overall story works, and is never so subordinate as to ground the whole flight. And when this ship soars, it soars. I'd be on board for more movies with this crew. Posted 4/21/07.
A Serious Man (~) -- I watched this movie on DVD, though I'm guessing if the Coen brothers could have distributed it on bagels they would have. Let's just say, if Ahmadinejad is ever convicted of anything at The Hague, his punishment will probably involve watching this movie on a continuous loop. This film won't be everyone's cup of Manischewitz, and it's not an especially great movie in general terms, but it's not a waste of time by any means. There are good moments, occasional funny moments (if not barrel rolls of laughter), and enough effective storytelling that, by the end, you do care about what happens to the protagonist. Worth a look on a rainy day. Posted 3/24/11.
Seven (+) -- Brad Pitt is edgy, Morgan Freeman is tired, Gwyneth Paltrow is the lamb, and Kevin Spacey is a world class creep. And they all do it very well. Not for the squeamish, but the rest of us shouldn't miss this one.
Seven Psychopaths (~) -- So here’s a film about filmmaking. Makes sense; that’s been going around a lot lately (see “last two Best Picture winners”). Actually, if you want to get technical, this is more of a film about script writing, but let’s not quibble. And it wants to satirize all of the the cliches of violent, shoot ‘em up movies...mostly by wallowing in those cliches. And it really really really thinks of itself as clever. Unfortunately, that’s not what the audience thinks, and it’s the audience that counts. There are good moments and some quite likeable actors here--if not likeable characters--that keep the thing moving and hold the viewer’s attention through most of the running time. But this film just isn’t what it cracks itself up to be. Posted 10/20/13.
Seven Samurai (+) -- A positive review, but a tenuous positive. I didn't like this quite as much as I thought I would, and goodness gracious is it loooonnnnggg. But there is enough good here that make it worth the effort, if you've got a couple of days to kill. The bulk of the praise should go to Takashi Shimura for his amazing performance as the leader of the samurai. The rest of the movie is uneven, but provides enough laughs and adventure to satisfy a true movie fan. Posted 9/7/04.
Seven Years In Tibet (+) -- Most people didn't like this one, but I disagree. Brad Pitt makes an effective Heinrich Harrer, and even if the German mountaineer's relationship with the young Dalai Lama wasn't really what is depicted here, the story we do get is still pretty effective. Watch it and judge for yourself (but set aside some time--this is a long one).
Sex, Lies and Videotape (--) -- The lead off of Steven Soderbergh's hit and miss career, a turgid study of the lives of four boring people. Characters aren't enough, folks; we need reasons to care about these people. Those reasons don't show up here. Skip it. Posted 9/10/06.
Sexy Beast (+) -- This one earns its wings mostly on the performance of Ben Kingsley; he's a riot. It's also fairly stylish, with the kind of flair that keeps you smiling most of the way through. Interesting sidebar: it's a movie about criminals, but there's barely any hint of finger-wagging at the characters' misdeeds. You're never led to think, "When are the cops going to bag these guys?" Is our society so inured against concepts of right and wrong? Something to ponder as you laugh at Kingsley's lunatic. Posted 5/4/03.
Shackleton (+) -- Not a "movie" per se; an "A & E" production in two parts, more like a mini-miniseries. Despite that lack of pedigree, it's not bad. It moves slowly in parts, some of the story seems contrived, and you get the distinct impression that you're watching British TV (which, in a sense, you are). But the scenery is spectacular, and Branagh brings his chops to bear; that makes it watchable. Posted 4/8/03.
Shadowlands (+) -- A good one, mostly on the strength of two powerful, emotionally vibrant performances by Debra Winger and Anthony Hopkins. It's a strong story, a strong love story, and a meditation on life and what it all means. You could do worse for yourself than to spend these two hours. Posted 3/15/05.
Shadow Of The Vampire (+) -- Willem Dafoe sucks…and there's your story. A stylishly done bit of horror-satire, with Dafoe as the Nosferatu who literally chews the scenery of John Malkovich's movie-within-a-movie. Don't worry--it's not really scary...just entertaining.
Shaft (~) -- The remake, with Samuel L. Jackson in the title role. Not awful, but it didn't need to be made, either.
Shallow Grave (+) -- My new bumper sticker: "Friends don't let friends bury a dead body in order to keep a suitcase full of cash." You see, this is what happens when people aren't as clever as they think they are. The story is predictable, but the movie stays engaging nonetheless. The tension between the mismatched-but-bound-by-a-secret flatmates (including a very young Ewan McGregor) helps keep the film worthy of your attention. It's not to die for, but it's still entertaining. Posted 2/26/06
Shallow Hal (+) -- Not quite the laugh riot that most Farrelly Brothers movies are, but in this case I think it's intentional. This movie has surprising depth; some jokes and scenes are funny, but many are played straight up, and at some points it's actually moving. And don't get scared off by the subject--even if you're fat and touchy about it, you'll like this movie. Posted 2/14/03.
Shanghai Noon (+) -- Nothing earthshaking; just standard adventure-movie fun. Jackie Chan lightens up and plays this one for broader laughs, and Owen Wilson provides his typical dose of goofy charm.
Shaolin Soccer (~) -- "Weird" barely begins to go into it. Even for a comedy, this movie has a strangely skewed outlook, one that can only be partly explained by its Chinese origin. There are a lot of cross-cultural references here, elements that seem to have been tossed into the script without any real understanding of the original meaning or sentiment. But there are some cool kung fu routines, as well as a nice undercurrent to the story--about believing in one's self--that assures the viewer that the movie's heart is in the right place. I wouldn't pay to see it, but I don't regret watching it, either. Posted 5/30/05.
Shark Tale (~) -- Here's a prime example of how familiar voices are distracting in animation. The story would have played much better with less famous actors supplying the sounds. And, of course, a little more "snap" in the story would have helped. There are good moments, but too often the story...flounders. (I know, I know...) On the other hand, there's nothing egregiously wrong here, and some fun can be had, if you don't expect too much. It's probably not worth the price of admission, but let's call it a decent rental. Posted 4/2/06.
Shattered Glass (+) -- So here you have it: another object lesson in why popular people suck. The movie certainly makes the case that journalist Stephen Glass was popular with his coworkers--until they found out he was lying about just about everything. The film presents a well-constructed story that starts plainly, then patiently peels away the layers to reveal how far back Glass's deceptions went. It leaves some wiggle room about why Glass did what he did, but while motivation remains obscure, the reality of the damage makes for more than enough compelling viewing. Good craft and fine performances total up to a compelling, at times riveting, film. Definitely one to see. Posted 6/23/07.
The Shawshank Redemption (+) -- An elegantly made prison movie. How often do you see that? It's quietly good, a solid story that holds the interest over the course of it's stretched out length. And, even in a prison, there are guys you can root for, as the principles ably demonstrate. Worth a look. Posted 7/18/05.
Shine (+) -- Not your typical Saturday night fare. A movie that makes some demands on you, but the payoff is worth it if you make the effort. Great work by Geoffrey Rush as the mental case pianist.
The Shipping News (~) -- When people think about a good time at the movies, the word "somber" rarely comes to mind. You get plenty of that here. The story's thesis--that there's a place where everyone belongs--is not so bad, and it is gratifying when Kevin Spacey's hapless schlub finds some measure of redemption in the end. But that's not enough to lift this movie high enough for most viewers. Posted 3/10/06.
Short Cuts (--) -- You can't really call someone's creative work 'pointless,' can you? Well...of course you can, and here's a fine example. Slice of life vignettes about uninteresting people yield uninteresting results. I only got about an hour into this one, so maybe it got better as it went along. I'll never know--I can't envision going back for more. Posted 10/9/05.
Shrek 2 (~) -- The promise here--appropriately, given the ogre theme--is like land in Florida: a lot of it turns out to be swamp. The film has its moments, but given the wit and fun of the original, we should get hours, not moments. The Puss in Boots character is a hoot, but he disappears for long stretches of the story. And the use of music, so fresh and hip in the original, sounds decidedly stale here. (It does not help that they picked some of the worst songs ever recorded.) I'm glad I saw (and paid for) a matinee--at $9, this would have been a rip-off. Posted 6/4/04.
Sideways (+) -- A beautifully done movie, with a half-hilarious, half-touching story. Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church create a wonderful symbiosis as mismatched friends: one who would barely be alive but for being pulled forward, the other who would probably be dead if he wasn't being held back. Together they're amazing. You need to see this movie. Posted 11/14/04.
Signs (+) -- Yep, more evidence that I do love Shyamalan's directorial style. And the story's not so bad either; I liked the subtle misdirection of the plot (you're expecting it to be the universal story, but no, it's really about a personal struggle.) Posted 6/6/03.
Silver Linings Playbook (+) -- You’re not likely to like this one right away. The dysfunction is very up front and in your face, right from the start, and it’s tough to find much that’s likeable in the main characters. But, much as with the lead characters themselves, the audience will find a slow thaw creeping over them, until the climax comes and you find yourself rooting for these misfit toys much more than you thought you would. And, if you’re from Philadelphia, you’ll know that they got a lot of that Eagles fan stuff spot on. It worked for me, at least. Posted 10/20/13.
A Simple Plan (+) -- Excellent cautionary tale about the dangers of getting too involved with dumbass rednecks.
The Sixth Sense (+) -- I see a very lively film career for writer/director M. Night Shyamalan. Not just clever, moody and emotionally true, but it stands out like a sore thumb for its deliberate, assured pace compared with the rest of today's frenetic films.
Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow (--) -- Dumb with a capital D-U-M. It's visually interesting throughout, to be sure, but this film also contains some of the stupidest hokum ever to be put on screen (like serious confusion about time and place, for one example). Watch it if you must, but don't pay a dime to see it. Posted 4/17/09.
Skyfall (+) -- An entertaining bit of very self-aware mayhem. This film completes the franchise reboot, and does so with a lot of wit, plenty of style, and some really audacious action sequences. I guess from here on out the series will really be like a new version of the good old days, at least until Daniel Craig is too old for that shit (in about 5 months, probably). So the future is promising, or in doubt, or who knows? Whatever happens, at least we have one more Bond flick that’s truly worth a look. Posted 12/23/13.
Slacker (--) -- Quite the disappointment. This one got a lot of buzz when it came out, but watching it showed a movie which seemed mostly pointless. And if these folks are typical of Austin, that town's rep for coolness is grossly undeserved.
Sleepwalk With Me (~) -- A dork has relationship problems. Does that sound like an entertaining movie to you? If yes, then I guess you’ve found your film. Otherwise, you’ll probably find this flick dull, flat, and frequently off-putting, with only the occasional laugh breaking in on a disappointing and dreary narrative. And what's with Birbiglia playing a fictionalized version of himself? How is that supposed to work when the story is so personal and peculiar that anyone who has any familiarity with the film's star couldn't possibly be expected to view him as playing anything other than his actual self? That odd choice probably doomed the thing right from the start. Posted 10/20/13.
Sliding Doors (+) -- Even if Gwyneth Paltrow hadn't given an excellent dual performance as the parallel universe versions of one young Englishwoman, this flick would still get bonus points for "best gratuitous use of a Monty Python quote."
Slums Of Beverly Hills (+) -- If you like quirky, this is just your flavor. It's funny without being obvious, "coming of age" without being trite, a "family" movie without being schmaltzy, and a period movie without being showy about its details. Oh, yeah, did I mention funny? Mostly low key funny, but at least a few laugh out loud moments, too. Find it and enjoy. Posted 5/11/05.
Small Soldiers (~) -- I saw this one a while back, and I don't remember much about it. I recall thinking it was OK, that the effects were kind of neat, the story wasn't bad…but it's all pretty vague. Can't really recommend, but can't really pan it either. You're on your own here.
Smilla's Sense Of Snow (--) -- A few redeeming moments, but a bit on the bleak side. And the plot point involving a meteorite is patently preposterous. If you're big on mysteries, maybe; otherwise, you can skip it. Posted 5/18/02.
Smoke Signals (+) -- A thoughtful, entertaining and occasionally touching look at life on and off the reservation. Very sophisticated and ultimately heartfelt story of family hurting and healing. One of those "little-movie-that-could" types; definitely look if you're into that sort of thing. Posted 9/16/02.
Snakes On A Plane (+) -- Silly, strange, but surprisingly fun. A much better movie than you'd expect, especially when viewed with the pre-release hype as nothing but a distant memory. It didn't change film forever, but you can do worse with two of your hours. Posted 4/16/09.
Snow White and the Huntsman (+) -- I dug it, more than I thought I would. The filmmakers hit all of the right fairy tale marks, and do it with just enough of their own stamp and style to make a very archetypal story seem fairly original. The cast is good in their roles, even the eternally dumped upon Kristen Stewart, who maybe deserves a bit more respect than she’s getting. All in all, a good trip to fantasyland. Posted 8/21/13.
The Social Network (+) -- I have no use for Facebook, yet a movie about Facebook's (possibly larcenous) founding works for me. It just goes to show that, in the right filmmaker's hands, any story can be worth your time. Especially notable is the use of Justin Timberlake--seemingly a case of stunt casting--who almost steals the show as a thinly veiled version of Napster's Shaun Fanning. As for the accusations of wrong-doing by Mr. Zuckerberg...well, "not proven" as they say in Scotland, but the kid sure doesn't come across very well here. You may judge for yourself, by seeing this film. Posted 8/19/11.
Solaris (+) -- We're talking Soderbergh's remake here, not Tarkovsky's Russian original. Having never seen the original, I can't say if Soderbergh is copying the original or channeling Kubrick. Something is clearly being referenced, especially in the early scenes, where the spare style almost exactly echoes 2001 (some shots are dead-on callbacks to Kubrick's masterpiece). Parallels even exist between the stories, though the vision here is not quite so epic. Eerily quiet, moody and atmospheric, this film won't be to everyone's taste, but fans of non-shoot 'em up sci-fi should give it a look. Posted 2/14/06
Something's Gotta Give (+) -- The positive review comes largely on the strength of Diane Keaton's energetic performance. She injects such life into her character that it becomes difficult not to be interested in this otherwise slight and predictable story. The biggest quibble: when the happy ending finally comes, you can't help feeling that she wound up with the wrong man. It's a credit to Keaton that you actually care about that. Posted 3/7/05.
Space Cowboys (~) -- I guess it's OK if the geezers get to go for a ride once in a while. It's all very predictable, but Eastwood, Jones, Garner, and Sutherland deliver performances you expect from seasoned professionals. If you've got nothing else to do, you could sit down and watch this one and not feel like the time's been wasted.
The Spanish Main (+) -- One of those good, old-fashioned, Saturday-morning matinee pirate adventure movies, if you know what I mean. Mad props to Paul Henreid, who is a hoot as the cocky bastard in charge of the ship. Tune in to TCM the next time this one shows up on the schedule; your buckles will definitely be swashed. Posted 7/18/05.
The Spanish Prisoner (~) -- I watched this movie last night. I'm still waiting for it to make its point. Well, that's a little harsh, and it is a David Mamet film, so you know it has its moments, but it takes too long to get going, and it never really clicks. Besides, the clever machinations come across as a little too clever; the plot twists, given a sober view, would require something like prescience to play out. It crosses too far over the belief border. Posted 3/1/05.
Spawn (+) -- There's been a lot of press about The West Wing lately, but this is how I like to see Martin Sheen play a politician: sleazy, and in serious need of an ass-kicking. Michael Jai White, as the titular super(anti)hero, ultimately provides the required foot. Plus John Leguizamo gets off a few good lines, and the effects are awesome.
Spellbound (~) -- Alfred Hitchcock's supposed classic. I say supposed because, though the film has much to recommend it, it never really clicked for me. Maybe Gregory Peck didn't convince me, or the laughable idea of Ingrid Bergman--roughly 21 years old at the time of filming--as a psychiatrist pushed my suspension of disbelief too far, or...actually, I can't really put my finger on it. You can watch it, and you'll probably like it, but you can also forget it, too. Pick your poison. Posted 3/15/05.
Spellbound (+) -- A documentary about the national spelling bee, not Hitchcock's film (see above). Multiple compelling individual stories come together to form an engrossing narrative, told without frills but nevertheless with plenty of drama and suspense. Viewers can't help but root for each child, regardless of the background and influences that bring them to the competition--an unexpected result, given the dangers inherent in stories of parents who push their kids. An insightful film. Posted 7/18/06.
Spider-man (+) -- Great fun--spectacular yet emotionally true summer movie. The effects never overwhelm the story; some movie people could learn a few things from that fact. Posted 6/8/02.
Spider-man 2 (+) -- Yes, I think it is better than the first. A world of credit goes to the cast for an entire collection of wonderful performances, all deep and emotionally resonant. And it helps that the script is more interested in questions about personal identity and responsibility than in blowing things up. I'd go along with a third in the series, if they're willing to keep up the quality. Posted 7/10/04.
Spring Breakers (~) -- An unusual premise for a movie: make your story about some very unlikeable characters, then make them even more unlikeable, then put them in perhaps the most hateful setting our society has to offer--Florida during THAT time of year--and then make them even worse still. I'm not sure I get it. On the other hand, I must admit that this is a highly skilled presentation; there's art going on here, almost to a fault (director Korine's flair for visuals and oddly syncopated storytelling sometimes gets in the viewer's way), and that fact does redeem, to some extent, what would otherwise be an ugly and pointless exercise. Ultimately, I'm not sure what end this movie serves, or if I really get it, or if there's even something to get. You're on your own here, I guess. Posted 5/23/14.
Spy Kids (+) -- This one surprised me. I expected it not to live up to its hype, and then it went ahead and lived up to it. Very enjoyable. We'll see about that sequel…
Spy Kids 2 (~) -- A movie that is often clever and funny. A movie that is often flat and not engaging. Not a great combination. There's way too much emphasis on gimmickry; the "heart" stuff feels tacked on in comparison. But the actors are likable and compelling, in their own way. Don't pay for it, but if you've got time to kill...posted 9/27/04.
Stagecoach (~) -- It's good. Classic good? Maybe. Most of the movie is entertaining, though it suffers through some dead spots. Still, plenty of by the book Western flair, some good characterizations, and the amazing views of Monument Valley make it worth at least a look, if not deep love. Posted 1/30/11.
Standing in the Shadows of Motown (+) -- Beyond the jaw-droppingly deep roster of classic songs featured here, you also get an insightful documentary about the Funk Brothers, the band behind the stars in Motown's hit parade. The film makers made a clever decision, featuring concert performances of the old songs, performed by artists other than the original--making a powerful case that it was the music, not the headline performers, that made the hits into the hits. More power to them; these musicians changed our musical landscape forever. Posted 2/25/05.
Star Trek (+) -- (The J.J. Abrams remake) Better than I expected. Lots of nods to the stories so well known to everyone who watched the original series (mostly in reruns) all those years ago, and that vouches for the filmmakers’ sincerity in rebooting this franchise. And the cleverness of the plot, in the service of bringing new ideas to this and future efforts, promises something more than just another set of rehashes when the inevitable line of sequels comes knocking on our cineplex doors. All in all, a promising (re)start. Posted 10/20/13.
Star Trek: Nemesis (~) -- This really and truly may be "it" for the franchise, and I can't say leaving off wouldn't be a bad idea. Nothing particularly memorable hits the screen here. In fact, it plays like a standard issue Star Trek movie, and that doesn't fly anymore. And, beyond the tired formula, it suffers in comparison with other recent sci-fi: too slow, plodding, unimaginative, and technically lagging. The only real benefit: seeing old friends, perhaps for the last time (at least in this context). For die hard fans, it's enough. Others can skip it. Posted 2/21/05.
Star Trek: Into Darkness (+) -- There has to be a temptation to downgrade this effort, both for some obvious fanboy bait and a certain lack of originality. This second movie is not a shot for shot remake of that second movie; more like a mirror image of the first; or perhaps it’s a photographic negative where the picture is the same but the tones are reversed. However you want to put it, what remains for the viewer is much of what we got with the previous movie in this reboot sequence: an appealing cast crafting their own versions of these well-known characters, and just enough respectful recognition of what went before to make a remake/reboot seem not quite so obnoxious. Indeed, any who’ve never seen the originals of this series might even be getting a better experience; without the clouding effects of fandom obscuring the weaknesses of the original, new audiences may be able to judge this film for what it is: more than good enough. Posted 1/8/14.
Star Wars: Episode I--The Phantom Menace (~) -- Better when you saw it in the movie theater, surrounded by fans of the series, and without much critical perception. In retrospect, the story's weak, the dialogue is clunky, and it's not particularly original. Compared to its sequel (see below), however, it's Citizen Fucking Kane.
Star Wars: Episode II--Attack of the Clones (--) -- Wretched. Badly acted, some really terrible dialogue (woodenly delivered), nonsensical in plot...even the editing is bad. At least it looks nice. Posted 6/16/02.
Star Wars: Episode III--Revenge Of The Sith (~) -- Strangely satisfying, despite the drek that preceded it (see above). Here you will find: actual acting (amazingly enough), a decent storyline, something to say (obvious allegories for our time, which seems to be in season lately), and at least one example of rather artful film making (the final sequence). Many flaws remain, but you don't have to be embarrassed about having watched this one. Posted 3/28/07.
State and Main (+) -- David Mamet leaves the big city for small town New England but, thankfully, he takes the rapier wit with him. Good, funny work from the ensemble cast, and the script provides just the right mix of cynicism and idealism.
The Station Agent (+) -- It's not for everyone, but if you like a film with an honest outlook and a laconic and dry style, you will feel right at home here. Interestingly, none of those involved really tries to make any of the principal characters likable; they just allow them to be what they are, and you either take it or leave it. I say take it. Posted 11/30/03.
The Straight Story (+) -- Given that David Lynch directed this thing, I kept expecting the old guy to find a severed ear somewhere. But no, it's just a simple story about an old man's journey to mend fences with his estranged and ailing brother, and for the most part Lynch--dare I say it?--plays it straight. Only Lynch's signature--his almost sensual attention to details of surroundings and environment--shows a familial resemblance to the director's other projects. Most amazing--apart from the late Richard Farnsworth's wonderful performance as Alvin Straight--is how Lynch (who can be the artiest of art house directors) shows so much respect for the simple folks in this story. The result? A straightforward yet powerful story that is shot through with real emotion. Do yourself a favor and watch this movie. Posted 12/15/04.
Strange Days (~) -- So-so sci-fi thriller. Ralph Finnes is good, and his performance keeps you interested. It could have said a little more about new technology's role in creating our emerging dystopia.
Strictly Ballroom (+) -- The first of the "Red Curtain" trilogy (with Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge! rounding out the series). It can be a bit tough to get into if, like me, you are mostly baffled by dancing, but by the end it is tough to resist. The sweetness and charm win out. Posted 3/18/03.
Stuart Little 2 (~) -- I shouldn't give this one the so-so review, because in plain fact it's not really that good. Certainly not equal to its forerunner, or to its source material. But there must be some credit given for the artistry of the CGI animals. And besides, this one demonstrates that even after all these years, Geena Davis is still something to behold. Posted 9/7/04.
Stuck On You (~) -- Those Farrelly brothers--they're quite the enigma, aren't they? They've made a couple of the funniest movies of the last decade or so (There's Something About Mary and the wildly under appreciated Kingpin), but apparently, "funny" is not really their thing. At least judging by some recent outings. Here's a case in point. It was "sold" as a comedy, and there are certainly some funny moments, good gags, humor-laden premise, etc. But then again, they seem to be more interested in making a point about people and what makes them who they are. The boys deserve credit for trying, but they didn't completely pull it off. Maybe they'll nail it with the next try. Posted 2/21/05.
Summer of Sam (~) -- Spike Lee tries to capture 44 caliber thrills, and it almost works, but it's a little long and doesn't make the expected impact.
Super 8 (+) -- The moviemaking version of a Mobius strip: Spielberg produces a movie by JJ Abrams, who channels a young Spielberg and makes a movie that combines Jaws and Close Encounters (and a dash of Cloverfield, with even the barest pinch of E.T.), which…you get the idea. I'm tempted to downgrade this one just for being an orgy of self-referentialism, but the bottom line is that this is a wildly entertaining flick, and really doesn't need to apologize for anything. So just watch it and enjoy. Posted 3/24/13.
Super Size Me (+) -- Strangely exuberant, for a muckraking documentary--but I guess that's what it takes to get the message across these days. Morgan Spurlock's enthusiasm is certainly welcome; it's probably the only thing that got him through his hellish one month fast food only experiment. Just as with the book Fast Food Nation--though perhaps not as scathingly--Super Size Me stands as an indictment of the industry, as well as us consumers who give it so much power. An absorbing and important film. Posted 6/6/04.
Superbad (+) -- This one comes out of the gate like a house afire, then glides down the back stretch and final turn with a little bit of fade. Still, you get a comedy that delivers a lot of great, laugh out loud moments and finishes near the top of the leader board. For a teen comedy, it's hard to expect more than that. Posted 5/9/09.
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street (+) -- Occasionally too over the top, but the film brings us nice direction from Tim Burton, beautiful cinematography, and just the right touch of insanity in a surprisingly effective story. All in all, we'll call it a fine mess. Posted 5/9/09.
Sweet and Lowdown (~) -- More chameleon-like work from Sean Penn, as a heelish jazz guitarist, and an adorable performance by Samantha Morton as the mute woman who loves him. As for the story itself...you never get bored watching it, but there's also something missing. The tale just doesn't click. On the other hand, if you dig jazz, you'll love the soundtrack, and the performance sequences are amazing (you'd swear that's Penn playing those tunes). Posted 3/20/05.
Swimming Pool (+) -- Priggish English mystery writer meets slutty, French teenage girl; it's "The Odd Couple" for the 21st Century! Seriously, this is an engrossing psychological study that deftly balances humor with intrigue. (Not to mention that it's hot, hot, hot; the appearance on the screen of Ludivine Sagnier, as the sexpot Julie, puts every man in the theater in danger of having a Paul Reubens moment.) The only problem: the "twist" at the end seems to have some inherent problems, leaving some unanswered questions that hint at inconsistency. But that's a quibble, and one minor enough not to require a downgrade of opinion (besides, maybe I just missed something). Posted 8/31/03.
Swimming With Sharks (~) -- A wildly inconsistent movie, to say the least. Moments of outright hilarity give way to deep drama in roller coaster fashion, and the swings come across as too violent. The principal actors, Kevin Spacey and Frank Whaley, playing the psychotic boss and terrorized underling respectively, give good performances. But the pitch is too steep, and the ending just doesn't ring particularly true. Probably not worth it. Posted 5/11/05.
Syriana (~) -- Everybody's guilty. Including you. So seems to be the message of this work. It would be nice if there was story to go along with that sentiment. Remember, kids: a viewpoint does not a narrative make--and you know how I feel about narrative. As it stands, the food for thought goes hand in hand with the muddle of disparate plot threads. They do all weave together eventually, but from a film-making standpoint, clear expression of a central idea is lost (or at least suffers). Overall, a tough call--I know these are issues we should all be interested in, but you need to bring some keen interest and wide-ranging knowledge to play at this table. If you think you've got the intellectual grit for it, dive in. Otherwise, just go with a light comedy. Posted 4/20/07.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Recently Read
Good Book
by David Plotz
A work of exegesis on the Old Testament, by a journalist who had never read much of the Bible before, for people who have also never read much of the Bible themselves. From that description you would have to guess that, overall, this would be a winning project, though with some rough patches here and there. And that guess would be spot on.
The book starts slowly, despite the fact that the first two chapters cover Genesis and Exodus--probably the two most familiar books of the OT for most people. The problem here is not the source material upon which Plotz is commenting; the problem is in the commentary, which at first comes across as a little too self-consciously clever. It's hard to like this guy right out of the gate. This is especially so because of his chosen subject: how easy it would be, for a non-believer, to approach the scriptures with smug condescension and leave the tone at that. Such an approach is not really necessary or welcome: as likely as not, if you've picked up Good Book, you probably bring plenty of your own condescension to the matter, and thus Plotz would bring nothing new if he had just stayed in that smug zone.
Thankfully, the author clears that early hurdle and soon gains the reader's trust. Plotz actually brings keen insights to the reader in his analysis of the Bible stories. His particular admiration for OT characters who bargain or argue with directly with God--Abraham, Moses, Gideon--and his awestruck delight at some of the Bible's best turns of phrase, help convince the reader of the author's sincerity--which then helps make his wry jokes that much funnier. Sometimes those potentially too self-consciously clever gags are in fact laugh-out-loud funny--a nice turn around from the off-putting beginning. And Plotz gives the reader some real insights, too. In particular, his clear observations about the legalistic nature of the Jewish faith, and how that distinguishes that religion from all other faiths, shines a light on a detail of the tradition that for most often remains in the dark.
As a work of humor, then, Good Book succeeds. As a work of light scholarship, too, Good Book brings something to the table that will enrich the less devout among us. Thus, despite those early missteps, Good Book does ultimately live up to its own title.
by David Plotz
A work of exegesis on the Old Testament, by a journalist who had never read much of the Bible before, for people who have also never read much of the Bible themselves. From that description you would have to guess that, overall, this would be a winning project, though with some rough patches here and there. And that guess would be spot on.
The book starts slowly, despite the fact that the first two chapters cover Genesis and Exodus--probably the two most familiar books of the OT for most people. The problem here is not the source material upon which Plotz is commenting; the problem is in the commentary, which at first comes across as a little too self-consciously clever. It's hard to like this guy right out of the gate. This is especially so because of his chosen subject: how easy it would be, for a non-believer, to approach the scriptures with smug condescension and leave the tone at that. Such an approach is not really necessary or welcome: as likely as not, if you've picked up Good Book, you probably bring plenty of your own condescension to the matter, and thus Plotz would bring nothing new if he had just stayed in that smug zone.
Thankfully, the author clears that early hurdle and soon gains the reader's trust. Plotz actually brings keen insights to the reader in his analysis of the Bible stories. His particular admiration for OT characters who bargain or argue with directly with God--Abraham, Moses, Gideon--and his awestruck delight at some of the Bible's best turns of phrase, help convince the reader of the author's sincerity--which then helps make his wry jokes that much funnier. Sometimes those potentially too self-consciously clever gags are in fact laugh-out-loud funny--a nice turn around from the off-putting beginning. And Plotz gives the reader some real insights, too. In particular, his clear observations about the legalistic nature of the Jewish faith, and how that distinguishes that religion from all other faiths, shines a light on a detail of the tradition that for most often remains in the dark.
As a work of humor, then, Good Book succeeds. As a work of light scholarship, too, Good Book brings something to the table that will enrich the less devout among us. Thus, despite those early missteps, Good Book does ultimately live up to its own title.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Enjoyable
Just have to make extra special note of how impressed I was with the recently watched movie Kick-Ass. Damn good stuff. Very entertaining, quite clever, and pulls no punches. This, coming on the heels of Fantastic Mr. Fox, another film I watched and loved recently, is reviving my interest in movies again--something which had been lagging for a while now. I'll let you know when I see more good stuff. And as always, the Reel Reviews ratings remain handy, right there in the right hand column. (I haven't decided yet whether to revive an old c&cp feature, the written capsule Reel Reviews, beyond the simple (+) (~) (--) symbol ratings. Keep watching this space for any future developments.)
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Assessment
Today being the first day of the new year, I performed one of my usual annual rituals: the first day weigh-in.
January 1st is always an important day for a weigh-in. It is a natural marker that helps me assess where I am in my (never ending process) of getting myself into better shape. Whereas taking my weight throughout the year is inherently variable, the yearly milestone weigh-in provides a true measure of how things are going for me.
So, here's the scoop. Today's reading, 302.5 lbs.
Now the assessment. I've known for some time that my new year's weight would not be under 300 lbs. Sad, but true. My goal this year was to get my weight down around 290. I wanted to get some distance between the 300 lb. mark and my current self, an accomplishment that would have given me some real sense of achievement and momentum for the next year of the project. While I did on a few occasions touch numbers below 300 this year, I am finishing on the unhappy side of the dreaded register. Given that, I am tempted to label this year as a failure. Not an abject failure; I knew going into today that I have overall reduced my weight over the course of the year--just not as much as I had hoped.
However, looking back on my records, I find that on this same day last year, I weighed in at 317.5. Knowing that my weight had been less than that fairly late in 2009, I had forgotten that my January 1, 2010 weigh-in had been that high. (This is partly the product of the holidays and the accompanying bounce in weight that always comes this time of year.) So given last year's weigh-in, the tally for 2010 is 15 pounds lost overall. That's not tremendous, but overall I think it has to be considered a success. Certainly more successful than gaining weight over the year.
The overall trend is positive. With good fortune and solid effort this year, I believe further success is very achievable. Now I just have to make it happen.
January 1st is always an important day for a weigh-in. It is a natural marker that helps me assess where I am in my (never ending process) of getting myself into better shape. Whereas taking my weight throughout the year is inherently variable, the yearly milestone weigh-in provides a true measure of how things are going for me.
So, here's the scoop. Today's reading, 302.5 lbs.
Now the assessment. I've known for some time that my new year's weight would not be under 300 lbs. Sad, but true. My goal this year was to get my weight down around 290. I wanted to get some distance between the 300 lb. mark and my current self, an accomplishment that would have given me some real sense of achievement and momentum for the next year of the project. While I did on a few occasions touch numbers below 300 this year, I am finishing on the unhappy side of the dreaded register. Given that, I am tempted to label this year as a failure. Not an abject failure; I knew going into today that I have overall reduced my weight over the course of the year--just not as much as I had hoped.
However, looking back on my records, I find that on this same day last year, I weighed in at 317.5. Knowing that my weight had been less than that fairly late in 2009, I had forgotten that my January 1, 2010 weigh-in had been that high. (This is partly the product of the holidays and the accompanying bounce in weight that always comes this time of year.) So given last year's weigh-in, the tally for 2010 is 15 pounds lost overall. That's not tremendous, but overall I think it has to be considered a success. Certainly more successful than gaining weight over the year.
The overall trend is positive. With good fortune and solid effort this year, I believe further success is very achievable. Now I just have to make it happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
