Reel Reviews -- H

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.