Reel Reviews -- P

Pacific Rim (~) -- I can almost see a single tear trickling down from Gamera’s eye: his genre is finally all grown up. And this is exactly that: the Japanese monster movie made to adult proportions. This one is entertaining, to be sure, but like its Japanese forebears it’s also very difficult to take seriously. Suspension of disbelief really gets thrown through the ringer; when a pan-dimensional portal at the bottom of the ocean that spits out giant monsters is NOT the most unbelievable part of your story...well, that’s a tough row to hoe. There’s also a little too much plot getting in the way of the smashing stuff, and some but not quite enough cheeky humor. It should be said, though: it looks great; first class visuals all the way. All together, acceptable, but not really something special in this day and age. Posted 3/9/14.

Party Monster (~) -- Engaging and entertaining in a bizarro world sort of way. The biggest problem is that, while stars Macauley Culkin and Seth Green do a good job, they're just too lightweight to carry a story with a lot of dark undertones. The dissonance between their characters and the underlying ugliness does the story a disservice. Give it a try if you really like the weirdness. Posted 3/10/05.

The Patriot (+) -- A movie which too often indulges in overkill, though it still makes its point: many hard sacrifices were made in order to found this country. Mel Gibson gives stud-in-training Heath Ledger some lessons in being an action hero. Overall, worth a look.

Pay It Forward (+) -- Nice story, mostly well-acted (though Kevin Spacey briefly overacts--uncharacteristically), and with an interesting central premise that can set you to thinking about matters far beyond the bounds of this film. Worth a look.

Pearl Harbor (~) -- Technically well done, but that only counts for so much. It's hard to care about any of these characters. Ironically, the interest picks up after the titular battle, when the focus shifts to the Doolittle raid of 1942.

The People vs. Larry Flynt (+) -- Between his passion for hemp and other assorted weirdness, it's sometimes easy to forget that Woody Harrelson is actually a pretty good actor. He shows his chops here as the sleazy but entertaining pornographer Flynt. It's less an homage to Flynt and more an exposé of how asinine his enemies were (including that idiot Jerry Falwell)--and presumably still are.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (+) -- The funny thing about watching a movie about being in high school is that you can't really tell how authentic it is, because your perception of what's being presented is colored by your own experiences within that very same scene. This pitfall opens especially wide when the movie in question depicts being in high school during a timeframe when you actually were in high school. So it is with me and this movie. A lot of what I saw here rings true, given my contemporaneous memories. Then again, I don’t inhabit that world where everyone was molested, so I can’t speak to that side of the equation. Mostly, the strength of this film lies in likeable characters who make your time with them charming enough so that you really care about what happens to them. So if you make the extra effort to judge this flick and its characters on their own terms, I think you ultimately will come out ahead. Posted 10/20/13.

Peter Pan (~) -- Going into the way back machine here to consider the Disney version of Barrie’s great legend. If you are inclined towards a jaundiced view of all things Disney, your prejudices receive substantial confirmation here: this version wallows in silliness, treacle, and namby-pamby spinelessness when it comes to carrying through on the tale’s harder edges. By comparison, Spielberg’s Hook got the story substantially more right, and looks that much better in retrospect. (Of course, I should note that I did enjoy the casual racism. Guess old Walt did leave us something after all.) There are still pieces of Barrie’s original vision here, and that lifts the whole above the level of the damning double dash, but just barely. Stick to the recent live-action remake if you’re feeling the need for a dose of fairy dust. Posted 10/20/13.

Peter Pan (2003) (+) -- This is the recent British big-screen version of the story, not some Disneyfied nonsense. The Edwardian Englishness--notably absent from other recent efforts (we're looking at you, Spielberg)--is all over the place, which makes sense given how closely the movie stays true to Barrie's original. In fact, this is a wonderfully faithful adaptation of the tale. One minor quibble: there's a little too much explication that threatens to take the sub out of the subtext. Let the metaphor lie in peace, and then the you'd have a perfect retelling of the fantastic tale. Posted 4/24/05.

Peter's Friends (+) -- So here's the set-up: take a group of old friends, each with a catacomb's worth of skeletons in his or her closet, get them together for a little stay in the country, and watch them fall upon each other and apart as individuals. It's better than it sounds, though the movie does sometimes veer too wildly between comedy and drama. But the dialogue is razor sharp, the soundtrack holds many great tunes, and a great cast (including Emma Thompson, Kenneth Branagh [who directed], Stephen Fry, Rita Rudner and Hugh Laurie) holds it all together with style and aplomb. The ending comes off as too abrupt, perhaps, but otherwise it works. Posted 4/24/05.

The Piano (--) -- More like "The Pian-Ho." Even setting aside the storyline's ugliness, there's way too much pretentiousness and self-awareness in the direction. Practically every shot screams "this is deep and significant" in an overly obvious way. None of the characters are particularly sympathetic either. An award-winning mess that, in these eyes, hits all the wrong notes. Posted 2/16/08.

Picture Perfect (~) -- Fluffy like a teddy bear. That's not always bad, of course; just don't expect much beyond plain, warm snugglies. Jennifer Aniston does a decent job here, as in several of her other movies; get that girl away from that Friends tripe and there she may have a real career.

Pieces Of April (+) -- Not your typical holiday movie, but that's a good thing. A lot of its humor flies below the radar, and the climax is a little too pat, but there are plenty of subtle and smart laughs to be had here. And, if that's not enough for you--and you're very eye-candy conscious--please note that no matter how tarted up she may be, Katie Holmes is still Katie Holmes. Posted 11/18/03.

Pirate Radio (+) -- This film starts off with an unfair advantage: the soundtrack, evident from the opening credits, is so good, so infectious, that the movie opens holding a reservoir of audience goodwill before it does anything to earn it. But a great story, told simply yet very well, and rollicking work from a delightful cast (all of whom seem to be having a fabulous time with every scene) ultimately pay off that debt and balance the books well into the positive by the end. Posted 3/10/11.

The Place Beyond The Pines (+) -- A dark movie. No, I mean a really dark movie, one of the darkest movies I’ve ever seen--like you're watching this shit in a cave. That dark. It's definitely grand in scope, in some ways almost Shakespearean, especially in its sense of tragic inevitability. Moody, heavy on atmosphere, and featuring a truly excellent performance by Bradley Cooper, this is ultimately, an admirable work--you just need to steel yourself for the grimness. Posted 8/20/14.

Planet Of The Apes (2001) (~) -- Visually, about what we would expect from Tim Burton. But some of the "philosophy" got lost in the update, making the story a little too straightforward and shallow. And no, that ending doesn't make much sense without going into headache-inducing time paradoxes. Posted 2/26/03.

Plunkett & Macleane (+) -- Never let it be said I have no sticktoitiveness.  This film languished in my "to be seen" database for at least a decade before I finally stumbled across it on one of the cable channels. Fortunately, it's a period piece, so falling out of date was impossible. And the story--a disaffected pair of young men in 1700's England turn to (literal) highway robbery to get a leg up in the world--has continual appeal, made more so by the jaunty production and good performances seen here. The ending may be a little obvious, but it's always a kick to see the rich get robbed by the poor, so it all balances out. Give it a look when you're in the mood for a bawdy tale of amoral days of yore. Posted 8/7/11.

Pollock (--) -- I'm not big on drunks. Nor have I found much appeal in Pollock's paintings (or any Abstract Expressionism, for that matter). And I really don't like ponderous, clumsy screenplays. And I especially don't like assholes. In addition to being "Jack the Dripper," Pollock was, apparently, a mean drinker and a world-class orifice. I think you see where I'm going with this. Ed Harris's heart was in the right place here, but the presentation of Pollock's life is too choppy (one minute in the harrowing depths of boozing, the next up and taking the art world by storm), and the man has limited appeal due to his mountain of personal faults. A noble but failed experiment. Posted 7/31/05.

Practical Magic (~) -- I forgot it almost as soon as it finished rewinding. But if you watch it you get to look at Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman, so that's something.

Precious (+) -- A shrewdly made movie, in that the writer/producers/director made sure to add enough sweet to temper the sorrow--otherwise this film would be a major bummer and just plain difficult to watch. But that smart decision to lighten the load gives us a harrowing story that's relatively easy to watch, thanks to sprightly interludes between the pain, and good, energetic work by the supporting cast, both of which keep the narrative moving. I'm not sure this movie lives all the way up to the hype, but it's certainly worth a look. Posted 3/19/11.

The Prestige (+) -- Magic movies always have some appeal; there's built-in intrigue, you might say. Add to that a director as good as Christopher Nolan, and a fine cast led by Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale, and you've got a very likable movie, filled with strong performances, clever (but not too clever) twists, and just a dollop of humbug. It isn't quite as good as the contemporaneous, vaguely similar film The Illusionist, but it's worth it in its own right. Posted 11/1/08.

Pride And Prejudice (+) -- Five more minutes of running time and I probably would have grown a uterus just from watching this flick. So says my curmudgeonly side, but alas, I too was won over by Elizabeth Bennett and her pas de deux with Mr. Darcy. Combine the clever interplay with charming characterizations and artful direction and cinematography, and you have a very entertaining film. Posted 5/18/07.

Primary Colors (+) -- If only the real Clinton cared as much as Travolta's fictionalized version of him does in this flick. A mostly entertaining veiled look at the '92 campaign that can leave one feeling wistful for the promise that once was, and a little bitter over the disappointment that ultimately came.

Princess Caraboo (+) -- One of our last looks at Phoebe Cates before she slipped quietly into wifedom behind Kevin Kline (whom she met while making this film). A charming story about a strange girl who may or not be someone special--depending upon your definition of special. You'll like it.

The Princess Diaries (+) -- Well-worn plot, but wonderful execution. The acting's great, the writing's expert and sensitive--none of the characters ever strays into cliche territory--and the story and performers exude absolute charm. A "Best of All" inductee. Posted 5/13/02.

Prometheus (~) -- There’s a lot of stuff that’s very intriguing here. And there’s a lot of stuff that’s very stupid here, too. Which one wins out? Frankly, I’m not sure. Certainly, the visual presentation is impressive. But you can’t help but think that the creativity, at least as far as the storytelling goes, got way out ahead of itself. A lot of story elements don’t make much sense, at least at first glance, and the predictability of the plot is off the charts. The sum of all those parts leaves much to be desired. Posted 5/3/13.

Horsehide Hindsight

So we're rapidly approaching the start of a new baseball season, and I'm beginning to get that itch again, as I do every time this year. And I will go out on that proverbial limb again and make my predictions by the first week of the season. But first, I think it would be appropriate to review how I did last year as a prognosticator.

My results were decidedly mixed in 2010. I knew going in that my process of refining my formula for evaluating teams had gone awry, that flaws had been introduced into the mechanics of the thing. Too many teams were predicted to finish with too many wins, probably because I gave too much weight to minor team characteristics; i.e., giving too much credit for having a good manager or bullpen closer, or for having a solid hitting lineup. In my experience, these are mostly minor details; they help, but only for a few games a season. The real meat of the matter lies in starting pitching; having four or five good starters does more for a team's chances than any amount of sluggers or managerial wisdom.

The flawed formula led me to make some preposterous predictions about win totals. I somehow concluded that four teams would finish in excess of 100 wins (something that I'm sure has never happened before), and I had another team pegged for 99 wins. As it turned out, none of those teams won 100 games; two of them actually made the playoffs (NY Yankees and Philadelphia), but only one--the Phillies--even won a division title. Boston did finish with a respectable 89 wins, but failed to make the postseason. The real disasters were the Los Angeles teams. The Angels and Dodgers, picked to win 106 and 99 respectively, both flamed out and sank in the standings--the Angels finishing a staggering –26 below their predicted win total.

There were other disasters, too. Seattle unexpectedly stank up the joint, finishing –25 games from my prediction. The other wild swings and misses dramatically improved on my predictions; the Reds beat the rap by winning +19 over my figure, while the Rangers rode a +16 in wins all the way to the World Series.

Nevertheless, there were some triumphs, too. Most notably, I predicted the order of finish in the NL East perfectly, and all five teams finished within ±4 games of my win-total forecasts. In all, I nailed the exact record for three NL teams: the NY Mets, Pittsburgh, and Colorado all finished exactly where I predicted with exactly the records I predicted. The AL East almost finished in order of my predictions; only Tampa Bay, sneaking up from third place to take the division crown, ruined that bit of divination. Eleven of the 30 teams finished in exactly the place in the standings that I predicted.

Overall, out of 30 teams, 14 teams finished within a ±4 range of their predicted wins. That's some pretty tight predicting for almost half the teams in the majors; given that we're talking about a 162 game schedule, missing the final number of wins by no more than 4 games is damn good. (It comes to 97.6% accuracy for those 14 teams.) Eight of the remaining 16 teams fell within a ±10 game margin of error; only the eight remaining teams were wildly off the mark--and two of those teams, Boston and NYY, did finish with high win totals and in the upper half of their division, just not in the positions nor with the win totals I predicted. In all, seven teams were predicted to be winners and finished losers, or vice versa. Most teams meekly followed orders and spent the season as winners or losers as predicted.

So all in all, the mojo could use a tune up, but even so the results were decent. I expect this season will provide my greatest triumphs yet, when I post my preview predictions in about three weeks. So keep watching this space and place your bets early.