 |
| malchats media |
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Publication Note
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Reel Reviews -- R
Rabbit-proof Fence (+) -- A compelling story, both in the big (societal derangement over race) and small pictures (the personal plight of kidnapped Aboriginal girls in the 1930s), well-told and interesting from start to finish. And a wonderful performance by untrained actor Everlyn Sampi--who plays Molly, the oldest of three abducted sisters--shows all the signs of a potential star, if she pursues acting full time. Well worth a look. Posted 7/18/06.
Radio Days (~) -- Maybe this is where the downward slide started. Woody Allen's self-indulgence, which served him well early on, began to pull him down with this bit of autobiography. A nice idea--life during Allen's childhood, in the "radio days"--arrives too disjointed, too hit or miss, too erratic to be called a success. The film is better during the family sequences than the inevitable, shoehorned-in Mia Farrow storyline (back when she and he were still tight). The overall cast is excellent, the presentation is sterling and accurate to the period, but that self-indulgence--and some heavy-handed "statement" scenes--do just enough to pull this movie down. Not awful, but not what could have been.
Rango (+) -- Yeah, OK, I can see it. I mean, there’s nothing super profound here, but you do get an entertaining animated movie that has some good laughs, fine visuals (including some nicely clever visual references), and a relatively standard though still compelling Western style story line. I’ve seen worse stuff tossed out there under the cynical, “you’ll watch anything animated” philosophy; this film rises above that. Worth a look. Posted 8/21/13.
Rat Race (+) -- It takes a few minutes to get cooking, but once it does it provides plenty of satisfying comedy. And Jon Lovitz has one of the funniest scenes that I have ever seen in a movie. Posted 12/4/02.
Ratatouille (+) -- Strange. None of the characters are particularly likeable, at least at first; much of the physical comedy is overdone; some parts of the Pixar template have become too familiar (including the usual, almost banal-at-this-point technical brilliance); and the distracting Familiar Voice Problem is present. And yet, when viewed in its totality, the movie still works better than it should. This is a film that is more than the sum of its parts, and by pulling off that trick, it earns a worthiness that otherwise would not be there. Go ahead and have this one for dinner some night. Posted 5/9/09.
Red State (+) -- So this is what Kevin Smith's now-perpetual cloud of weed smoke hath wrought--a genuinely good indie film, with surprising philosophical depth, storytelling skill, and an almost oddly sympathetic engagement with its central crazies. If this really is his penultimate film (preceding the forthcoming Hit Somebody!), one could argue Smith is going out with a bang--and maybe just when he's finally figured out this whole film-making thing. Posted 1/5/12.
The Red Violin (~) -- Fine musical performances abound. The presentation is beautiful throughout. So what's the problem? The main character is, shall we say, wooden. The only consistent presence here, start to finish, is the titular instrument. It's a fine piece of workmanship to be sure, and capable of extraordinary things in the right hands--but movie viewers connect with human beings, not objects. The characters in this film do not stick around long enough to build a relationship between persona and viewer. The collection of vignettes is artfully shown, and some may enjoy the pathos of the tale(s), but I suspect most viewers will not appreciate the lack of human connection. Posted 1/23/06.
Reign Of Fire (+) -- Surprisingly excellent action-adventure movie. Great action, interesting vision of an alternate world, compelling story and characters--even Sir Shirtless himself (McConaughy) holds his own against no less a costar than Christian Bale. Add it all up and you get an unfairly overlooked but thoroughly enjoyable movie. Take the time to find this one and appreciate. Posted 4/16/09.
Remember The Titans (+) -- A bit unimaginatively straightforward, but still an effective tale of overcoming differences. And Denzel Washington is…well, Denzel Washington--the guy's not capable of a bad performance. He alone makes this film worth viewing.
Restoration (+) -- An excellent screenplay, lavishly reproduced late-Stuart settings, and a rich cast (even in supporting roles) makes this film worth a look. And just in case you needed the reminder, here's the proof that Robert Downey Jr. is more than just a punch line; in his controlled moments, the man can really act. Posted 10/30/05.
Richard III (+) -- The film version of the updated stage production of Shakespeare's classic. Set in a vaguely fascist England, with Ian McKellan taking the title role. Bang-up and bloody…just like you expect from Richard III.
A River Runs Through It (+) -- Good story, good actors, Montana scenery. What more do you want?
The Road To Wellville (--) -- You have to make a decision, folks: am I making a comedy, or a drama? Few can pull off both at the same time. And when you don't pull it off...well, kids, don't try that at home. Also, it helps to have a story, as opposed to stories, each of which only vaguely relates to the others. Put it all together, as with this movie, and you've got quite a mess. The few truly funny moments indicate that a tighter comedy would have been a good decision. Way too late now. Posted 3/15/05.
Robin Hood (~) -- The ghost of Errol Flynn hangs heavily over this movie. It would be bad enough trying to do a standard remake of the Merry Man's adventures; a re-imagination that changes the story in significant ways asks a lot of the audience. Not that this film is bad; there's much to recommend it, including a lot of authenticity and good performances by leads Crowe and Blanchett. But even so, you walk away feeling that something is missing here. A tough call--probably worth a look, but no guarantees. Posted 7/24/11.
Rock of Ages (~) -- Everyone probably should be more upset that this movie was a bust than everyone actually is. The music herein, even at its worst, is still miles ahead of the drek that winds up hitting the charts these days; it’s a very bad sign for society at large that more people weren’t on board with this film and its homage to '80s metal. There’s also the highly entertaining pleasure of watching a really good cast frequently make fools of themselves. (Which does not include Tom Cruise; his performance is pretty amazing all the way through.) On the other hand, the movie does lose a lot of momentum about halfway through, and it never really recovers all of its early drive even at its feel-good climax. So it's about half of a really good movie--in some ways, the epitome of that so-so label. Enjoy as much of it as you can. Posted 5/3/13.
Roger Dodger (--) -- I wanted to like this movie, and the dialogue in the first twenty or so minutes crackled and sparked. But that was all of the movie I could watch, because the dumbshit director chose to shoot the whole movie in that lame-ass, faux edgy, shake the camera all over the place style. Sorry, but my DVR did not come with a pack of Dramamine. Call me when you're interested in making a movie that's doesn't look like amateurish horseshit. Posted 2/23/05.
Romeo + Juliet (~) -- The middle member of Luhrmann's "Red Curtain" trilogy (though, strangely, minus the curtain), and undoubtedly the least successful. That's not to say it's bad; given the screenwriter (Shakespeare) you can hardly go wrong. It starts working once they begin playing it somewhat straight, and by the end the power of the tale has its effect. But many of the actors seem too lightweight for their roles, and some of the overwrought touches just don't work here. Posted 3/22/03.
Ronin (+) -- A nice bit of work from Frankenheimer, about disaffected and drifting former spies in post-Cold War Europe. Alternately action-packed and tense and moody, it keeps you engaged. And it's nice to see DeNiro playing someone who is not in the Mafia…though he's still not a choir boy here.
The Rookie (+) -- It starts off a bit strange and disjointed, and it gets a bit schmaltzy, but it never crosses the line. Otherwise this is a fine bit of family entertainment. Posted 2/7/03.
The Royal Tenenbaums (+) -- It's an odd one; no doubt about that. But it plays its low-key humor very well, and occasionally achieves moments of outright hilarity. Give it time to do its work and you'll be rewarded. Posted 3/5/03.
Rush (+) -- Impressive, if a little predictable. Well, of course it’s predictable; the story is based on events that actually happened, in a very well-documented way, back in the ‘70s. Then again, most folks around here don’t follow Formula 1, have not heard of James Hunt nor Niki Lauda, nor know anything that happened before last week, so the story could have had much more freshness for today’s average movie viewer. Still, the viewer knows what will ultimately happen, even without historical knowledge, and that it will be wildly dramatic in the end. (Which makes sense; run-of-the-mill happenings don’t get made into movies, of course.) Nothing about this film really stands out, but ultimately you get a "more than the sum of its parts" result, enough to make this one worth a look. Posted 8/20/14.
Rush Hour (+) -- Most of Jackie Chan's career has been built around stories like this: fish-out-of-water guy finds trouble…and turns out to be the one guy you don't want to mess with. But it works here, and Chris Tucker adds plenty of life as the sidekick.
Rush Hour 2 (~) -- Chris Tucker's verve is infectious; he makes this flick worth seeing, especially if you're a fan. Meanwhile, Jackie Chan's act, though once fresh, is becoming decidedly one note.
Radio Days (~) -- Maybe this is where the downward slide started. Woody Allen's self-indulgence, which served him well early on, began to pull him down with this bit of autobiography. A nice idea--life during Allen's childhood, in the "radio days"--arrives too disjointed, too hit or miss, too erratic to be called a success. The film is better during the family sequences than the inevitable, shoehorned-in Mia Farrow storyline (back when she and he were still tight). The overall cast is excellent, the presentation is sterling and accurate to the period, but that self-indulgence--and some heavy-handed "statement" scenes--do just enough to pull this movie down. Not awful, but not what could have been.
Rango (+) -- Yeah, OK, I can see it. I mean, there’s nothing super profound here, but you do get an entertaining animated movie that has some good laughs, fine visuals (including some nicely clever visual references), and a relatively standard though still compelling Western style story line. I’ve seen worse stuff tossed out there under the cynical, “you’ll watch anything animated” philosophy; this film rises above that. Worth a look. Posted 8/21/13.
Rat Race (+) -- It takes a few minutes to get cooking, but once it does it provides plenty of satisfying comedy. And Jon Lovitz has one of the funniest scenes that I have ever seen in a movie. Posted 12/4/02.
Ratatouille (+) -- Strange. None of the characters are particularly likeable, at least at first; much of the physical comedy is overdone; some parts of the Pixar template have become too familiar (including the usual, almost banal-at-this-point technical brilliance); and the distracting Familiar Voice Problem is present. And yet, when viewed in its totality, the movie still works better than it should. This is a film that is more than the sum of its parts, and by pulling off that trick, it earns a worthiness that otherwise would not be there. Go ahead and have this one for dinner some night. Posted 5/9/09.
Red State (+) -- So this is what Kevin Smith's now-perpetual cloud of weed smoke hath wrought--a genuinely good indie film, with surprising philosophical depth, storytelling skill, and an almost oddly sympathetic engagement with its central crazies. If this really is his penultimate film (preceding the forthcoming Hit Somebody!), one could argue Smith is going out with a bang--and maybe just when he's finally figured out this whole film-making thing. Posted 1/5/12.
The Red Violin (~) -- Fine musical performances abound. The presentation is beautiful throughout. So what's the problem? The main character is, shall we say, wooden. The only consistent presence here, start to finish, is the titular instrument. It's a fine piece of workmanship to be sure, and capable of extraordinary things in the right hands--but movie viewers connect with human beings, not objects. The characters in this film do not stick around long enough to build a relationship between persona and viewer. The collection of vignettes is artfully shown, and some may enjoy the pathos of the tale(s), but I suspect most viewers will not appreciate the lack of human connection. Posted 1/23/06.
Reign Of Fire (+) -- Surprisingly excellent action-adventure movie. Great action, interesting vision of an alternate world, compelling story and characters--even Sir Shirtless himself (McConaughy) holds his own against no less a costar than Christian Bale. Add it all up and you get an unfairly overlooked but thoroughly enjoyable movie. Take the time to find this one and appreciate. Posted 4/16/09.
Remember The Titans (+) -- A bit unimaginatively straightforward, but still an effective tale of overcoming differences. And Denzel Washington is…well, Denzel Washington--the guy's not capable of a bad performance. He alone makes this film worth viewing.
Restoration (+) -- An excellent screenplay, lavishly reproduced late-Stuart settings, and a rich cast (even in supporting roles) makes this film worth a look. And just in case you needed the reminder, here's the proof that Robert Downey Jr. is more than just a punch line; in his controlled moments, the man can really act. Posted 10/30/05.
Richard III (+) -- The film version of the updated stage production of Shakespeare's classic. Set in a vaguely fascist England, with Ian McKellan taking the title role. Bang-up and bloody…just like you expect from Richard III.
A River Runs Through It (+) -- Good story, good actors, Montana scenery. What more do you want?
The Road To Wellville (--) -- You have to make a decision, folks: am I making a comedy, or a drama? Few can pull off both at the same time. And when you don't pull it off...well, kids, don't try that at home. Also, it helps to have a story, as opposed to stories, each of which only vaguely relates to the others. Put it all together, as with this movie, and you've got quite a mess. The few truly funny moments indicate that a tighter comedy would have been a good decision. Way too late now. Posted 3/15/05.
Robin Hood (~) -- The ghost of Errol Flynn hangs heavily over this movie. It would be bad enough trying to do a standard remake of the Merry Man's adventures; a re-imagination that changes the story in significant ways asks a lot of the audience. Not that this film is bad; there's much to recommend it, including a lot of authenticity and good performances by leads Crowe and Blanchett. But even so, you walk away feeling that something is missing here. A tough call--probably worth a look, but no guarantees. Posted 7/24/11.
Rock of Ages (~) -- Everyone probably should be more upset that this movie was a bust than everyone actually is. The music herein, even at its worst, is still miles ahead of the drek that winds up hitting the charts these days; it’s a very bad sign for society at large that more people weren’t on board with this film and its homage to '80s metal. There’s also the highly entertaining pleasure of watching a really good cast frequently make fools of themselves. (Which does not include Tom Cruise; his performance is pretty amazing all the way through.) On the other hand, the movie does lose a lot of momentum about halfway through, and it never really recovers all of its early drive even at its feel-good climax. So it's about half of a really good movie--in some ways, the epitome of that so-so label. Enjoy as much of it as you can. Posted 5/3/13.
Roger Dodger (--) -- I wanted to like this movie, and the dialogue in the first twenty or so minutes crackled and sparked. But that was all of the movie I could watch, because the dumbshit director chose to shoot the whole movie in that lame-ass, faux edgy, shake the camera all over the place style. Sorry, but my DVR did not come with a pack of Dramamine. Call me when you're interested in making a movie that's doesn't look like amateurish horseshit. Posted 2/23/05.
Romeo + Juliet (~) -- The middle member of Luhrmann's "Red Curtain" trilogy (though, strangely, minus the curtain), and undoubtedly the least successful. That's not to say it's bad; given the screenwriter (Shakespeare) you can hardly go wrong. It starts working once they begin playing it somewhat straight, and by the end the power of the tale has its effect. But many of the actors seem too lightweight for their roles, and some of the overwrought touches just don't work here. Posted 3/22/03.
Ronin (+) -- A nice bit of work from Frankenheimer, about disaffected and drifting former spies in post-Cold War Europe. Alternately action-packed and tense and moody, it keeps you engaged. And it's nice to see DeNiro playing someone who is not in the Mafia…though he's still not a choir boy here.
The Rookie (+) -- It starts off a bit strange and disjointed, and it gets a bit schmaltzy, but it never crosses the line. Otherwise this is a fine bit of family entertainment. Posted 2/7/03.
The Royal Tenenbaums (+) -- It's an odd one; no doubt about that. But it plays its low-key humor very well, and occasionally achieves moments of outright hilarity. Give it time to do its work and you'll be rewarded. Posted 3/5/03.
Rush (+) -- Impressive, if a little predictable. Well, of course it’s predictable; the story is based on events that actually happened, in a very well-documented way, back in the ‘70s. Then again, most folks around here don’t follow Formula 1, have not heard of James Hunt nor Niki Lauda, nor know anything that happened before last week, so the story could have had much more freshness for today’s average movie viewer. Still, the viewer knows what will ultimately happen, even without historical knowledge, and that it will be wildly dramatic in the end. (Which makes sense; run-of-the-mill happenings don’t get made into movies, of course.) Nothing about this film really stands out, but ultimately you get a "more than the sum of its parts" result, enough to make this one worth a look. Posted 8/20/14.
Rush Hour (+) -- Most of Jackie Chan's career has been built around stories like this: fish-out-of-water guy finds trouble…and turns out to be the one guy you don't want to mess with. But it works here, and Chris Tucker adds plenty of life as the sidekick.
Rush Hour 2 (~) -- Chris Tucker's verve is infectious; he makes this flick worth seeing, especially if you're a fan. Meanwhile, Jackie Chan's act, though once fresh, is becoming decidedly one note.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Tweaks
Made a couple of minor tweaks to the page. I got rid of the light borders from the posts; they represented nothing more than visual clutter, in my eyes, and didn't work with the rounded corners anyway.
I also upsized the text in the main posts, by about 25%. This should make things a little more readable.
Otherwise, everything remains the same.
I also upsized the text in the main posts, by about 25%. This should make things a little more readable.
Otherwise, everything remains the same.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Reel Reviews -- T
Tadpole (~) -- So what ruined this movie for me? The fact that the object of the young protagonist's affection (obsession, even) is Sigourney Weaver. Sorry, but ol' Sig is not hot stuff in my book. This ostensible comedy, about a 15-year-old's crush on his stepmother, is at its best when events are spinning out of the young lover's control--almost screwball in tone. But then it gets a little heavy, and then it's not as interesting. A tough call--probably leaning more toward no than yes. Posted 12/1/05.
The Tailor Of Panama (+) -- Bond, depraved Bond. It's impossible to watch this movie without making the 007 comparison, what with Pierce Brosnan playing the flip side of his franchise role. The difference is quite instructive; instead of screwing around with razzle-dazzle horseshit, this one sets the special effects aside and plays up the intelligence--and a touch of sleaze--giving you a nittier, grittier look at the world of spying. Geoffrey Rush, always the pro, provides more than capable backup. Posted 1/8/03.
The Tale of Despereaux (+) -- A beautifully made movie, with plenty of visual and directorial artistry. It seems to diverge quite a bit from the book--it's been forever since I read the original--but in this case that may not be a bad thing. Like all animation today, this one suffers from "familiar voice syndrome," but not as much as other animated movies. (There's no Chris Rock doing a jive-turkey routine here.) And there's enough quirky, individualistic charm to overcome any flaws. All in all, a satisfying viewing experience. Posted 1/5/12.
The Talented Mr. Ripley (+) -- Actually, this movie's full of talent, beyond the title character. The featured players--Damon, Paltrow, Law--are talented actors, and the setting is (mostly) that most talented of cities, Venice. And it's based on a best-selling thriller. With all that, it's hard not to be entertained.
The Tao Of Steve (+) -- It wears its indie-film pedigree like a cheap suit, but this little film has the goods. Amusing, and a bit thoughtful too.
Tape (+) -- Very much an "anti-movie"; it watches like a filmed play, which in fact is exactly what it is. Its "story" consists of nothing more than one long scene in a motel room, with two old school buddies delving into the truth of one past incident. But as skimpy as it is, that thin framework provides a tense and engrossing film. Another interesting film by director Richard Linklater, with great work by Ethan Hawke, Robert Sean Leonard, and Uma Thurman (the cast in its entirety). Posted 1/23/03.
Tarzan (~) -- A shrug-of-the-shoulders movie. Not great, but nothing special. It keeps you interested, and I suppose that's enough. And Phil Collins--despite being everyone's favorite musical whipping boy--actually did a pretty good job on the songs.
Ted (+) -- A ‘yeah, but...’ movie. It’s a lot of fun, most of the time; it’s more brazen in its humor than most movies you’ll see, and that’s very respectable. So yeah, it’s good. But, it does start to take itself a little too seriously at a certain point. I might have enjoyed it more if it was just flat out, balls out, crazy shit all the way through, but it kind of pussies out in the end. Still, it would be nitpicking to downgrade it just for that. It’s more than good enough, and we’ll leave it at that. Posted 8/21/13.
Temptress Moon (~) -- Probably one of those cases where something was lost in the translation; all of the subtle story elements disappear for a non-Chinese audience. This English-only viewer found it confusing and slow, great reviews notwithstanding. Posted 11/5/02.
10 Things I Hate About You (+) -- I can't really justify it, but I actually did like this movie. I guess I'm just a sucker for Shakespeare in any form (it's based on The Taming Of The Shrew).
Terminator: Salvation (~) -- The machine in question, with this movie franchise, may as well be a copier--an old copier with a lot of worn parts and an overused imager. What do you get out of that sort of machine? A copy, yes, but a faded facsimile, one that resembles your original piece, but is tough to read, loses parts of its original whole, and often isn't good enough to get the job done. So it is with the Terminator films: there's some good stuff here, and you never get a bad performance from Christian Bale. But we've seen this premise, these themes, those iconic symbols (and even specific lines of dialogue) too many times before. Their impact has faded. Posted 7/9/11.
Thank You For Smoking (+) -- A good satire that doesn’t bog down too much in delivering its message. The numbers are there, figures on cigarette deaths and all that--but the data is delivered so smoothly that you never feel like you’re being preached at. And, despite the evident progress made against smoking (in this country, at least) this film’s message still remains relevant today (especially for the broader picture about the incest between death merchants, their lobbyists, and our government). Posted 3/9/13.
There Will Be Blood (+) -- You go in thinking this will be one of those ponderous, slow, boring "important" films--and then you glance at your watch and you're surprised that an hour has already passed. Every scene of this film is so compelling, contains such riveting visuals, presents such an unusual tableaux of score and sound editing, and wraps itself so tightly around another astounding performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, that the cumulative effect is a movie so mesmerizing you can't take your eyes off the screen. It's a marvel, a provocative and challenging film that is better than you think it will be, better than you think it could be. A must see. Posted 4/16/09.
The Thief of Baghdad (+) -- Holy shit: how did Disney get away with ripping this movie off for Aladdin? Seriously, the latter is in some ways a shot for shot remake of this old chestnut; it’s so unoriginal that even many of the names are the same. Well, considering how great the rip-off is, the original must be brilliant, right? Not quite, to be honest; some parts of this flick are really cheesy. But then again, it’s also wildly entertaining, and it gets points for being sincere in its occasional cheesiness. The thing works, and this film reminds us of why the world came to love the movies in the first place, oh those so many years ago. Posted 8/21/13.
The Thin Man (~) -- The Nick and Nora repartée holds up, even after all these years. But the rest of the movie is a muddle, especially at the beginning. Probably not to be missed for true movie aficionados, but if you're not that deep in, you can probably skip it. Posted 5/30/05.
The Thin Red Line (--) -- Wow--they made Guadalcanal boring. Almost a twin to Saving Private Ryan--another ponderous, pretentious WWII epic that had virtually no real story to speak of. Oh well--at least it looked nice. Posted 11/14/02.
The Third Miracle (+) -- Somewhat timely, given the recent events in Rome. This is not about a Pope dying, but it's the story of a doubtful priest--expertly played by Ed Harris--and his investigation into the case for a possible new saint. There's some shaky romance--of all things--between Harris's priest and the daughter of the saint-to-be (Anne Heche), and that part of the story rings false. But, as a sincere and thoughtful exploration of faith, faith lost, faith regained, and just plain living, the movie has depth and real appeal. A word of warning for the denominationally rigid: this one is very Catholic in its outlook. Posted 4/18/05.
Thirteen Days (~) -- Not great, not bad. The historical accuracy is questionable, but some interesting points about power and moral authority are raised, ideas that continue to have practical relevance. Posted 5/13/02.
This Film Is Not Yet Rated (+) -- Not a lot to say--the thing speaks for itself, as a documentary about the film ratings system should. Anyone who has even a passing interest in movies should see this, if only so folks can make up their own minds about the relationship between ratings and censorship. There's certainly enough evidence here to send that case to the jury. Posted 12/9/08.
This Is The End (+) -- Here’s a wildly terrific concept for a movie: famous funny people, playing themselves, get stranded together when the shit goes down. And I mean, when the shit really goes down. The results are great, in places howlingly funny, and seriously entertaining throughout (though the very very end comes across as weak, especially compared with the rest of the show). Highly recommended. Posted 3/9/13.
The Thomas Crown Affair (+) -- A good time is had by most. Pierce Brosnan practically ODs on suavity, Rene Russo gets a little too wild, and Denis Leary provides the stable base. It's not particularly meaningful, but it's well done and entertaining. Posted 1/9/02.
Three Kings (+) -- Morbidly funny, except when it's gut-wrenchingly intense, and it doesn't shy away from asking the tough questions about one of the defining events of our times (the 1991 Gulf War). Special props must go to George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, Ice Cube and Spike Jonze for their remarkable performances as American soldiers caught between their own avarice and the palpable need to use their positions and power to do what's right. Very highly recommended. (Note: this would be a "Best Of All" inductee, except the standard criterion for BOA--a movie you want to watch again and again--can't apply here; Three Kings is great, but just too intense to want to watch again and again. Otherwise, it's in.) Posted 3/28/04.
Thor (+) -- I heard this film being trashed so vigorously that I was fully prepared to just watch and appreciate it for camp value alone. Imagine my surprise when I took a look and found this movie wasn't all that bad. In fact, I kind of dug it. The story holds together reasonably well, though some of the villain's plotting is unnecessarily complicated. But the visuals are fine, the look and feel are somewhat different from other comic book movies, and the cast has plenty of fun with it. So what's the problem? Nothing you can't handle, I say. Posted 3/24/13.
Thor: The Dark World (+) -- Total bubble-gum fluff entertainment. So this is a negative review? Absolutely not. I’m simply acknowledging that this movie aims to be nothing more than a crowd-pleasing diversion, without pretensions of being anything important or significant. And it succeeds. The viewer doesn’t need to think any big thoughts, can let the hokum just pass by without comment, and can enjoy the entertaining visuals and the work by a cast of actors who are clearly having a very good time. More films should be so self-aware; sometimes, mere fun itself can be a lofty goal--and that’s what you get here. Enjoy. Posted 8/20/14.
3:10 To Yuma (+) -- For all the shooting and other assorted noise, this powerful film is subtle and nuanced--almost philosophical--when it counts. Wonderful performances by Crowe and Bale as polar opposite characters--on different poles, separated by the entire globe, yet still different sides of the same planet--lay the foundation for the story's stunning climax. Not to be missed. Posted 12/9/08.
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (~) -- See, here’s the thing about spies: if they’re doing their jobs right, you’re not supposed to know what they’re up to. Seems that the spies in this movie are on that ball; for a good stretch of the flick’s running time, I couldn’t tell what was going on. Despite that handicap, and almost in spite of itself, the film does eventually grow into an engrossing viewing experience. By the end, when Oldman’s George Smiley has worked through the problem, you care about how it all plays out. This is clearly not everyone’s kind of film, but if you’ve got a thing for the spy genre and a high tolerance for opacity, you might enjoy this one. Posted 7/20/13.
To Have And Have Not (+) -- I didn't really find myself getting sucked in by this one when I watched it. The story, some humbug about WWII intrigue in the Caribbean, did little to hold my interest. And you know how I feel about Faulkner (one of the screenwriters). So why the positive recommendation? Because you just can't go wrong watching Bogart do his insolent, tough guy shtick. That's always worth a look. Posted 6/19/05.
To Kill A Mockingbird (+) -- A profound, touchingly emotional telling of Harper Lee's classic novel. Whether you've read the book or not, this presentation--including Gregory Peck's masterful performance--reminds you that Atticus Finch is the father every child should have. Posted 3/30/05.
Topper (--) -- Of course it's a comedy--what's funnier than rich, dead alcoholics? This is supposed to be a classic, but really it's a major disappointment. The humor has not aged well; the supposedly sophisticated comedic hijinx come off as mere shallow silliness. All in all, the story just never really catches fire, and even the presence of the great Cary Grant can't save it. Forget this one. Posted 10/30/05.
The Town (+) -- Apparently, that Affleck boy can make a movie. With the newly crowned Best Picture Argo still hanging in the award-season air, I watched this other, earlier case in point. What the man offered here was a well-crafted film, one with a good visual sense and excellent pacing, both of which served well an otherwise pedestrian story. A lot of what's in that story has already been well covered in other films, though I do appreciate the touch of ambiguity in the ending. One bit of absurdity, or at least a questionable choice: would any Bostonians, even Charlestown bank robbers, actually try to rip off the Red Sox? Seems highly implausible. But that doesn't spoil the movie--it's still worth a look. Posed 3/3/13.
Toy Story 3 (+) -- Yes, it is a tear-jerker. But at least it comes by its emotional impact honestly, unlike some other Pixar efforts. This presumed denouement of the series charts some of the same territory as the last chapters of The House at Pooh Corner--a rumination on growing up and leaving childhood behind, and how the echoes of those younger days stay with us while also being passed down to another generation at the same time. The movie is nuanced, complex, well-thought out and well-written, and it's hard to imagine anyone not liking this movie, or at least not finding it effective and entertaining. The hardcore cynic inside may nag at you, but his voice is weak compared with this film's loud and clear statements. Posted 8/7/11.
Traffic (~) -- Tough to watch, thanks to the fact that this film is about total wretchedness and the cancerous evil that inhabits the soul of a nation (and that nation is not Mexico, kiddos). The extensive cast gives good performances, but Soderbergh's directorial gimmickry--tinted lighting, grainy textures, self-conscious editing--considerably detracts from the overall movie. Posted 5/25/02.
Training Day (+) -- Intense, troubling and all too real. Good work by Denzel Washington, but Ethan Hawke should not be overlooked here--he certainly holds his own against the award-winner. This is the sort of movie that gets you thinking about the state of society for many days after viewing, and the thoughts are not comforting. Posted 8/20/02.
The Tree of Life (~) -- This may be the most Malickian of Terence Malick movies. The first 45 minutes of this (long) film are utter bullshit--a barrage of half-baked "grand vision" executed through weird, impressionistic story set-up, a stock footage festival that comes across as outtakes from 2001 and Jurassic Park, and a preposterous set of scenes showing Sean Penn doing nothing except brooding. (He does little more throughout his scenes in the movie.) The last 15 minutes almost replicates that first 45. So, bad movie, right? Well...in fact, the middle section of the film, a substantially more straightforward telling of a family's story (featuring a great performance from Brad Pitt) is fascinating, almost mesmerizing film making. Is it a yes or a no? I can't say; it depends on your tolerance for overly artistic vision. If you're at home in the art house, go for it. If you prefer the googolplex, maybe stay away. Your call. Posted 10/13/12.
The Triplets of Belleville (~) -- Maybe everyone's right about the French. This movie was a critical darling when it played in the theaters. Now that I've seen it, I'm not so impressed. There are some charming and entertaining moments here, but there's also weirdness and something strangely opaque in the presentation of the story. The decision to tell the tale mostly through actions and music--not through dialogue, which would have needed subtitles--comes across as a bad move for this viewer; the characters seem to have little definition without any explicit motivations. That sounds like I want the film dumbed down; I don't. I just feel that, in this case, the director did not give his flatly drawn characters enough depth. Posted 1/18/05.
12 Monkeys (+) -- The future of the world rests in Bruce Willis's hands. Oh, well…it wasn't worth all that much anyway. Nevertheless, this is an interesting and inventive movie--exactly the sort of work you'd expect from director Terry Gilliam. Worth a look.
12 Years a Slave (+) -- An artfully crafted and masterfully executed film. This movie achieves exactly what you would hope and expect from a film on this subject: the viewer must watch this story and think to himself, “How would I react to being treated this way?”--precisely the kind of empathy required to prevent such madness. And ‘madness’ is the proper term; in some ways, this film serves as a meditation on how big a role insanity played in creating, justifying, and propping up slavery as an institution. (Not to mention religion, of course.) It’s worthy of its awards, and certainly worthy of your attention. Posted 8/20/14.
28 Days Later (~) -- Strangely unengaging for an apocalypse movie. Not to say it doesn't hold the interest, but I really didn't find anything particularly special in this. Plus there's enough seeming inconsistency to make suspension of disbelief that much harder. (I say "seeming" inconsistency, because let's face it, how would you know what such a calamity would really be like?) If you really dig this sort of movie, then go ahead and enjoy. But otherwise, you can skip it. Posted 12/19/04.
25th Hour (+) -- Probably the best movie Spike Lee has ever made, and that's saying a mouthful. Not one of the movie's characters--particularly Edward Norton's busted drug dealer--would normally generate much sympathy, yet the presentation of the story is so effective that the viewer can't help but go through the emotional wringer with them. Add to the effective story and wonderful performances a brilliant, haunting score, as well as the raw-nerve backdrop of immediate post-9/11 New York City, and the sum yields a magnificent piece of cinema. A "Best Of All" inductee. Posted 1/20/04.
Two Weeks Notice (~) It's tough to say anything truly negative about this movie, beyond the fact that it's not really trying--for anything. Everything here is standard issue, off the assembly line romantic comedy. But that doesn't mean it's awful--just not very ambitious. As it is, it's competently done, the actors are appealing, and everything ends up exactly as you'd expect. It's good for Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant fans; they won't be disappointed. The rest of us? You'll forget it almost as soon as the credits roll, but it won't haunt your dreams, either. I guess that's a push. Posted 2/21/05.
The Tailor Of Panama (+) -- Bond, depraved Bond. It's impossible to watch this movie without making the 007 comparison, what with Pierce Brosnan playing the flip side of his franchise role. The difference is quite instructive; instead of screwing around with razzle-dazzle horseshit, this one sets the special effects aside and plays up the intelligence--and a touch of sleaze--giving you a nittier, grittier look at the world of spying. Geoffrey Rush, always the pro, provides more than capable backup. Posted 1/8/03.
The Tale of Despereaux (+) -- A beautifully made movie, with plenty of visual and directorial artistry. It seems to diverge quite a bit from the book--it's been forever since I read the original--but in this case that may not be a bad thing. Like all animation today, this one suffers from "familiar voice syndrome," but not as much as other animated movies. (There's no Chris Rock doing a jive-turkey routine here.) And there's enough quirky, individualistic charm to overcome any flaws. All in all, a satisfying viewing experience. Posted 1/5/12.
The Talented Mr. Ripley (+) -- Actually, this movie's full of talent, beyond the title character. The featured players--Damon, Paltrow, Law--are talented actors, and the setting is (mostly) that most talented of cities, Venice. And it's based on a best-selling thriller. With all that, it's hard not to be entertained.
The Tao Of Steve (+) -- It wears its indie-film pedigree like a cheap suit, but this little film has the goods. Amusing, and a bit thoughtful too.
Tape (+) -- Very much an "anti-movie"; it watches like a filmed play, which in fact is exactly what it is. Its "story" consists of nothing more than one long scene in a motel room, with two old school buddies delving into the truth of one past incident. But as skimpy as it is, that thin framework provides a tense and engrossing film. Another interesting film by director Richard Linklater, with great work by Ethan Hawke, Robert Sean Leonard, and Uma Thurman (the cast in its entirety). Posted 1/23/03.
Tarzan (~) -- A shrug-of-the-shoulders movie. Not great, but nothing special. It keeps you interested, and I suppose that's enough. And Phil Collins--despite being everyone's favorite musical whipping boy--actually did a pretty good job on the songs.
Ted (+) -- A ‘yeah, but...’ movie. It’s a lot of fun, most of the time; it’s more brazen in its humor than most movies you’ll see, and that’s very respectable. So yeah, it’s good. But, it does start to take itself a little too seriously at a certain point. I might have enjoyed it more if it was just flat out, balls out, crazy shit all the way through, but it kind of pussies out in the end. Still, it would be nitpicking to downgrade it just for that. It’s more than good enough, and we’ll leave it at that. Posted 8/21/13.
Temptress Moon (~) -- Probably one of those cases where something was lost in the translation; all of the subtle story elements disappear for a non-Chinese audience. This English-only viewer found it confusing and slow, great reviews notwithstanding. Posted 11/5/02.
10 Things I Hate About You (+) -- I can't really justify it, but I actually did like this movie. I guess I'm just a sucker for Shakespeare in any form (it's based on The Taming Of The Shrew).
Terminator: Salvation (~) -- The machine in question, with this movie franchise, may as well be a copier--an old copier with a lot of worn parts and an overused imager. What do you get out of that sort of machine? A copy, yes, but a faded facsimile, one that resembles your original piece, but is tough to read, loses parts of its original whole, and often isn't good enough to get the job done. So it is with the Terminator films: there's some good stuff here, and you never get a bad performance from Christian Bale. But we've seen this premise, these themes, those iconic symbols (and even specific lines of dialogue) too many times before. Their impact has faded. Posted 7/9/11.
Thank You For Smoking (+) -- A good satire that doesn’t bog down too much in delivering its message. The numbers are there, figures on cigarette deaths and all that--but the data is delivered so smoothly that you never feel like you’re being preached at. And, despite the evident progress made against smoking (in this country, at least) this film’s message still remains relevant today (especially for the broader picture about the incest between death merchants, their lobbyists, and our government). Posted 3/9/13.
There Will Be Blood (+) -- You go in thinking this will be one of those ponderous, slow, boring "important" films--and then you glance at your watch and you're surprised that an hour has already passed. Every scene of this film is so compelling, contains such riveting visuals, presents such an unusual tableaux of score and sound editing, and wraps itself so tightly around another astounding performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, that the cumulative effect is a movie so mesmerizing you can't take your eyes off the screen. It's a marvel, a provocative and challenging film that is better than you think it will be, better than you think it could be. A must see. Posted 4/16/09.
The Thief of Baghdad (+) -- Holy shit: how did Disney get away with ripping this movie off for Aladdin? Seriously, the latter is in some ways a shot for shot remake of this old chestnut; it’s so unoriginal that even many of the names are the same. Well, considering how great the rip-off is, the original must be brilliant, right? Not quite, to be honest; some parts of this flick are really cheesy. But then again, it’s also wildly entertaining, and it gets points for being sincere in its occasional cheesiness. The thing works, and this film reminds us of why the world came to love the movies in the first place, oh those so many years ago. Posted 8/21/13.
The Thin Man (~) -- The Nick and Nora repartée holds up, even after all these years. But the rest of the movie is a muddle, especially at the beginning. Probably not to be missed for true movie aficionados, but if you're not that deep in, you can probably skip it. Posted 5/30/05.
The Thin Red Line (--) -- Wow--they made Guadalcanal boring. Almost a twin to Saving Private Ryan--another ponderous, pretentious WWII epic that had virtually no real story to speak of. Oh well--at least it looked nice. Posted 11/14/02.
The Third Miracle (+) -- Somewhat timely, given the recent events in Rome. This is not about a Pope dying, but it's the story of a doubtful priest--expertly played by Ed Harris--and his investigation into the case for a possible new saint. There's some shaky romance--of all things--between Harris's priest and the daughter of the saint-to-be (Anne Heche), and that part of the story rings false. But, as a sincere and thoughtful exploration of faith, faith lost, faith regained, and just plain living, the movie has depth and real appeal. A word of warning for the denominationally rigid: this one is very Catholic in its outlook. Posted 4/18/05.
Thirteen Days (~) -- Not great, not bad. The historical accuracy is questionable, but some interesting points about power and moral authority are raised, ideas that continue to have practical relevance. Posted 5/13/02.
This Film Is Not Yet Rated (+) -- Not a lot to say--the thing speaks for itself, as a documentary about the film ratings system should. Anyone who has even a passing interest in movies should see this, if only so folks can make up their own minds about the relationship between ratings and censorship. There's certainly enough evidence here to send that case to the jury. Posted 12/9/08.
This Is The End (+) -- Here’s a wildly terrific concept for a movie: famous funny people, playing themselves, get stranded together when the shit goes down. And I mean, when the shit really goes down. The results are great, in places howlingly funny, and seriously entertaining throughout (though the very very end comes across as weak, especially compared with the rest of the show). Highly recommended. Posted 3/9/13.
The Thomas Crown Affair (+) -- A good time is had by most. Pierce Brosnan practically ODs on suavity, Rene Russo gets a little too wild, and Denis Leary provides the stable base. It's not particularly meaningful, but it's well done and entertaining. Posted 1/9/02.
Three Kings (+) -- Morbidly funny, except when it's gut-wrenchingly intense, and it doesn't shy away from asking the tough questions about one of the defining events of our times (the 1991 Gulf War). Special props must go to George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, Ice Cube and Spike Jonze for their remarkable performances as American soldiers caught between their own avarice and the palpable need to use their positions and power to do what's right. Very highly recommended. (Note: this would be a "Best Of All" inductee, except the standard criterion for BOA--a movie you want to watch again and again--can't apply here; Three Kings is great, but just too intense to want to watch again and again. Otherwise, it's in.) Posted 3/28/04.
Thor (+) -- I heard this film being trashed so vigorously that I was fully prepared to just watch and appreciate it for camp value alone. Imagine my surprise when I took a look and found this movie wasn't all that bad. In fact, I kind of dug it. The story holds together reasonably well, though some of the villain's plotting is unnecessarily complicated. But the visuals are fine, the look and feel are somewhat different from other comic book movies, and the cast has plenty of fun with it. So what's the problem? Nothing you can't handle, I say. Posted 3/24/13.
Thor: The Dark World (+) -- Total bubble-gum fluff entertainment. So this is a negative review? Absolutely not. I’m simply acknowledging that this movie aims to be nothing more than a crowd-pleasing diversion, without pretensions of being anything important or significant. And it succeeds. The viewer doesn’t need to think any big thoughts, can let the hokum just pass by without comment, and can enjoy the entertaining visuals and the work by a cast of actors who are clearly having a very good time. More films should be so self-aware; sometimes, mere fun itself can be a lofty goal--and that’s what you get here. Enjoy. Posted 8/20/14.
3:10 To Yuma (+) -- For all the shooting and other assorted noise, this powerful film is subtle and nuanced--almost philosophical--when it counts. Wonderful performances by Crowe and Bale as polar opposite characters--on different poles, separated by the entire globe, yet still different sides of the same planet--lay the foundation for the story's stunning climax. Not to be missed. Posted 12/9/08.
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (~) -- See, here’s the thing about spies: if they’re doing their jobs right, you’re not supposed to know what they’re up to. Seems that the spies in this movie are on that ball; for a good stretch of the flick’s running time, I couldn’t tell what was going on. Despite that handicap, and almost in spite of itself, the film does eventually grow into an engrossing viewing experience. By the end, when Oldman’s George Smiley has worked through the problem, you care about how it all plays out. This is clearly not everyone’s kind of film, but if you’ve got a thing for the spy genre and a high tolerance for opacity, you might enjoy this one. Posted 7/20/13.
To Have And Have Not (+) -- I didn't really find myself getting sucked in by this one when I watched it. The story, some humbug about WWII intrigue in the Caribbean, did little to hold my interest. And you know how I feel about Faulkner (one of the screenwriters). So why the positive recommendation? Because you just can't go wrong watching Bogart do his insolent, tough guy shtick. That's always worth a look. Posted 6/19/05.
To Kill A Mockingbird (+) -- A profound, touchingly emotional telling of Harper Lee's classic novel. Whether you've read the book or not, this presentation--including Gregory Peck's masterful performance--reminds you that Atticus Finch is the father every child should have. Posted 3/30/05.
Topper (--) -- Of course it's a comedy--what's funnier than rich, dead alcoholics? This is supposed to be a classic, but really it's a major disappointment. The humor has not aged well; the supposedly sophisticated comedic hijinx come off as mere shallow silliness. All in all, the story just never really catches fire, and even the presence of the great Cary Grant can't save it. Forget this one. Posted 10/30/05.
The Town (+) -- Apparently, that Affleck boy can make a movie. With the newly crowned Best Picture Argo still hanging in the award-season air, I watched this other, earlier case in point. What the man offered here was a well-crafted film, one with a good visual sense and excellent pacing, both of which served well an otherwise pedestrian story. A lot of what's in that story has already been well covered in other films, though I do appreciate the touch of ambiguity in the ending. One bit of absurdity, or at least a questionable choice: would any Bostonians, even Charlestown bank robbers, actually try to rip off the Red Sox? Seems highly implausible. But that doesn't spoil the movie--it's still worth a look. Posed 3/3/13.
Toy Story 3 (+) -- Yes, it is a tear-jerker. But at least it comes by its emotional impact honestly, unlike some other Pixar efforts. This presumed denouement of the series charts some of the same territory as the last chapters of The House at Pooh Corner--a rumination on growing up and leaving childhood behind, and how the echoes of those younger days stay with us while also being passed down to another generation at the same time. The movie is nuanced, complex, well-thought out and well-written, and it's hard to imagine anyone not liking this movie, or at least not finding it effective and entertaining. The hardcore cynic inside may nag at you, but his voice is weak compared with this film's loud and clear statements. Posted 8/7/11.
Traffic (~) -- Tough to watch, thanks to the fact that this film is about total wretchedness and the cancerous evil that inhabits the soul of a nation (and that nation is not Mexico, kiddos). The extensive cast gives good performances, but Soderbergh's directorial gimmickry--tinted lighting, grainy textures, self-conscious editing--considerably detracts from the overall movie. Posted 5/25/02.
Training Day (+) -- Intense, troubling and all too real. Good work by Denzel Washington, but Ethan Hawke should not be overlooked here--he certainly holds his own against the award-winner. This is the sort of movie that gets you thinking about the state of society for many days after viewing, and the thoughts are not comforting. Posted 8/20/02.
The Tree of Life (~) -- This may be the most Malickian of Terence Malick movies. The first 45 minutes of this (long) film are utter bullshit--a barrage of half-baked "grand vision" executed through weird, impressionistic story set-up, a stock footage festival that comes across as outtakes from 2001 and Jurassic Park, and a preposterous set of scenes showing Sean Penn doing nothing except brooding. (He does little more throughout his scenes in the movie.) The last 15 minutes almost replicates that first 45. So, bad movie, right? Well...in fact, the middle section of the film, a substantially more straightforward telling of a family's story (featuring a great performance from Brad Pitt) is fascinating, almost mesmerizing film making. Is it a yes or a no? I can't say; it depends on your tolerance for overly artistic vision. If you're at home in the art house, go for it. If you prefer the googolplex, maybe stay away. Your call. Posted 10/13/12.
The Triplets of Belleville (~) -- Maybe everyone's right about the French. This movie was a critical darling when it played in the theaters. Now that I've seen it, I'm not so impressed. There are some charming and entertaining moments here, but there's also weirdness and something strangely opaque in the presentation of the story. The decision to tell the tale mostly through actions and music--not through dialogue, which would have needed subtitles--comes across as a bad move for this viewer; the characters seem to have little definition without any explicit motivations. That sounds like I want the film dumbed down; I don't. I just feel that, in this case, the director did not give his flatly drawn characters enough depth. Posted 1/18/05.
12 Monkeys (+) -- The future of the world rests in Bruce Willis's hands. Oh, well…it wasn't worth all that much anyway. Nevertheless, this is an interesting and inventive movie--exactly the sort of work you'd expect from director Terry Gilliam. Worth a look.
12 Years a Slave (+) -- An artfully crafted and masterfully executed film. This movie achieves exactly what you would hope and expect from a film on this subject: the viewer must watch this story and think to himself, “How would I react to being treated this way?”--precisely the kind of empathy required to prevent such madness. And ‘madness’ is the proper term; in some ways, this film serves as a meditation on how big a role insanity played in creating, justifying, and propping up slavery as an institution. (Not to mention religion, of course.) It’s worthy of its awards, and certainly worthy of your attention. Posted 8/20/14.
28 Days Later (~) -- Strangely unengaging for an apocalypse movie. Not to say it doesn't hold the interest, but I really didn't find anything particularly special in this. Plus there's enough seeming inconsistency to make suspension of disbelief that much harder. (I say "seeming" inconsistency, because let's face it, how would you know what such a calamity would really be like?) If you really dig this sort of movie, then go ahead and enjoy. But otherwise, you can skip it. Posted 12/19/04.
25th Hour (+) -- Probably the best movie Spike Lee has ever made, and that's saying a mouthful. Not one of the movie's characters--particularly Edward Norton's busted drug dealer--would normally generate much sympathy, yet the presentation of the story is so effective that the viewer can't help but go through the emotional wringer with them. Add to the effective story and wonderful performances a brilliant, haunting score, as well as the raw-nerve backdrop of immediate post-9/11 New York City, and the sum yields a magnificent piece of cinema. A "Best Of All" inductee. Posted 1/20/04.
Two Weeks Notice (~) It's tough to say anything truly negative about this movie, beyond the fact that it's not really trying--for anything. Everything here is standard issue, off the assembly line romantic comedy. But that doesn't mean it's awful--just not very ambitious. As it is, it's competently done, the actors are appealing, and everything ends up exactly as you'd expect. It's good for Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant fans; they won't be disappointed. The rest of us? You'll forget it almost as soon as the credits roll, but it won't haunt your dreams, either. I guess that's a push. Posted 2/21/05.
Wordsmith
Another term for Stephen's Dictionary:
smug speed
[noun]
the speed at which luxury cars drive, which is too fast to get around them, yet still slow enough to be annoying
smug speed
[noun]
the speed at which luxury cars drive, which is too fast to get around them, yet still slow enough to be annoying
Reel Reviews -- D
Dark City (+) -- Fascinating story, visually impressive, and very creepy villians.
The Darjeeling Limited (+) -- A whole lotta smirkin’ going on. The absurd tone is set very early on, and it never really lets up throughout the proceedings (with the exception of one tragic sequence in the middle). That translates into a mostly enjoyable movie about three alleged brothers--part of the humor comes from the preposterous claim that disparate stars Brody, Wilson and Schwarzmann could possibly be related--trying to find themselves as a family again, against the backdrop of exotic India. Buy a ticket; you’ll be happy you went along on this ride. Posted 1/31/14.
The Dark Knight (+) -- Holy shit. This is what you'd have if William Blake had drawn comic books: not just an action hero story, but a true vision of Hell--a realistic vision of Hell, an all-too-possible vision of Hell. The mayhem in Gotham City is what happens when the "terrorists" stop having rational motivations; when it's all about madness & randomness, when the violent act is the only end in and of itself. No wonder this movie has affected so many people (to the tune of so many millions of dollars). I too was blown away, not so much by this film as a piece of moviemaking; more so for the deep waters in which it treads. There's so much here that you can almost forget the amazing performance by Heath Ledger (if not for the publicity, you simply wouldn't know it was him under that make-up) and forgive the few minor faults. I wouldn't necessarily call it a masterpiece, but this is truly a film worth seeing. Posted 9/5/08.
The Dark Knight Rises (+) -- A satisfying conclusion to Nolan's trilogy. Much more of a sequel to Batman Begins than its immediate predecessor--though that film has its impact here, too--TDKR focuses strongly on the emotional life of its key characters, with heartening results when all is said and done. Even so, this is still a big, sweeping epic action hero movie, and it delivers the spectacle as well. One sour note: either I'm losing my hearing, or the sound mix was really poor (either in the theater or in the digital film; I couldn't particularly tell); either way, I could not hear far too much of the dialogue in the action sequences. There's also some muddle to the plot, especially early on, but a lot of that becomes clearer when you step back and look at the big picture. And this is, indeed, a big picture--and even worth the inflated ticket price of today's theater experience. Posted 8/13/12.
Dark Shadows (~) -- I don’t know; this Depp-Burton thing may have run its course. Not to say that this is a bad movie, but at certain points in this picture you get the impression that maybe someone else, singly or in a pair, could have brought something better to this revision of the old TV show. There are good moments here, some nice satire of the period (a good idea not to set the action in current times), but by the end the filmmakers have gone overboard; a little too much trying, not enough just leaving it alone and letting it be. You want to applaud effort, but not so much effort that it gets in the way. Posted 7/13/13.
Darkman (+) -- Lots of fun. An early taste of the Raimi/Tapert collaboration's potential. And it stars Liam Neeson before he became a big shot.
Date Night (+) -- I was all set not to like this movie, but the combination of appealing lead actors and a well-rounded supporting cast--with one or two perfect pitch cameos--put an otherwise run of the mill movie over the top. Posted 7/9/11.
Dead Man Walking (+) -- Top notch performances from Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon. A tough look at the death penalty, without much schmaltz clouding the issue. It gives you something to think about.
Dead Poets Society (+) -- A strong work with a lot to say about life. The first real look at Robin Williams as something other than a living cartoon character.
Death To Smoochy (+) -- A printed chart of this movie's laugh meter would show a lot of spikes along the scroll; when the laughs come--and they do, frequently--they are high register indeed. Overall, it's a well-done black comedy, for the most part maintaining an acerbic tone that most movie comedies never even try to attain; unfortunately it pulls its punches towards the end. But it's still a curmudgeonly hoot most of the way through. And its commentary on the commodification of children in this society and its attendant hatefulness, though couched in a heavily comedic and satirical presentation, is dead on. Posted 9/14/03.
Deconstructing Harry (--) -- A good moment or two, but mostly a muddled mess. Made at the height (depth?) of Woody Allen's troubles; maybe that had something to do with it.
The Deer Hunter (~) -- The problem with ordinary lives is...they're ordinary. By definition, not particularly interesting. And since this movie is focused on--at least at the start--a set of quite ordinary lives, well, you see we have a problem. Sadly, ordinary lives--in fiction at least--are only redeemed in their disintegration. So it is here. The steel town characters portrayed by DeNiro, Walken, et al., are, fundamentally, just your average assholes. Things only get interesting when they ship off to Vietnam and life starts hitting them (almost literally) like a shot to the head. And there's a little too much self-consciousness about being "important"--a bad trait in any movie. The reputation this film has is, in this viewer's opinion, not especially well deserved. Your mileage may vary. Posted 5/31/08.
The Departed (~) -- The good news: Scorsese put together a hell of a cast for this film. The bad news: it was Scorsese directing them. This movie neatly exposes and sums up the Scorsese problem: a technically fine film that lacks something, or is off-putting in some crucial way. That aforementioned cast is a case in point: as in all Scorsese movies, everyone throws himself too forcefully into his role; you can practically see the actors look at the camera and say, "Check out how intense I make this scene." The effect is not one of intensity, but of actors trying too hard (at best) or chewing the scenery (at worst). And it's up to the director to reel that in and hit just the right note. As usual, Scorsese doesn't do that here. And the movie is consequently less than it should be. Posted 5/9/09.
The Descendants (+) -- What matters? That simple question lies at the heart of this movie, and the answer--personified in George Clooney's cuckolded husband and father and his journey through this story--is simple, universal, almost cliched--but still very relatable and true. Good performances from all involved, some nice Hawai'ian scenery, and a fine script that delivers just the right blend of comedy and pathos, make this flick well worth your time. Posted 12/15/12.
Detroit Rock City (+) -- "Coming of age" is a phrase that usually sends me running in the other direction, but this one deserves special attention. Make sure you're in the right mood--nostalgic for the seventies, ready for goofy fun, etc.--and you'll get plenty of kicks out of this flick. The young actors are dead on in their take on '70s youth, and the story runs its varied courses to a neat little tie-up. And, if nothing else, you have to admire this movie's exuberance and energy. Just sit back and enjoy. Posted 11/19/03.
Dick (--) -- Mostly pointless farce about Watergate. Occasional nice moments, but it suffers from the presence of the odious and unfunny Will Ferrell. It does have a pretty good soundtrack, though. Posted 7/5/02.
Die Another Day (~) -- Brosnan is, by this time, number two on the Bond list (after Connery, of course), and his films have held their own in the series. This one, however, is extraordinarily derivative--we've seen just about everything here before, including the orbiting super weapon at least three times. It remains to be seen if the series has really reached its last gasp; one more flick as unoriginal as this one could be the end, even with the eye-candy remaining top notch. Posted 2/28/04.
Diner (~) -- Competently done as a nostalgia piece, but strangely unengaging as a story in its own right. Almost dull, if you can believe that. They got the details right, and the cast is full of recognizable faces (in their younger forms), but there's very little about the story that really leaps off the screen. Given the focus on youth--of another day, no less--there should be far more exuberance in the screenplay. But it's just not there. Posted 11/27/05.
Dinner for Schmucks (~) -- Yet another of those comedies that just keeps hurling joke after joke at you, hoping enough of them hit the funny bone to make the whole experience worthwhile. By my count there are enough belly laughs in this flick to make the cut, though it must get downgraded slightly for descending into schmaltz towards the end. If it had stayed true to its nasty self to the bitter end, this would have been a better movie. Posted 10/9/11.
Dinosaur (~) -- Just OK. The trailer was probably more interesting than the actual movie. Don't rent it--just wait till Disney starts incessantly running it on one of their cable channels.
Dirty Little Things (+) -- A flick about illegal immigrants and black market organ transplants--hey, bring the kids! It takes a while to get going, and it's a bit of a downer, but it's ultimately intelligent, honest and effective. Plus it has Audrey Tautou--not quite as radiant as in Amélie, but still a welcome sight. And the portrait of the trials and dangers of the life of an illegal immigrant--and how they get to be that way--is worthy of attention and thought. Posted 8/9/03.
Django Unchained (+) -- Is it wildly entertaining? Yes. Does it have all the layers you’d typically expect from a Tarantino movie? Sure. Will you think about it for quite some time after you’ve watched it? Of course. Is it a great movie? Well...Perhaps we’re grading on too steep a curve; maybe Q is the victim of overly lofty expectations. Hard to say, but while I did like this film, I wouldn’t say it’s quite up to snuff for such an audacious and ambitious director. There’s lots to like--the performances by Walz and Jackson are marvels--but you can’t help but think that, in practical terms, most of the second half of the film doesn’t make much sense. Certainly you should see it; just don’t elevate it into the pantheon. Posted 10/20/13.
Doctor Dolittle (~) -- Kind of an off day for Eddie Murphy. Not awful, but could have been better. Kids would probably like it.
Don Jon (+) -- Yes, a positive review, but I’m not sure it should be. Perhaps that plus sign is the product of all the goodwill Joseph Gordon-Levitt has built up over the last few years. As writer-director here, JGL makes a lot of typical rookie mistakes--the usual super-self-conscious “director-y” camera work and such--but he also presents an intriguing story, too. There’s some pretty deep stuff going on with these characters...and yet, the presentation almost invites the audience to view everything on the most superficial level. The important stuff might get lost on some viewers. Still, the movie holds your interest all the way through, so it accomplishes that crucial goal. A tough call, but I think this one’s good enough to merit your attention. Posted 4/27/14.
Don Juan Demarco (+) -- Johnny Depp having fun; Marlon Brando showing he can still act (if not move). A cute movie, probably good for a date (not that I'd know.)
Donnie Darko (+) -- Undoubtedly, the best demonic rabbit movie ever made. It's moody, atmospheric and thoughtful--not, despite the advertising, particularly scary. That's either good or bad, depending upon your point of view. But it is weird enough to freak some folks out, so I suppose you might want the caution. Good ensemble acting is the strongest point, along with a very cool soundtrack. Try it; you might like it. Posted 6/5/04.
Double Jeopardy (~) -- Much comment has been made about the absurdity of the premise (that Ashley Judd's character could kill her supposedly dead, cheating husband and get away with it). That's not a killer for me--you folks ever heard of suspension of disbelief?--but besides Tommy Lee Jones getting his kicks, there's not much here.
Double Indemnity (+) -- Boy, Fred MacMurray sure was a cocky son of a bitch back in the day. There's a hilarious component to that characterization which takes some of the noir out of this film noir. And the story is obvious, but that's forgivable for being so sharp and entertaining. The rest of the cast is spot on, including Barbara Stanwyck--"Baby," to Fred--as the femme, and Edward G. Robinson as the sharp claims manager who pulls the string and unravels the whole plan. Fun stuff. Posted 9/6/06.
Down With Love (+) -- The cinematic definition of "a real hoot." The retro story and style work amazingly well, and the charming leads (Zellweger and McGregor) pull off their forty-year-old roles with aplomb. It's not exactly Important, but I couldn't wipe the smile off my face while watching it, so it gets a high recommendation. Posted 11/28/04.
Drive (+) -- Undoubtedly, this movie was shot totally in digital format; that's too bad, since if it were film I could say that Style practically drips from every frame. This movie owns its look in a big way; there hasn't been a flick that so clearly defines its own form in a very long time. But this is not a complete triumph of style over substance; the audience gets a rich tableaux of character, story, and emotional depth to complement all that flashy, self-conscious mise-en-scene. Drive has been a polarizing work for many people, but you can count me among the impressed. This one is a powerful, absorbing, entertaining piece of work, and well worth your time. Posted 1/21/13.
Drop Dead Gorgeous (+) -- An often hilarious look at beauty contests. Check this one out, regardless for your tolerance of sequins and parade waves.
The Darjeeling Limited (+) -- A whole lotta smirkin’ going on. The absurd tone is set very early on, and it never really lets up throughout the proceedings (with the exception of one tragic sequence in the middle). That translates into a mostly enjoyable movie about three alleged brothers--part of the humor comes from the preposterous claim that disparate stars Brody, Wilson and Schwarzmann could possibly be related--trying to find themselves as a family again, against the backdrop of exotic India. Buy a ticket; you’ll be happy you went along on this ride. Posted 1/31/14.
The Dark Knight (+) -- Holy shit. This is what you'd have if William Blake had drawn comic books: not just an action hero story, but a true vision of Hell--a realistic vision of Hell, an all-too-possible vision of Hell. The mayhem in Gotham City is what happens when the "terrorists" stop having rational motivations; when it's all about madness & randomness, when the violent act is the only end in and of itself. No wonder this movie has affected so many people (to the tune of so many millions of dollars). I too was blown away, not so much by this film as a piece of moviemaking; more so for the deep waters in which it treads. There's so much here that you can almost forget the amazing performance by Heath Ledger (if not for the publicity, you simply wouldn't know it was him under that make-up) and forgive the few minor faults. I wouldn't necessarily call it a masterpiece, but this is truly a film worth seeing. Posted 9/5/08.
The Dark Knight Rises (+) -- A satisfying conclusion to Nolan's trilogy. Much more of a sequel to Batman Begins than its immediate predecessor--though that film has its impact here, too--TDKR focuses strongly on the emotional life of its key characters, with heartening results when all is said and done. Even so, this is still a big, sweeping epic action hero movie, and it delivers the spectacle as well. One sour note: either I'm losing my hearing, or the sound mix was really poor (either in the theater or in the digital film; I couldn't particularly tell); either way, I could not hear far too much of the dialogue in the action sequences. There's also some muddle to the plot, especially early on, but a lot of that becomes clearer when you step back and look at the big picture. And this is, indeed, a big picture--and even worth the inflated ticket price of today's theater experience. Posted 8/13/12.
Dark Shadows (~) -- I don’t know; this Depp-Burton thing may have run its course. Not to say that this is a bad movie, but at certain points in this picture you get the impression that maybe someone else, singly or in a pair, could have brought something better to this revision of the old TV show. There are good moments here, some nice satire of the period (a good idea not to set the action in current times), but by the end the filmmakers have gone overboard; a little too much trying, not enough just leaving it alone and letting it be. You want to applaud effort, but not so much effort that it gets in the way. Posted 7/13/13.
Darkman (+) -- Lots of fun. An early taste of the Raimi/Tapert collaboration's potential. And it stars Liam Neeson before he became a big shot.
Date Night (+) -- I was all set not to like this movie, but the combination of appealing lead actors and a well-rounded supporting cast--with one or two perfect pitch cameos--put an otherwise run of the mill movie over the top. Posted 7/9/11.
Dead Man Walking (+) -- Top notch performances from Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon. A tough look at the death penalty, without much schmaltz clouding the issue. It gives you something to think about.
Dead Poets Society (+) -- A strong work with a lot to say about life. The first real look at Robin Williams as something other than a living cartoon character.
Death To Smoochy (+) -- A printed chart of this movie's laugh meter would show a lot of spikes along the scroll; when the laughs come--and they do, frequently--they are high register indeed. Overall, it's a well-done black comedy, for the most part maintaining an acerbic tone that most movie comedies never even try to attain; unfortunately it pulls its punches towards the end. But it's still a curmudgeonly hoot most of the way through. And its commentary on the commodification of children in this society and its attendant hatefulness, though couched in a heavily comedic and satirical presentation, is dead on. Posted 9/14/03.
Deconstructing Harry (--) -- A good moment or two, but mostly a muddled mess. Made at the height (depth?) of Woody Allen's troubles; maybe that had something to do with it.
The Deer Hunter (~) -- The problem with ordinary lives is...they're ordinary. By definition, not particularly interesting. And since this movie is focused on--at least at the start--a set of quite ordinary lives, well, you see we have a problem. Sadly, ordinary lives--in fiction at least--are only redeemed in their disintegration. So it is here. The steel town characters portrayed by DeNiro, Walken, et al., are, fundamentally, just your average assholes. Things only get interesting when they ship off to Vietnam and life starts hitting them (almost literally) like a shot to the head. And there's a little too much self-consciousness about being "important"--a bad trait in any movie. The reputation this film has is, in this viewer's opinion, not especially well deserved. Your mileage may vary. Posted 5/31/08.
The Departed (~) -- The good news: Scorsese put together a hell of a cast for this film. The bad news: it was Scorsese directing them. This movie neatly exposes and sums up the Scorsese problem: a technically fine film that lacks something, or is off-putting in some crucial way. That aforementioned cast is a case in point: as in all Scorsese movies, everyone throws himself too forcefully into his role; you can practically see the actors look at the camera and say, "Check out how intense I make this scene." The effect is not one of intensity, but of actors trying too hard (at best) or chewing the scenery (at worst). And it's up to the director to reel that in and hit just the right note. As usual, Scorsese doesn't do that here. And the movie is consequently less than it should be. Posted 5/9/09.
The Descendants (+) -- What matters? That simple question lies at the heart of this movie, and the answer--personified in George Clooney's cuckolded husband and father and his journey through this story--is simple, universal, almost cliched--but still very relatable and true. Good performances from all involved, some nice Hawai'ian scenery, and a fine script that delivers just the right blend of comedy and pathos, make this flick well worth your time. Posted 12/15/12.
Detroit Rock City (+) -- "Coming of age" is a phrase that usually sends me running in the other direction, but this one deserves special attention. Make sure you're in the right mood--nostalgic for the seventies, ready for goofy fun, etc.--and you'll get plenty of kicks out of this flick. The young actors are dead on in their take on '70s youth, and the story runs its varied courses to a neat little tie-up. And, if nothing else, you have to admire this movie's exuberance and energy. Just sit back and enjoy. Posted 11/19/03.
Dick (--) -- Mostly pointless farce about Watergate. Occasional nice moments, but it suffers from the presence of the odious and unfunny Will Ferrell. It does have a pretty good soundtrack, though. Posted 7/5/02.
Die Another Day (~) -- Brosnan is, by this time, number two on the Bond list (after Connery, of course), and his films have held their own in the series. This one, however, is extraordinarily derivative--we've seen just about everything here before, including the orbiting super weapon at least three times. It remains to be seen if the series has really reached its last gasp; one more flick as unoriginal as this one could be the end, even with the eye-candy remaining top notch. Posted 2/28/04.
Diner (~) -- Competently done as a nostalgia piece, but strangely unengaging as a story in its own right. Almost dull, if you can believe that. They got the details right, and the cast is full of recognizable faces (in their younger forms), but there's very little about the story that really leaps off the screen. Given the focus on youth--of another day, no less--there should be far more exuberance in the screenplay. But it's just not there. Posted 11/27/05.
Dinner for Schmucks (~) -- Yet another of those comedies that just keeps hurling joke after joke at you, hoping enough of them hit the funny bone to make the whole experience worthwhile. By my count there are enough belly laughs in this flick to make the cut, though it must get downgraded slightly for descending into schmaltz towards the end. If it had stayed true to its nasty self to the bitter end, this would have been a better movie. Posted 10/9/11.
Dinosaur (~) -- Just OK. The trailer was probably more interesting than the actual movie. Don't rent it--just wait till Disney starts incessantly running it on one of their cable channels.
Dirty Little Things (+) -- A flick about illegal immigrants and black market organ transplants--hey, bring the kids! It takes a while to get going, and it's a bit of a downer, but it's ultimately intelligent, honest and effective. Plus it has Audrey Tautou--not quite as radiant as in Amélie, but still a welcome sight. And the portrait of the trials and dangers of the life of an illegal immigrant--and how they get to be that way--is worthy of attention and thought. Posted 8/9/03.
Django Unchained (+) -- Is it wildly entertaining? Yes. Does it have all the layers you’d typically expect from a Tarantino movie? Sure. Will you think about it for quite some time after you’ve watched it? Of course. Is it a great movie? Well...Perhaps we’re grading on too steep a curve; maybe Q is the victim of overly lofty expectations. Hard to say, but while I did like this film, I wouldn’t say it’s quite up to snuff for such an audacious and ambitious director. There’s lots to like--the performances by Walz and Jackson are marvels--but you can’t help but think that, in practical terms, most of the second half of the film doesn’t make much sense. Certainly you should see it; just don’t elevate it into the pantheon. Posted 10/20/13.
Doctor Dolittle (~) -- Kind of an off day for Eddie Murphy. Not awful, but could have been better. Kids would probably like it.
Don Jon (+) -- Yes, a positive review, but I’m not sure it should be. Perhaps that plus sign is the product of all the goodwill Joseph Gordon-Levitt has built up over the last few years. As writer-director here, JGL makes a lot of typical rookie mistakes--the usual super-self-conscious “director-y” camera work and such--but he also presents an intriguing story, too. There’s some pretty deep stuff going on with these characters...and yet, the presentation almost invites the audience to view everything on the most superficial level. The important stuff might get lost on some viewers. Still, the movie holds your interest all the way through, so it accomplishes that crucial goal. A tough call, but I think this one’s good enough to merit your attention. Posted 4/27/14.
Don Juan Demarco (+) -- Johnny Depp having fun; Marlon Brando showing he can still act (if not move). A cute movie, probably good for a date (not that I'd know.)
Donnie Darko (+) -- Undoubtedly, the best demonic rabbit movie ever made. It's moody, atmospheric and thoughtful--not, despite the advertising, particularly scary. That's either good or bad, depending upon your point of view. But it is weird enough to freak some folks out, so I suppose you might want the caution. Good ensemble acting is the strongest point, along with a very cool soundtrack. Try it; you might like it. Posted 6/5/04.
Double Jeopardy (~) -- Much comment has been made about the absurdity of the premise (that Ashley Judd's character could kill her supposedly dead, cheating husband and get away with it). That's not a killer for me--you folks ever heard of suspension of disbelief?--but besides Tommy Lee Jones getting his kicks, there's not much here.
Double Indemnity (+) -- Boy, Fred MacMurray sure was a cocky son of a bitch back in the day. There's a hilarious component to that characterization which takes some of the noir out of this film noir. And the story is obvious, but that's forgivable for being so sharp and entertaining. The rest of the cast is spot on, including Barbara Stanwyck--"Baby," to Fred--as the femme, and Edward G. Robinson as the sharp claims manager who pulls the string and unravels the whole plan. Fun stuff. Posted 9/6/06.
Down With Love (+) -- The cinematic definition of "a real hoot." The retro story and style work amazingly well, and the charming leads (Zellweger and McGregor) pull off their forty-year-old roles with aplomb. It's not exactly Important, but I couldn't wipe the smile off my face while watching it, so it gets a high recommendation. Posted 11/28/04.
Drive (+) -- Undoubtedly, this movie was shot totally in digital format; that's too bad, since if it were film I could say that Style practically drips from every frame. This movie owns its look in a big way; there hasn't been a flick that so clearly defines its own form in a very long time. But this is not a complete triumph of style over substance; the audience gets a rich tableaux of character, story, and emotional depth to complement all that flashy, self-conscious mise-en-scene. Drive has been a polarizing work for many people, but you can count me among the impressed. This one is a powerful, absorbing, entertaining piece of work, and well worth your time. Posted 1/21/13.
Drop Dead Gorgeous (+) -- An often hilarious look at beauty contests. Check this one out, regardless for your tolerance of sequins and parade waves.
Recently Read
Marching Toward Hell
by Michael Scheuer
Marching Toward Hell sat on my desk for almost two weeks after I finished reading it, waiting for a review (this one) which threatened never to see a keyboard. (And now this review is finally being posted, nearly two months after its first draft.)
Why the delay? First, the book presents its own problems--issues inherent in the author's quest to explain the nature of the global conflict known as "The War on Terror." And then, in the middle of reading the book, I learned that Osama bin Laden--a central figure in Scheuer's narrative--finally met his demise, thus (presumably) changing the character of the very subject of the book I was reading.
That's a tough nut to crack, intellectually.
So let's start with the basics: in Marching Toward Hell, Scheuer, a longtime CIA veteran who headed the Agency's OBL unit during the late '90s, lays out his interpretation of America's conflict / relationship with Islam--and it's not a happy story for the guys wearing red, white and blue. Along the way, Scheuer castigates almost everyone who set foot in the White House from the George H.W. Bush administration onward. The author builds a lengthy manifest of mistakes made along the way, and warns of dire consequences for the future of the United States that will arise from losing its wars against Muslim nations--in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in hot spots yet to be carpet bombed. (That part, about losing, is not my personal defeatism; Scheuer is adamant throughout that defeat is, at the stage when he wrote the book and possibly still today, inevitable.) Ultimately, Scheuer prescribes a course of action that, he says, is the best hope for securing the United States' future: a laser sharp focus on putting America's national interest first and foremost, and damn the niceties of international relations.
Scheuer's plan has its appeal, but it's a rocky road that leads to that desirable synthesis. As a CIA insider on the terrorism beat, the author presumably has a lot of insight into the mechanics of national strategic policy from the early '90s onward. Unfortunately, Scheuer uses that insider knowledge to set the torch to many members of the national intelligence infrastructure during that period, grinding his axe so vigorously on the likes of Richard Clarke and George Tenet that the reader is left to wonder if this cast of characters can possibly be as bad as he says they are. Scheuer never fails to hurl snide verbal hand grenades at anyone he believes merits abuse, including members of Congress and various federal departments, human rights activists and NGO organizations--even Jay Leno's wife (for her concern for women's rights around the globe). Plus, while Scheuer tries to strike a nonpartisan pose in presenting his arguments, his hagiographic references to Reagan and Thatcher make the reader suspect that any national security personnel with left-leaning tendencies are automatically destined for a place in the crosshairs. Perhaps the most troublesome stuff comes early in the book, when Scheuer spells out actions he took during his CIA tenure and ostentatiously points out where in the written record the reader can find his reports--and their ultimate failure to move his superiors in the direction he recommended. This presentation comes across as less an argument based on solid evidence and more a grand-scale exercise in CYA, allowing Scheuer to inoculate himself against any charge that he himself did not do enough to bring bin Laden to heel before the 9/11 attacks.
Added together, the tone of Scheuer's text leads the reader to a distracting conclusion: the author is, to put it bluntly, a colossal dick. Though such a reaction may be irrational, that sense of the man certainly undermines the reader's ability to judge the author's argument without bias.
The bias factor is not the only problem with Scheuer's argument; the wisdom of his recommendations is also questionable. For instance, Scheuer's overarching argument is that the United States should use overwhelming force against its enemies in The War on Terror, in all circumstances and regardless of how it affects our standing in the international community. At one point he quotes the pithy axiom, "Rubble don't cause trouble," as a good mission statement. Scheuer frequently chastises people like Tenet, Presidents Clinton and Bush (both), and others in positions of authority for cowardice due to their failure to act on what he considered to be actionable intelligence. Scheuer lays the charge that these officials were too concerned with their image, too afraid of the rebukes they would receive for excessive force and collateral damage, to act in the nation's best interest. Yet, one can easily point out that Scheuer, as a relatively unknown CIA officer--as a well-hidden nobody--can be casual in throwing that charge around; after all, he himself would never have had to deal with the caustic consequences of the policies he promoted. Had he been sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office, Scheuer's perspective might have been different--or might have been reoriented by the fallout from his first, careless engagement in energetic, "consequences be damned" actions against our enemies (and the people who happened to be standing beside them at the time).
Further, Scheuer's argument contains an inherent logical inconsistency: throughout Marching Toward Hell, Scheuer acknowledges bin Laden and his al Quaeda lieutenants as intelligent, capable men--adaptable, dangerous, and perfectly capable of fighting a superpower to at least a draw in their various insurgencies. Does Scheuer then imagine that these same men, when confronted with the sort of massive attack he recommends, would somehow not find a way to ramp up their own response in order to achieve some order of reciprocity? Does he not conceive that such a policy might accelerate al Quaeda's already alleged fervor for obtaining nuclear weapons? Will they just cooperatively roll over and die? Has Scheuer never heard of "blowback?" The consequences for substantially ramped up action against Muslim extremists might amount to much more than censure from effete Europeans. The author seems not to grasp that fact--or is willing to ignore that possibility.
Still, despite the faults of the man and his perspective, there are virtues in the analysis Scheuer delivers in Marching Toward Hell. He makes a compelling case for the single greatest failure of the U.S. military and intelligence establishment: being stuck in a Cold War mentality when confronted with an extremist threat that bore no resemblance to the Soviet enemy of yesteryear. And Scheuer's appeal for a tighter, more focused foreign policy--one that places our strongest national interests far out in front of any other concerns--is convincing and likely to win the reader over--especially given the use of bolstering arguments pulled from the words of the Founding Fathers, whose wisdom still shines through to this day. It doesn't take an intelligence expert to recognize that the United States and its foreign policy are overstretched and too tangled up in extraneous concerns. Our responsibility is to ourselves, and to the future of our own nation; the future of other nations is their concern, and we should aid those causes only insofar as they are our causes as well.
So Marching Toward Hell is a complex work on a complex subject, a book that gives the reader a lot to think about. Scheuer raises a lot of questions, and provides many answers--some good, some debatable, but all important to think about. It is worth reading Marching Toward Hell, at the very least, to make an intelligent approach to those crucial questions and answers, even if the reader draws different conclusions than the author would recommend.
by Michael Scheuer
Marching Toward Hell sat on my desk for almost two weeks after I finished reading it, waiting for a review (this one) which threatened never to see a keyboard. (And now this review is finally being posted, nearly two months after its first draft.)
 |
| Visit Michael Scheuer's website, non-intervention.com |
That's a tough nut to crack, intellectually.
So let's start with the basics: in Marching Toward Hell, Scheuer, a longtime CIA veteran who headed the Agency's OBL unit during the late '90s, lays out his interpretation of America's conflict / relationship with Islam--and it's not a happy story for the guys wearing red, white and blue. Along the way, Scheuer castigates almost everyone who set foot in the White House from the George H.W. Bush administration onward. The author builds a lengthy manifest of mistakes made along the way, and warns of dire consequences for the future of the United States that will arise from losing its wars against Muslim nations--in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in hot spots yet to be carpet bombed. (That part, about losing, is not my personal defeatism; Scheuer is adamant throughout that defeat is, at the stage when he wrote the book and possibly still today, inevitable.) Ultimately, Scheuer prescribes a course of action that, he says, is the best hope for securing the United States' future: a laser sharp focus on putting America's national interest first and foremost, and damn the niceties of international relations.
Scheuer's plan has its appeal, but it's a rocky road that leads to that desirable synthesis. As a CIA insider on the terrorism beat, the author presumably has a lot of insight into the mechanics of national strategic policy from the early '90s onward. Unfortunately, Scheuer uses that insider knowledge to set the torch to many members of the national intelligence infrastructure during that period, grinding his axe so vigorously on the likes of Richard Clarke and George Tenet that the reader is left to wonder if this cast of characters can possibly be as bad as he says they are. Scheuer never fails to hurl snide verbal hand grenades at anyone he believes merits abuse, including members of Congress and various federal departments, human rights activists and NGO organizations--even Jay Leno's wife (for her concern for women's rights around the globe). Plus, while Scheuer tries to strike a nonpartisan pose in presenting his arguments, his hagiographic references to Reagan and Thatcher make the reader suspect that any national security personnel with left-leaning tendencies are automatically destined for a place in the crosshairs. Perhaps the most troublesome stuff comes early in the book, when Scheuer spells out actions he took during his CIA tenure and ostentatiously points out where in the written record the reader can find his reports--and their ultimate failure to move his superiors in the direction he recommended. This presentation comes across as less an argument based on solid evidence and more a grand-scale exercise in CYA, allowing Scheuer to inoculate himself against any charge that he himself did not do enough to bring bin Laden to heel before the 9/11 attacks.
Added together, the tone of Scheuer's text leads the reader to a distracting conclusion: the author is, to put it bluntly, a colossal dick. Though such a reaction may be irrational, that sense of the man certainly undermines the reader's ability to judge the author's argument without bias.
The bias factor is not the only problem with Scheuer's argument; the wisdom of his recommendations is also questionable. For instance, Scheuer's overarching argument is that the United States should use overwhelming force against its enemies in The War on Terror, in all circumstances and regardless of how it affects our standing in the international community. At one point he quotes the pithy axiom, "Rubble don't cause trouble," as a good mission statement. Scheuer frequently chastises people like Tenet, Presidents Clinton and Bush (both), and others in positions of authority for cowardice due to their failure to act on what he considered to be actionable intelligence. Scheuer lays the charge that these officials were too concerned with their image, too afraid of the rebukes they would receive for excessive force and collateral damage, to act in the nation's best interest. Yet, one can easily point out that Scheuer, as a relatively unknown CIA officer--as a well-hidden nobody--can be casual in throwing that charge around; after all, he himself would never have had to deal with the caustic consequences of the policies he promoted. Had he been sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office, Scheuer's perspective might have been different--or might have been reoriented by the fallout from his first, careless engagement in energetic, "consequences be damned" actions against our enemies (and the people who happened to be standing beside them at the time).
Further, Scheuer's argument contains an inherent logical inconsistency: throughout Marching Toward Hell, Scheuer acknowledges bin Laden and his al Quaeda lieutenants as intelligent, capable men--adaptable, dangerous, and perfectly capable of fighting a superpower to at least a draw in their various insurgencies. Does Scheuer then imagine that these same men, when confronted with the sort of massive attack he recommends, would somehow not find a way to ramp up their own response in order to achieve some order of reciprocity? Does he not conceive that such a policy might accelerate al Quaeda's already alleged fervor for obtaining nuclear weapons? Will they just cooperatively roll over and die? Has Scheuer never heard of "blowback?" The consequences for substantially ramped up action against Muslim extremists might amount to much more than censure from effete Europeans. The author seems not to grasp that fact--or is willing to ignore that possibility.
Still, despite the faults of the man and his perspective, there are virtues in the analysis Scheuer delivers in Marching Toward Hell. He makes a compelling case for the single greatest failure of the U.S. military and intelligence establishment: being stuck in a Cold War mentality when confronted with an extremist threat that bore no resemblance to the Soviet enemy of yesteryear. And Scheuer's appeal for a tighter, more focused foreign policy--one that places our strongest national interests far out in front of any other concerns--is convincing and likely to win the reader over--especially given the use of bolstering arguments pulled from the words of the Founding Fathers, whose wisdom still shines through to this day. It doesn't take an intelligence expert to recognize that the United States and its foreign policy are overstretched and too tangled up in extraneous concerns. Our responsibility is to ourselves, and to the future of our own nation; the future of other nations is their concern, and we should aid those causes only insofar as they are our causes as well.
So Marching Toward Hell is a complex work on a complex subject, a book that gives the reader a lot to think about. Scheuer raises a lot of questions, and provides many answers--some good, some debatable, but all important to think about. It is worth reading Marching Toward Hell, at the very least, to make an intelligent approach to those crucial questions and answers, even if the reader draws different conclusions than the author would recommend.
Reel Reviews
Zombieland -- This is hardly earth-shatttering stuff. No one was going to be played off at the Oscars for their work in this film. But it's exactly the kind of movie that even the snootiest, most elitist film buff needs to see every so often--a weird, violent, somewhat unhinged work of straight-up cinematic fun. Special props for one classic cameo, and for a closing sequence at an amusement park which is just the kind of inspired, mayhem-packed payoff everyone was waiting for. Indeed--besides zombies, who needs brains? Posted 7/9/11.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
