Some mini movie reviews
Charlie Wilson's War
Moderately entertaining. The writers really didn’t seem to know how they felt about the story. Philip Seymour Hoffman, always great.
The Incredibles
OK, but unusually unfunny for a Pixar movie.
Cloverfield
Really great. It’s got that Blair Witch jittery camera thing that annoys a lot of people, but I thought it was pretty cool. At least, once the aliens showed up.
Religulous
Definitely worth seeing. Aside from the part where a congressman essentially admits to being an idiot, my favorite part was where Maher interviews a guy who plays Christ at Christian theme park and Jesus explained the trinity in terms of water, which can be a liquid, a gas, or a solid, depending. Maher thought it was pretty brilliant. And it is. I remember Bishop Sheen comparing the trinity to Stripe toothpaste which, not so much...
The X-FIles- I Want to Believe
A lot darker and gorier and weirder than I anticipated. Believe it or not, this was the first X-Files thing of any sort I had seen. Great cast. Billy Connolly was terrific as a psychic pedophile priest.
National Treasure & Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
I’m lumping these two together because they’re kind of similar and they both suffer from being written for 5th graders, especially the man-woman parts. I couldn’t believe Spielberg actually directed the Indian Jones or that George Lucas co-wrote it. Sometimes it was embarrassingly bad, but it did have some moments.
Dark City (1998)
Of all the movies I’ve seen this year, this was the best.
Starship Troopers
Some of what I said about National Treasure & Indiana Jones applies here, too. I haven’t read the Heinlein novel.... Apparently director Paul Verhoeven intended this as a satire. Of what, I’m not sure. Old WW II propaganda flicks? Is there really any point in that? While the story begins in Argentina, it was all very American and I’m suppose it’s intended as a dig at the US and its military involvements. Although, as it came out in 1997, I’m not sure what in particular it might have been aimed at. And if intended as an anti-war movie, its effectiveness is kind of undercut by the fact that the bugs really did attack, wiping out whole cities. They certainly didn’t seem the sort one could negotiate with. Several people at work have seen this and some had read the book. They had equally negative opinions and were appalled to learn there were actually sequels. Frankly, I think Paul Verhoeven is doing a little too cute dance, suggesting satire, when really, he’s just making another flick of the same violent and OBTW really stupid sort.
The Illusionist
Watchable, mildly boring. I didn’t buy the ending, which is one of those endings that transforms everything before it.
Swing Vote
Pretty bad comedy. I guess it was supposed to be a comedy. There is far too much schmaltzy drama in what could only be an absolute farce premise. What a waste of a great cast.
Hancock
Intriguing. Actually, I could make the same comedy-drama complaint here. The premise of a drunken, super-destructive superhero could make a pretty funny comedy. Will Smith plays it for intense, depressing drama.
Actually, even without that, it would take some work to make it funny. I think perhaps all the destruction he causes in the beginning might have been, in the writer’s mind, meant to be hilarious. But the audience (at least me) reacts with the same sort of horrified shock the characters do to seeing a superhero be that destructive.
And then, about the time you get used to all that, the flick takes an utterly preposterous plot twist.
Watchmen
I had just finished Alan Moore’s graphic novel of this, so I don’t know what I would have thought had I not. The movie sets out to be very faithful to the comic book. As a friend of mine said, too faithful. Terry Gilliam (who wanted to film the story himself) made the same point, and I agree with everything he said about it:
“I felt a lot of it was so good,” Gilliam began. “It got the look of it brilliantly. But it suffered from some of the things I was having problems with when I was trying to write a script. It’s too short. It’s also too long! It’s a very weird thing and they had to make so many compromises and changes. I was always saying it should be a five-part miniseries. I still believe that.”
As Gilliam continued, he echoed the prevailing critique of the film: “But he got the look right, and the Rorshach stuff is really, really great. I think I felt if there was any fault, it was almost too respectful of the original.” Gilliam laughed. “It needed a kick in the ass, frankly.”
I have since read Moore’s V for Vendetta and look forward to the film of that. Most people seem to prefer the latter, but I think Watchmen was better, as a graphic novel. Moore certainly has a dark view of things--and problems with authority!
Moderately entertaining. The writers really didn’t seem to know how they felt about the story. Philip Seymour Hoffman, always great.
The Incredibles
OK, but unusually unfunny for a Pixar movie.
Cloverfield
Really great. It’s got that Blair Witch jittery camera thing that annoys a lot of people, but I thought it was pretty cool. At least, once the aliens showed up.
Religulous
Definitely worth seeing. Aside from the part where a congressman essentially admits to being an idiot, my favorite part was where Maher interviews a guy who plays Christ at Christian theme park and Jesus explained the trinity in terms of water, which can be a liquid, a gas, or a solid, depending. Maher thought it was pretty brilliant. And it is. I remember Bishop Sheen comparing the trinity to Stripe toothpaste which, not so much...
The X-FIles- I Want to Believe
A lot darker and gorier and weirder than I anticipated. Believe it or not, this was the first X-Files thing of any sort I had seen. Great cast. Billy Connolly was terrific as a psychic pedophile priest.
National Treasure & Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
I’m lumping these two together because they’re kind of similar and they both suffer from being written for 5th graders, especially the man-woman parts. I couldn’t believe Spielberg actually directed the Indian Jones or that George Lucas co-wrote it. Sometimes it was embarrassingly bad, but it did have some moments.
Dark City (1998)
Of all the movies I’ve seen this year, this was the best.
Starship Troopers
Some of what I said about National Treasure & Indiana Jones applies here, too. I haven’t read the Heinlein novel.... Apparently director Paul Verhoeven intended this as a satire. Of what, I’m not sure. Old WW II propaganda flicks? Is there really any point in that? While the story begins in Argentina, it was all very American and I’m suppose it’s intended as a dig at the US and its military involvements. Although, as it came out in 1997, I’m not sure what in particular it might have been aimed at. And if intended as an anti-war movie, its effectiveness is kind of undercut by the fact that the bugs really did attack, wiping out whole cities. They certainly didn’t seem the sort one could negotiate with. Several people at work have seen this and some had read the book. They had equally negative opinions and were appalled to learn there were actually sequels. Frankly, I think Paul Verhoeven is doing a little too cute dance, suggesting satire, when really, he’s just making another flick of the same violent and OBTW really stupid sort.
The Illusionist
Watchable, mildly boring. I didn’t buy the ending, which is one of those endings that transforms everything before it.
Swing Vote
Pretty bad comedy. I guess it was supposed to be a comedy. There is far too much schmaltzy drama in what could only be an absolute farce premise. What a waste of a great cast.
Hancock
Intriguing. Actually, I could make the same comedy-drama complaint here. The premise of a drunken, super-destructive superhero could make a pretty funny comedy. Will Smith plays it for intense, depressing drama.
Actually, even without that, it would take some work to make it funny. I think perhaps all the destruction he causes in the beginning might have been, in the writer’s mind, meant to be hilarious. But the audience (at least me) reacts with the same sort of horrified shock the characters do to seeing a superhero be that destructive.
And then, about the time you get used to all that, the flick takes an utterly preposterous plot twist.
Watchmen
I had just finished Alan Moore’s graphic novel of this, so I don’t know what I would have thought had I not. The movie sets out to be very faithful to the comic book. As a friend of mine said, too faithful. Terry Gilliam (who wanted to film the story himself) made the same point, and I agree with everything he said about it:
“I felt a lot of it was so good,” Gilliam began. “It got the look of it brilliantly. But it suffered from some of the things I was having problems with when I was trying to write a script. It’s too short. It’s also too long! It’s a very weird thing and they had to make so many compromises and changes. I was always saying it should be a five-part miniseries. I still believe that.”
As Gilliam continued, he echoed the prevailing critique of the film: “But he got the look right, and the Rorshach stuff is really, really great. I think I felt if there was any fault, it was almost too respectful of the original.” Gilliam laughed. “It needed a kick in the ass, frankly.”
I have since read Moore’s V for Vendetta and look forward to the film of that. Most people seem to prefer the latter, but I think Watchmen was better, as a graphic novel. Moore certainly has a dark view of things--and problems with authority!