I had a ‘Rent 3 for $10’ coupon for Blockbuster and this faux-documentary piqued my interest. CSA takes a hypothetical look at what might have happened had the South won the Civil War. It poses as a British documentary showing the history of the CSA- essentially a skewing of real events as they occurred.
The film captures the made-for-TV feel very well, but its substance feels forced. In this alternate timeline, the Confederates manage to gain French and British support, altering the outcome of the Battle of Gettysburg. From there, wild speculation runs rampant, insinuating that the Confederacy kept marching through the Union until President Lincoln surrenders the US Government. The CSA conquers and enslaves all of Central and South America, but fails to take over Canada; they side with Germany in World War II; they attack Japan to launch the war in the Pacific; they build the equivalent of the Berlin Wall along its border with Canada; and they never develop any kind of culture (Canada becomes the pop culture powerhouse of the world instead).
To its benefit, the film uses actual commercials and pictures from real companies from the early 20th Century, such as Darkie brand toothpaste and Coon Chicken Inn restaurants. These historical accuracies show how far we’ve come with civil rights in the past 50 years, but fail to outweigh the preposterous prognostications of what could have been if the Confederacy won the war.
To re-imagine history is one thing, but to simply reverse many historical events is cheap and lazy. In reality, had the CSA won the Civil War, the course of history would have been completely different and would certainly not have been the dirty mirror image portrayed herein. The films is also very hostile and prejudice against people from the South, portraying all the dirtiest of stereotypes of Southern whites and insinuating that they lack the intelligence and creativity to develop a culture of their own (which any thinking person knows to be false).
Don’t waste your time with this one, unless you’re willing to think about it for a long time afterwards.
To be honest, I was disappointed with this movie. It’s not nearly as bad as I was hoping it would be. Fresh off of an Academy Award for Best Actress, Halle Berry decides to play a superhero, er, supervillain, er, what exactly is she? The results are not good.
In the Batman lexicon, Catwoman is Selina Kyle- a normal human being who has an obsession/fetish for cats and is (quirkily enough) a cat burglar, going around stealing jewels. In Catwoman, Catwoman is Patience Phillips- a normal human being who is killed and resurrected by cats to fight some injustice done against them. Oh, and she has weird unexplained superpowers like speed and strength too.
So what we’re really talking about here is a rip-off of The Crow series so the titular character is no longer a villain. It doesn’t take place in the Batman universe and it’s full of eye-rolling one-liners and unnecessary camera work. It’s a laughable affair and now that I’ve realized that it’s a rip-off of The Crow, I may indeed be able to give it a lower rating because any potential I thought it had was copied from another film. (**Note- the rating has now been lowered.)
Only watch this if you intend to watch something lame. Shadow puppets are more engaging.
If it weren’t for the fact that Mel Gibson had no creative influence over this project, one would think this was an early indication that Mel Gibson’s Jesus complex. After two solid films, in which Gibson’s Max Rockatansky (mostly known just as Max) wandering the post-apocalyptic Australian Outback seeking to bring justice to those who pick on the weak and timid, Max goes all soft on us and the series ends on a down note.
Nearly 20 years after the events of The Road Warrior, Max finds himself with nothing but his weapons and the clothes on his back. Gasoline seems nonexistent now, as people travel by horse or mule-driven carriages. Max comes upon Bartertown where he agrees to engage in combat with a local authority figure in an attempt to usher in new leadership for the village. Max wins the battle in Thunderdome but refuses to kill his opponent and is exiled into the wastelands.
Here he is found by a tribe of children who think he’s their savior come to fly them back to the big cities (which were long ago destroyed by nuclear war). Max ends up helping the kids in an all-too mushy ‘aw shucks’ kind of way. However, at the end of the film we are treated to a shot Max continuing his trek through the Outback, alone and purposeful.
While the Thunderdome fight scene is pretty cool, there’s not as much mind-blowing action like the first two. No highly choreographed car wrecks and not nearly as much amazing stunt work. I for one don’t think Max needed to be redeemed, so this film is a disappointment, though still watchable and mildly entertaining.
If nothing else, this is the film that John Hughes will always be remembered for. Almost as old as I am, this film was shown in my high school sociology classes. That’s how big of an impact this tale of five high school kids from wildly different backgrounds and cliques has had.
This film includes five of the most memorable stars of what was then called the ‘Brat Pack’- young actors who dominated the box office in teenage-themed films of the mid-80s. Sure enough, none of them really went on to much success after the 80s, but such is the life of a teen star.
While it is a triumph for showcasing how different groups of high school kids think, act and interact, it is also a highly implausible scenario- five teens (a jock, a preppy girl, a nerd, a goth-like chick, and a trouble maker) all serve a Saturday detention together. During the course of the day, they argue, fight, discuss their differences and the pressures each one faces, given their status amongst their peers. In the end, they all find that they can get along, despite agreeing to disagree on things. They realize that despite breaking down the barriers between them, things will almost certainly go back to “normal” on Monday.
The Breakfast Club is an eye-opener for sure, but its unlikelihood of taking place in real life holds it shy of greatness.
This is another example of how glitz and glam can secure a film an Oscar by appealing to the fruitball contingency within the Academy. My review and rating are slightly skewed because of two subjective factors I have a hard time getting around: 1) I despise Richard Gere; 2) Renée Zellweger hasn’t been pretty since Jerry Maguire, making her hard to look at.
Overall, it’s a good film, but not spectacular. Some interesting lighting and costuming decisions, but it’s also very hokey. Perhaps that comes from the fact that it’s based on a Broadway musical from the era of excess. There’s something about musicals that were produced beginning in the late 60s that just seem excessive and unnecessary. Perhaps it just the way it was converted into a movie that rubs me the wrong way (Cabaret is a great musical but a lousy movie).
With Chicago, the characters have a big thing to do with my being turned off. The characters in this film are deplorable human beings. There is no reason to like any of them and yet they are the only ones we are presented with. Of course, that was the point of the film- two lovely jailbirds hitting the big time by manipulation and sex appeal. While the musical numbers are presented in a clever way (by sort of entering the minds of the singers as if they were actually in the limelight of some glitzy production), there is still next to zero redeeming qualities about the main characters.
While all the glitz and glam packs the film with enough sparkle and fizz to satisfy an Academy fruitball, it’s not enough for me. For a film to be Oscar-worthy, there needs to be substance, which Chicago lacks. It sends the wrong message, akin to dimwit rapper 50 Cent’s motto of Get Rich or Die Trying. When the bad guys succeed in the end, it’s not such a triumph, considering we were never supposed to like them in the first place.
Chicago is a heaping sized portion of glitz and glam with meager portions of substance. Sadly, style wins out over substance again, and the Academy fruitballs have their way with the Best Picture ballots.
When Daniel Craig was announced as the next James Bond, there was a tremendous outcry over his blond hair and blue eyes. People mockingly called him James Blond and refused to even give him a chance at the part. Some said he was too thuggish looking for 007, while others complained that he wasn’t a very well established actor, having a mixed bag of a resume.
There were even naysayers in the theater Craig-bashing all the way to the start of the film, which seriously annoyed me to no end. Even through the first 20 minutes of the film these jerks behind me were goofing and complaining about a slightly over-the-top chase sequence on a high rise crane. Sure, it was a little goofy and maybe hard to believe, but this is James Bond we’re talking about after all.
The naysayers would eventually find themselves rolling on the floor in a combination of shock, pain and disbelief after Casino Royale provided a swift kick to the crotch and a punch in the neck to anyone doubting Craig could embody James Bond. I kid you not- this is one of the best Bond films ever made.
It is an origin story and depicts Bond’s arrival at “00” status. As Dame Judi Dench puts it, Bond is a ‘blunt instrument,’ completely devoid of refinement. Here is no suave, flawless super spy. We see Bond make mistakes and begin to grow into his own as a spy. Best of all, this Bond looks like a cold, calculating killer. Only Sean Connery and Timothy Dalton managed to exude this aura of menace successfully before Craig.
I liked the modern setting as well. Some said that the creators should have had Casino Royale take place in the early 60s, when the Bond films first came out. I’m glad they didn’t, because it would have made the film too gimmicky and likely would have killed it. Setting it in modern times also enabled the filmmakers to eliminate many of the gadgets Bond has become known for using.
In a way, not using gadgets actually returns Bond to his roots, as Dr. No included very few if any of the fanciful devices. Whatever gadgetry 007 does use takes the form of existing micro technology. All the best spy tools available already come standard on most cell phones and laptops anyway.
I’ve always been a detractor of the cheesy wit and one-liners that come from Bond’s overwhelming machismo, but I didn’t mind these lines as much this time. Instead of seeming egotistical when making puns and cheesy lines, Craig’s unrefined Bond uses these lines to be a smart alec and provoke people.
The story is also very good and possibly one of the most realistic scenarios in the Bond lexicon. Instead of deadly satellites or plots to conquer the world, Bond goes up against a financier for terrorists. Millions of dollars are at stake and to keep it from the terrorists, Bond has to try his luck in a high stakes poker tournament in Europe. Surprisingly, the poker match becomes as intense as any fight scene in the Bond series.
The realism factor plays into the success of this marvelous film. Enemies are believable, the action is realistic, and there is a torture scene that left me gripping my girlfriend’s hand in terror. Daniel Craig IS James Bond. He is a James Bond that could actually be real and I am glad that audiences and critics alike acknowledge and respect that. Finally, after so many years, here is a Bond we can believe in.
Question: What’s a sure-fire way to suck the fun and mystique out of a James Bond film?
Answer: Have the first third of the film focused on Bond going to a health clinic to eliminate free radicals in his body and other such silly new-agey medical psychobabble.
Never Say Never Again is an unofficial entry into the James Bond series. It is not considered to be canon and is actually a remake of 1965’s Thunderball. Sean Connery returns to the role he started, but instead of playing a supposed ageless super spy, Connery gives us a middle-aged Bond who’s not quite at the top of his game anymore, but still chugging right along.
While Connery does play Bond well, the entire film is lacking something. All the quirky jokes referencing his age are needless and get annoying pretty quickly. The writing isn’t very good, and the film fails to improve upon the original incarnation of Thunderball. But it remains to be said that even a weak Bond movie is still fairly entertaining. It was nice to see anybody but Roger Moore as Bond for a change.
The movie poster says "The story continues..." but they didn’t really need to make this film. The good news is that it’s not a heinous crime of a follow-up (as some sequels can be).
Rocky II picks up during the fight between Rocky and Apollo Creed (a clever way to chew up 10 or so minutes without shooting any new footage). Creed was named winner by decision, but demands a rematch from the Italian Stallion. Only this time it will be a legitimate title shot for Rocky.
There’s more of the awkward courtship between Rocky and Adrian, and eventually they become engaged and get married. Rocky tries doing commercials to make some cash, but he’s not the most literate, nor articulate, guy in the world, so he ends up taking Creed up on the title fight. As the fight looms near, Adrian gives birth but falls into a coma. This impedes Rocky’s ability to train properly and Mickey gets angry at him.
Fortunately, Adrian wakes up weeks before the fight and (high on meds that she is) manages to perk Rocky up and tell him to go out there and win that fight. This fills him with just the right amount of confidence to keep pace with music playing in the training montage and the Stallion is back. He wins that fight and shouts “Yo Adrian!” Roll credits.
Basically, Rocky II was made for the sole purpose of letting Rocky win, but it’s still enjoyable and the fight scenes are really good.
Simply hilarious. That’s the only way to put it. You think Will Ferrell movies are funny where his spoof of a certain type of person is the dominating feature of the film? Well then, maybe you shouldn’t watch this movie, because if you think Will Ferrell movies are great, then you lack the intelligence to handle Christopher Guest’s superior wit.
While Farrell spends his time making fun of people and activities that are already the butts of many jokes, Christopher Guest comes out of left field with a mockumentary about a dog show. Just about everyone rolls their eyes when we see a dog show on TV, but have any of us bothered to check out all the intricacies and neurotic behavior exhibited by some of these canine lovers? Guest does and does it well.
Best In Show is an ensemble film, showing the lives of several different individuals and couples as they prepare themselves for the rigors of a regional dog show. The dogs are hardly important in all this, making you wonder which is supposed to be the case- Are dog show contestants actually capable of being as egotistical and superstitious as overpaid professional athletes? Or, are these dog owners just as bad as parents who try to live vicariously through their 8-year olds accomplishments and torment them with condescension until they meet an impossibly high standard? Either way, the ramifications are at once startling and hilarious.
Whether Guest is trying to expose the dark side of dog shows or simply proposing a ‘what if’ scenario to show how ridiculous the drive for athletic success can be when transposed on a different kind of contest, the end result is terrific. Call a doctor ahead of time, because you’ll tear your sides apart in laughter.
This movie actually surprised me a little bit. Instead of a hammed-up political farce, Robin Williams and the filmmakers turn out a delicate balance of humor and drama.
While the premise of the film is not very likely (a John Stewart-esque comedian runs for President as a joke at first but then stirs things up plenty good during the campaign and winning based on an easily detectable though ignored computer glitch), Robin Williams makes it shine just the same. A computer programmer (Laura Linney) discovers the glitch and tries to warn everyone, but is kept quiet and discredited by her employer, who just received a hefty contract for his new, yet faulty, voting machines to be used just about everywhere.
Linney eventually meets up with Williams and they seek to find and disclose the truth, even if it means sacrificing the office of the Presidency (which he didn’t actually win anyway). Overall, it’s charming and unique and pretty well done. It was good to see Robin Williams in a more subdued comedic role, which I think is more appropriate for his age and something he should stick with. He’s still in top form while being aware of his limitations, which I appreciated.
Let it be said, I really don’t like “unrated” versions of films. All “unrated” means is an excuse for the filmmakers to throw all the excessive cursing and nudity back into the film that common sense told them cut out for the theatrical release. It doesn’t make the film any better. In fact, it often times makes it worse. This film is a prime example.
The concept of The 40 Year Old Virgin is actually pretty good. Steve Carell proves he is a comedic force to be reckoned with, without going over-the-top slapstick goofy on us. His character is not just an overblown comedic character, but an amalgamation of several real-world neurotic quirks that are genuinely funny.
All the extra nudity and swearing reverts us back into overblown comedy though.
There wasn’t a “rated” version of this film accessible to me when I watched this and I’m not sure if one exists. It seems any crude humor now demands an unrated-only version DVD release. Like I said, the story is genuinely good and I would have enjoyed it better if the cursing and crude factor were toned down a bit. If anyone has a “rated” version of the film, I’d more than likely re-watch it to see how the movie really was.
Walt Disney’s second full length animated feature film is full of surprises. Firstly, it is surprising to see a story of Italian origin depict Italians in a rather harsh way. Perhaps this is because of tensions of Italian allegiance to Germany during the time period. Whatever the reason, if you look closely, you’ll find that the good guys in Pinocchio (Geppetto, Pinocchio and the blue fairy) are all fair skinned, more closely resembling Western European and American whites. In contrast, Stromboli, the villainous puppet maker looks and acts stereotypically, with darker skin and sharp gestures. It’s almost as if Disney was playing to “whiter” audiences’ prejudices.
Another unique aspect of Pinocchio is how dark it is. Essentially a morality tale of how to be a good and proper child, there is no romance and plenty of bleakness through most of the film. The beginning and the end are the joyful high points, while hope seems barely a glimmer through the middle. It creates a very down-trodden feel, but not quite to the point of hopelessness.
Despite not being as cheery overall as Snow White, Pinocchio is still a marvel for the eyes. Rich backgrounds and fabulous colors are everywhere, showcasing Disney’s complete and utter mastery for the art form. It’s truly mind-boggling how much detail Disney puts into the background elements. Later animation styles would try and skim these out, creating a more bare-bones feel, but the lushness of the stories Disney chose to animate early on really need all the little details in the background.
Oddly discomforting, yet spellbinding just the same, Pinocchio is another must-see classic from Disney.
It’s a rare treat to find a film about historical events that parallels modern times without seeming arrogant and egotistical about it. A diamond in the rough has surely been found with Good Night, and Good Luck.
Director George Clooney wants you to see the parallel between the McCarthy era witch hunt for communists and the post-9/11 era witch hunt against anyone voicing dissent against the government, branding them “unpatriotic.” However, I got the sense that, as bad as Clooney wants viewers to see the parallel, he doesn’t go overboard. If you don’t pick it up, you’re still going to get a strong idea about the tenacity and vileness of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s tactics. It seems Clooney figures that if you can’t infer the parallel, you’ll at least get a history lesson, hopefully preventing us from sliding into repeating this awful past. It’s a good stance to take.
It’s not preachy and it’s not simplistic. The film is shot in glorious black and white, allowing some of the best use of contrast I’ve ever seen. The blacks are deeply black and the whites and lights stand out against them like a full moon against the night sky. This all works to Clooney’s benefit. The story motors right along and doesn’t really leave you with a traditional ending. Not everything is resolved picture perfect, but that’s life, and the struggle goes on to this day.
Memorably written and expertly shot, George Clooney continues to win me over. While this would have been a controversial pick for Best Picture, I actually think it was more deserving than Crash.
Plain and simple, there are too many fruitballs in the Academy. There is no reason for this movie to have won Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan, one of the most gripping, moving and emotionally jarring films ever made. Instead of choosing a clearly superior film loosely based on a true story full of bravery during one of mankind’s most horrific hours, the Academy decides to honor a piece of pure fiction taking place in an idealized vision of the Renaissance, filled to the brim with historical inaccuracies. And pleather.
Of course, Shakespeare in Love isn’t trying to be accurate in anything it does, which, I guess, is the beauty of it. Just like theatre, the film is flooded with convenience and the use of deus ex machina. There’s plenty of ham to go with the overabundance of cheese as well.
Instead of the drab garb of a repressed middle and lower class, the streets are filled with vibrant colors and fabrics that may or may not have existed back then. The Bohemian lifestyle of living for love despite wretched conditions is perpetuated and glorified in an all too unrealistic way here, and the Renaissance period is whitewashed, where even the potential of plague and illness don’t muck up the fluffy white clouds on the horizon for our characters.
But don’t get me wrong. For what it is, Shakespeare in Love is a solidly good film. It’s exactly the kind of thing its audience is looking for- a fictitious love story set up ambiguously during real events (a la Titanic and Pearl Harbor) with all the frills of a fancy theatre fruitball jolly-fest. And for delivering what the audience wants, it’s a good film. Good costuming and some good camerawork too, which is why it has such a good rating.
As far as my personal tastes go, this one is a dud. But, since I try and keep things in a cinematic perspective, I’ve got to give credit where credit is due, even though the thought of Shakespeare in pleather gives me the chills.
I had a ‘Rent 3 for $10’ coupon for Blockbuster and this faux-documentary piqued my interest. CSA takes a hypothetical look at what might have happened had the South won the Civil War. It poses as a British documentary showing the history of the CSA- essentially a skewing of real events as they occurred.
To be honest, I was disappointed with this movie. It’s not nearly as bad as I was hoping it would be. Fresh off of an Academy Award for Best Actress, Halle Berry decides to play a superhero, er, supervillain, er, what exactly is she? The results are not good.
If it weren’t for the fact that Mel Gibson had no creative influence over this project, one would think this was an early indication that Mel Gibson’s Jesus complex. After two solid films, in which Gibson’s Max Rockatansky (mostly known just as Max) wandering the post-apocalyptic Australian Outback seeking to bring justice to those who pick on the weak and timid, Max goes all soft on us and the series ends on a down note.
If nothing else, this is the film that John Hughes will always be remembered for. Almost as old as I am, this film was shown in my high school sociology classes. That’s how big of an impact this tale of five high school kids from wildly different backgrounds and cliques has had.
WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!
When Daniel Craig was announced as the next James Bond, there was a tremendous outcry over his blond hair and blue eyes. People mockingly called him James Blond and refused to even give him a chance at the part. Some said he was too thuggish looking for 007, while others complained that he wasn’t a very well established actor, having a mixed bag of a resume.
Question: What’s a sure-fire way to suck the fun and mystique out of a James Bond film?
WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!
Simply hilarious. That’s the only way to put it. You think Will Ferrell movies are funny where his spoof of a certain type of person is the dominating feature of the film? Well then, maybe you shouldn’t watch this movie, because if you think Will Ferrell movies are great, then you lack the intelligence to handle Christopher Guest’s superior wit.
This movie actually surprised me a little bit. Instead of a hammed-up political farce, Robin Williams and the filmmakers turn out a delicate balance of humor and drama.
Let it be said, I really don’t like “unrated” versions of films. All “unrated” means is an excuse for the filmmakers to throw all the excessive cursing and nudity back into the film that common sense told them cut out for the theatrical release. It doesn’t make the film any better. In fact, it often times makes it worse. This film is a prime example. 
Walt Disney’s second full length animated feature film is full of surprises. Firstly, it is surprising to see a story of Italian origin depict Italians in a rather harsh way. Perhaps this is because of tensions of Italian allegiance to Germany during the time period. Whatever the reason, if you look closely, you’ll find that the good guys in Pinocchio (Geppetto, Pinocchio and the blue fairy) are all fair skinned, more closely resembling Western European and American whites. In contrast, Stromboli, the villainous puppet maker looks and acts stereotypically, with darker skin and sharp gestures. It’s almost as if Disney was playing to “whiter” audiences’ prejudices.
It’s a rare treat to find a film about historical events that parallels modern times without seeming arrogant and egotistical about it. A diamond in the rough has surely been found with Good Night, and Good Luck.
Plain and simple, there are too many fruitballs in the Academy. There is no reason for this movie to have won Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan, one of the most gripping, moving and emotionally jarring films ever made. Instead of choosing a clearly superior film loosely based on a true story full of bravery during one of mankind’s most horrific hours, the Academy decides to honor a piece of pure fiction taking place in an idealized vision of the Renaissance, filled to the brim with historical inaccuracies. And pleather.
