Released: November 16, 2007
Director: Robert Zemeckis
*****
Why? What would possess Robert Zemeckis to think an ancient epic poem would make a good movie? Is it the action or the ability to introduce a new generation to literature? Is it the image capture technology which worked in The Polar Express to bring an air of whismy to an otherwise mature story? Is it that Beowulf vs. Grendel is such an ingrained part of society he thought there was a built in audience? Why?
The story of Beowulf should be familiar, if not in this context, then in others. Kingdom menaced by ugly creature. Brave warriors fail to protect said kingdom. New hero comes to kingdom. Hero defeats monster and a host of others. Hero dies. And there we have the story in a nutshell. Not the deepest of plots, granted, but not the worst either. If this movie hadn't needed more production time than 10 months, I would have been cynical and said it was a reaction to the hit 300 in early 2007. They're both based on legends. Both appeal to the same demographic. Both are bloody and violent. But where they separate is in their emotional resonance. Whereas you rooted for King Leonidas and his band of Spartans through every frame of 300, Beowulf is a lifeless affair. A good looking film, but still lifeless.
I recently commented that Vantage Point is a movie made because of a concept, not a story. Nearly the same can be said here. Aside from showcasing the image capture tech, why make this movie? The audience will snicker at the bare assed characters and the general tomfoolery in the opening minutes, be titillated by Angelina Jolie "naked" and hoot over the blood. But there's no soul to the picture, no reason to get invested in the pretty pictures. Perhaps owing to the source material or to the filmmaking method, Beowulf's charm runs out far too quickly.
Others have said the problem with the film is the lack of human warmth in each character. Possibly. Another theory is that watching Beowulf outside of a 3-D theater wouldn't have the same effect as it does inside. Again, a possibility. I prefer to think of the downfall as a problem in translation. Remake Romeo and Juliet. It's an accessibly love story. Remake any Jane Austen novel. There are characters we can relate to. Beowulf? Unless we're fighting off pointy tailed gold...women or her hideous offspring...nope, sorry. Nothing there.
Director: Robert Zemeckis
*****
Why? What would possess Robert Zemeckis to think an ancient epic poem would make a good movie? Is it the action or the ability to introduce a new generation to literature? Is it the image capture technology which worked in The Polar Express to bring an air of whismy to an otherwise mature story? Is it that Beowulf vs. Grendel is such an ingrained part of society he thought there was a built in audience? Why?
The story of Beowulf should be familiar, if not in this context, then in others. Kingdom menaced by ugly creature. Brave warriors fail to protect said kingdom. New hero comes to kingdom. Hero defeats monster and a host of others. Hero dies. And there we have the story in a nutshell. Not the deepest of plots, granted, but not the worst either. If this movie hadn't needed more production time than 10 months, I would have been cynical and said it was a reaction to the hit 300 in early 2007. They're both based on legends. Both appeal to the same demographic. Both are bloody and violent. But where they separate is in their emotional resonance. Whereas you rooted for King Leonidas and his band of Spartans through every frame of 300, Beowulf is a lifeless affair. A good looking film, but still lifeless.
I recently commented that Vantage Point is a movie made because of a concept, not a story. Nearly the same can be said here. Aside from showcasing the image capture tech, why make this movie? The audience will snicker at the bare assed characters and the general tomfoolery in the opening minutes, be titillated by Angelina Jolie "naked" and hoot over the blood. But there's no soul to the picture, no reason to get invested in the pretty pictures. Perhaps owing to the source material or to the filmmaking method, Beowulf's charm runs out far too quickly.
Others have said the problem with the film is the lack of human warmth in each character. Possibly. Another theory is that watching Beowulf outside of a 3-D theater wouldn't have the same effect as it does inside. Again, a possibility. I prefer to think of the downfall as a problem in translation. Remake Romeo and Juliet. It's an accessibly love story. Remake any Jane Austen novel. There are characters we can relate to. Beowulf? Unless we're fighting off pointy tailed gold...women or her hideous offspring...nope, sorry. Nothing there.
Released: March 26, 2006 (UK)
Director: Richard Curson Smith
*****
Clocking in at a scant 77 minutes, it´s not the subject matter which is the downfall, nor is it the acting (headed by a blustery stubborn performance by Derek Jacobi), the issue in the execution. Quite simply, if Smith wanted to tackle this subject, give it the justice it deserves. Any sort of history to give the audience perspective on who Pinochet is gets thrown onto the screen in a title card and then interspersed through dialogue. Not a bad way to impart information, per se, though it´s terribly uncreative. Just as the ending of the film uses archival footage of the general arriving back in Chile, the beginning could have utilized news reports to flesh out the story.
*****
Pinochet's Last Stand DVD Review
Director: Richard Curson Smith
*****
Clocking in at a scant 77 minutes, it´s not the subject matter which is the downfall, nor is it the acting (headed by a blustery stubborn performance by Derek Jacobi), the issue in the execution. Quite simply, if Smith wanted to tackle this subject, give it the justice it deserves. Any sort of history to give the audience perspective on who Pinochet is gets thrown onto the screen in a title card and then interspersed through dialogue. Not a bad way to impart information, per se, though it´s terribly uncreative. Just as the ending of the film uses archival footage of the general arriving back in Chile, the beginning could have utilized news reports to flesh out the story.
*****
Pinochet's Last Stand DVD Review
*****
8:46-Judging by the online group I'm taking about the show with, Helen
Mirren can host the entire show by herself because she's so damn
gorgeous. Quoted for Truth, don't ya know!
*****
Released: February 22, 2008
Director: Pete Travis
*****
At a terrorism conference in Spain, the president of the United States
is shot. Television cameras capture the attempted assassination. At a
terrorism conference in Spain, the president of the United States is
shot. A group of assassins put a plot into motion. At a terrorism
conference in Spain, the president of the United States is shot. A
vacationer captures footage on a video camera. At a terrorism
conference in Spain…oh hell, you get the idea.
*****
Vantage Point, the full review
Released: July 10, 2001 (Philadelphia International Gay and Lesbian Film Festival)
Director: Michael O. Gallant
*****
In the hands of a capable director and screenwriter, 10 Attitudes might have been halfway watchable. In the hands of Michael Gallant and Jason Stuart, it's just about unwatchable. When Josh (Stuart) finds his boyfriend of ten years getting a blowjob in his car from a young twink, he is set on a mission to find a sincere, sexy, trustworthy guy for a relationship. There are very few parts of the film which actually work. The casting is wrong, the sound quality is hideous, the technical look is muddied and the actual plot is as shallow as Josh seems to be.
All he wants is a sexy boyfriend, someone to commit to him and only him. He's old and not in the best of shape and just a bit of a stereotypical flaming gay man. A walking and talking stereotype, Josh looks for love in all the wrong places. Forget the time honored advice of engaging in your interests and you will meet people, he is thrown into a challenge with college-aged friend Brandon to meet people he's set up with. Through therapy or online, by coworkers or friends. The thing is, every single date is predicated on looks, not what's inside. Josh never seems to notice this. Take, for instance, the string of dates. Nearly all of them are beautiful people, tanned and smooth with no regard for what is between their ears.
The one person he has any chemistry with-Brandon-is never taken seriously as a romantic partner. Brandon looks at Josh is such a loving way, completely comfortable with him in every situation, it boggles the mind why they wouldn't at least entertain the notion. But no. Brandon doesn't apparently wear tight enough shirts or go to the gym enough. Or something. So we're stuck with Josh going on disaterously unfunny dates with guys we know he has no chance with. One's too young, another has no job, a third wants to be with him for his girlfriend, two he meets in therapy... Oy.
Half started storylines involving a jealous, presumably, brother in law and some mention of Josh actually working are stopped dead in their tracks. The makeover with a cringe inducing Jim J. Bullock? One scene. We get little more than lip service to the ongoing idea of a makeover in favor of the most liberal place on the planet. No one blinks an eye at two guys holding hands or holding each other. After 87 minutes, we get it. Being "old" in a youth obsessed culture sucks. Which is why, I guess, Josh tucks tail between his legs and runs home, abandoning his life, his job and his friends. (Conveniently, he runs into his old grade school nemesis who...SURPRISE...is gay AND takes an interest in him. Serves them both right.)
Director: Michael O. Gallant
*****
In the hands of a capable director and screenwriter, 10 Attitudes might have been halfway watchable. In the hands of Michael Gallant and Jason Stuart, it's just about unwatchable. When Josh (Stuart) finds his boyfriend of ten years getting a blowjob in his car from a young twink, he is set on a mission to find a sincere, sexy, trustworthy guy for a relationship. There are very few parts of the film which actually work. The casting is wrong, the sound quality is hideous, the technical look is muddied and the actual plot is as shallow as Josh seems to be.
All he wants is a sexy boyfriend, someone to commit to him and only him. He's old and not in the best of shape and just a bit of a stereotypical flaming gay man. A walking and talking stereotype, Josh looks for love in all the wrong places. Forget the time honored advice of engaging in your interests and you will meet people, he is thrown into a challenge with college-aged friend Brandon to meet people he's set up with. Through therapy or online, by coworkers or friends. The thing is, every single date is predicated on looks, not what's inside. Josh never seems to notice this. Take, for instance, the string of dates. Nearly all of them are beautiful people, tanned and smooth with no regard for what is between their ears.
The one person he has any chemistry with-Brandon-is never taken seriously as a romantic partner. Brandon looks at Josh is such a loving way, completely comfortable with him in every situation, it boggles the mind why they wouldn't at least entertain the notion. But no. Brandon doesn't apparently wear tight enough shirts or go to the gym enough. Or something. So we're stuck with Josh going on disaterously unfunny dates with guys we know he has no chance with. One's too young, another has no job, a third wants to be with him for his girlfriend, two he meets in therapy... Oy.
Half started storylines involving a jealous, presumably, brother in law and some mention of Josh actually working are stopped dead in their tracks. The makeover with a cringe inducing Jim J. Bullock? One scene. We get little more than lip service to the ongoing idea of a makeover in favor of the most liberal place on the planet. No one blinks an eye at two guys holding hands or holding each other. After 87 minutes, we get it. Being "old" in a youth obsessed culture sucks. Which is why, I guess, Josh tucks tail between his legs and runs home, abandoning his life, his job and his friends. (Conveniently, he runs into his old grade school nemesis who...SURPRISE...is gay AND takes an interest in him. Serves them both right.)
Released: David Frankel
Director: June 30, 2006
*****
A fun, if a tad shallow, summer film designed to counterprogram splashy blockbuster "boy" movies, The Devil Wears Prada provides glorious starring turns for both Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway, yet comes off feeling empty in the end. Not because of a lack of trying; this story about an ugly duckling (Hathaway) undergoing a complete makeover-both inside and out-with the help of her much feared boss (Streep) wants to say something urgent and powerful about the way females are treated in the workplace-or maybe about fashion itself; it's too concerned with looking good to dig deep enough into the subject matter.
Don't get me wrong: there is plenty to recommend on screen, from a wonderfully understated though over the top Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt in a fabulously droll supporting role to Stanley Tucci playing gay, not to mention the stylishly glamorous clothes. Aside from those positives, some points are made by other supporting characters, namely Andrea's boyfriend and art friend, about the changes she is undertaking in the name of a career. But in the end result, we never know exactly what endears Andrea to Miranda. Is it her pluky stubbornness? The concept of helping an up-and-comer make a name for herself? The realization there may be more to life than a career?
We don't know. A seemingly pivotal scene in Paris during a fashion show wants to shed light on the more meaningful aspects of the story. The narrative looses sight of it, though, favoring a feel good finale over one that makes sense. Yes, Miranda has gone through two husbands in the course of her job. She's had to throw a friend under the bus to keep her position. And she's depressed over it-in private, mind you. We know in the final scene her motivations even if it's never said. Miranda and Andrea know it, too. In that regard, I guess it never needs to be vocalized. It is hard to understand, however, how this is the first time the editor in chief has come to any conclusions about her assistants. Either she's turned a blind eye or is finally coming back to Earth.
Regardless of any quibble I might have with the eventual resolution to the story, Prada remains a good looking romp through the fashion world aided by worthy performances and a script which knows how to ratchet the humor up while remaining true to reality. A stalled romance with a reporter notwithstanding, the movie is like a runway model making very few false steps.
Director: June 30, 2006
*****
A fun, if a tad shallow, summer film designed to counterprogram splashy blockbuster "boy" movies, The Devil Wears Prada provides glorious starring turns for both Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway, yet comes off feeling empty in the end. Not because of a lack of trying; this story about an ugly duckling (Hathaway) undergoing a complete makeover-both inside and out-with the help of her much feared boss (Streep) wants to say something urgent and powerful about the way females are treated in the workplace-or maybe about fashion itself; it's too concerned with looking good to dig deep enough into the subject matter.
Don't get me wrong: there is plenty to recommend on screen, from a wonderfully understated though over the top Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt in a fabulously droll supporting role to Stanley Tucci playing gay, not to mention the stylishly glamorous clothes. Aside from those positives, some points are made by other supporting characters, namely Andrea's boyfriend and art friend, about the changes she is undertaking in the name of a career. But in the end result, we never know exactly what endears Andrea to Miranda. Is it her pluky stubbornness? The concept of helping an up-and-comer make a name for herself? The realization there may be more to life than a career?
We don't know. A seemingly pivotal scene in Paris during a fashion show wants to shed light on the more meaningful aspects of the story. The narrative looses sight of it, though, favoring a feel good finale over one that makes sense. Yes, Miranda has gone through two husbands in the course of her job. She's had to throw a friend under the bus to keep her position. And she's depressed over it-in private, mind you. We know in the final scene her motivations even if it's never said. Miranda and Andrea know it, too. In that regard, I guess it never needs to be vocalized. It is hard to understand, however, how this is the first time the editor in chief has come to any conclusions about her assistants. Either she's turned a blind eye or is finally coming back to Earth.
Regardless of any quibble I might have with the eventual resolution to the story, Prada remains a good looking romp through the fashion world aided by worthy performances and a script which knows how to ratchet the humor up while remaining true to reality. A stalled romance with a reporter notwithstanding, the movie is like a runway model making very few false steps.
Released: February 12, 2008
*****
This is perhaps unlike any other program HBO-or any network-has ever put together. Simultaneously uplifting, empowering and utterly depressing, it defies simple definition. Sure, it is about sex, sometimes graphically, but it also concerns itself with relationships, marriage, family, communication and faith.
*****
Tell Me You Love Me, the full DVD review
*****
This is perhaps unlike any other program HBO-or any network-has ever put together. Simultaneously uplifting, empowering and utterly depressing, it defies simple definition. Sure, it is about sex, sometimes graphically, but it also concerns itself with relationships, marriage, family, communication and faith.
*****
Tell Me You Love Me, the full DVD review
Released: February 14, 2008
Director: Doug Liman
*****
See, nothing much makes sense in "Jumper" and the story doesn´t much mind. It doesn´t mind to explain the teleportation mutation or anything about Roland´s organization…outside of a small mention of jumpers being against god´s plan. That´s where the film should have spent most of its time: exploring the history of jumpers and their pursuers, how the mutation develops and the like. If this is to be a franchise (based on the ending, Fox clearly has designs on making more "Jumper" films), the first installment has to explain the universe, bring the audience into it and deliver a standalone story.
*****
Jumper, the full review
Released: January 23, 2000 (Sundance Film Festival)
Director: Robert Lee King
*****
A tongue-in-cheek send up of vastly different genres (beach blanket films, romances, thrillers), Psycho Beach Party relies primarily on the audience's familiarity with those types of films to bring its humor across. A few sparse moments of out and out comedy are present, such as Charles Busch playing a female detective, but they are few and far between for most audience's taste. The best way to describe it? High camp.
At a drive in theater, a teenager is killed. The entire beach side town is on alert. Teenage Florence (Lauren Ambrose, perhaps the best thing the film has going for it) doesn't care: she makes her way to the ocean with an uglier friend...and a "better looking" one. There, her interest in surfing is rebuffed by, quite obviously, good looking guys. She lands on the doorstep of surfing legend Kanaka (Thomas Gibson), who teaches her to ride the waves, thus bringing her into the exclusive circle. But a dangerous secret lurks in her subconscious, transforming Florence into a psycho...
Alright, this isn't the deepest of films nor does it say anything-really-about life or the world. Honestly, it's not even that funny, once you get past Busch in drag or see Florence change once or twice. The entire endeavor looks as good-complete with laughingly fake (and intentionally so)-as the cast does, yet it's also that superficial. I guess it's the intent: to create a movie from the best parts of the genres it pays homage to. None of those early films, not the Frankie Avalon/Annette Funicello pictures or many of the later thrillers wanted to do anything besides entertain. The issue here is the proceedings are quite dull while it tries to entertain.
The plot doesn't hold up to much scrutiny, not that it should, based on the source material. Incompetent police work, a town populated by the same dozen people, red herrings around every corner, a "surprise" confession...like Busch's Die, Mommie, Die we're supposed to laugh at the homage, enjoy what is on the screen and then immediately dispose of it. This is, more than anything else, for the fans of films from the 1950s and 1960s, those who can relate each little touch on screen. (Back to Ambrose for a second: she plays young and naive as well as anyone, flipping into an alternate personae in a split second. Coming before her work in Six Feet Under, this is a more demanding role, if only because she carries the entire story. If her performance, and the changeover to Ann, does not draw your attention, the movie is sunk. Fortunately, she is a wonderfully magnetic presence stuck in an average production.)
Director: Robert Lee King
*****
A tongue-in-cheek send up of vastly different genres (beach blanket films, romances, thrillers), Psycho Beach Party relies primarily on the audience's familiarity with those types of films to bring its humor across. A few sparse moments of out and out comedy are present, such as Charles Busch playing a female detective, but they are few and far between for most audience's taste. The best way to describe it? High camp.
At a drive in theater, a teenager is killed. The entire beach side town is on alert. Teenage Florence (Lauren Ambrose, perhaps the best thing the film has going for it) doesn't care: she makes her way to the ocean with an uglier friend...and a "better looking" one. There, her interest in surfing is rebuffed by, quite obviously, good looking guys. She lands on the doorstep of surfing legend Kanaka (Thomas Gibson), who teaches her to ride the waves, thus bringing her into the exclusive circle. But a dangerous secret lurks in her subconscious, transforming Florence into a psycho...
Alright, this isn't the deepest of films nor does it say anything-really-about life or the world. Honestly, it's not even that funny, once you get past Busch in drag or see Florence change once or twice. The entire endeavor looks as good-complete with laughingly fake (and intentionally so)-as the cast does, yet it's also that superficial. I guess it's the intent: to create a movie from the best parts of the genres it pays homage to. None of those early films, not the Frankie Avalon/Annette Funicello pictures or many of the later thrillers wanted to do anything besides entertain. The issue here is the proceedings are quite dull while it tries to entertain.
The plot doesn't hold up to much scrutiny, not that it should, based on the source material. Incompetent police work, a town populated by the same dozen people, red herrings around every corner, a "surprise" confession...like Busch's Die, Mommie, Die we're supposed to laugh at the homage, enjoy what is on the screen and then immediately dispose of it. This is, more than anything else, for the fans of films from the 1950s and 1960s, those who can relate each little touch on screen. (Back to Ambrose for a second: she plays young and naive as well as anyone, flipping into an alternate personae in a split second. Coming before her work in Six Feet Under, this is a more demanding role, if only because she carries the entire story. If her performance, and the changeover to Ann, does not draw your attention, the movie is sunk. Fortunately, she is a wonderfully magnetic presence stuck in an average production.)
Released: January 18, 2008
Director: Anne Fletcher
*****
When a movie comes along in a tired genre, say the romantic comedy for
instance, it´s too much to expect the story to bring us something new.
After all, according to convention, we know how the main character,
usually a heroine, is going to end up with the right guy for her. We
know him from all the other males by excessive screen time and an
adversarial relationship with the heroine. They find their way towards
one another through the film; some sort of manufactured drama comes
between them before the eventual happy ending. Almost without fail,
this is how romantic comedies run. Shockingly, "27 Dresses" doesn´t
deviate from the formula, yet feels fresh, thanks mostly to Katherine
Heigl and James Marsden.
*****
Read the full review of 27 Dresses.
