A

Success by overcoming tragedy

This film fictionalizes the story of John Nash, a brilliant economic mathemetician who has to endure mental frailties during the prime of his life. While it's based on a true story, the film really snips out all the bad stuff, including his homosexuality and failed marriages to make it more universally palatable. However, that aside, the film is surprisingly engrossing and interesting as you follow the trail of his descent. Russell Crowe provides the best performance I've ever seen from him. The movie has a number of great twists that are unfortunately not particularly fresh due to their recent overuse in modern film. The makeup department also gets big kudos for the fantastic job aging the characters over time. This is a deserving Oscar winner that is well-worth seeing for the story despite the skewed reality.

**** out of *****

Boy and grumpy dog in post-apocalyptic wasteland

You have to give some advance credit to a movie partially written by Harlan Ellison (until he got writer's block) and starring Don Johnson with a talking dog. The film is pretty irreverent and, like many 70s movies, stalls for time during the first half, staggering around and not doing much except setting the scene and leaving things unresolved (like the Screamers which I was deeply disappointed we never got to see). Sex sex sex, stall stall stall, and we finally get to the second half of the film, wherein everything goes completely bonkers. It abruptly changes from a gritty, dark comedy to a surrealist farce. Suffice to say, the unexpected ending of the film almost makes the trip worthwhile. Certainly a somewhat unique item.

*** out of *****

Schmidt. No, really.

Unfortunately, this turns out to be yet another in a series of life-is-barely-worth-living films that keep coming out as of late. True to form, it follows Wallace Schmidt, played in a unique performance by Jack Nicholson, as an unhappy man in an unhappy life and to whom unhappy things happen to. He has many opportunities to improve his life along the way, but simply doesn't take them or outright botches them. Often not even in humorous ways, but instead sadly self-destructive. Salvation only arrives in the last 2 minutes of the film and it's barely redeemable. In fact, in my eyes, it was quite unsatisfactory. There is only a pat on the back, and a 'there there.' Left all three of us who watched it relatively unhappy.

** out of *****

Depressed, blocked writer needs to break out of his funk.

I'm not sure how this film got the reviews it did in the media. Nicholas Cage plays both brothers in this film, although I can't understand why (egotism?) since it would've been slightly less needlessly confusing with separate actors. By the end of the film, all four major characters have suffered horribly. I can deal with a film where the main character loses in the end and learns a lesson, when everyone dies, or when bad things happen and the main character gets a benefit in the end but is keenly aware of the suffering necessary to get it. I can even deal when the resolution is not worth the road to get there, but the sarcastic negativity is obvious. But this film's resolution is pathetically unsatisfying when contrasted against the misery and ruin experienced to get there, and it seems to actually believe this is a justifiable outcome. It doesn't realize that the film's unhappiness + its conflict resolution is still < satisfying. Unpleasant and unworthy.

*1/2 out of *****

TV really has changed a lot in fifteen years. Today's network fodder is either big-budget and ultraserious, or bottom-barrel schadenfreude reality dreck. Perhaps this western with futuristic overtones, Brisco County Jr., was an example of one of the last throes of tv serials of its era, disregarding the fact that a very young FOX network ditched it just as it was getting its legs as a cult hit (as they would do again with Firefly years later). Low budget, cliched, full of awful puns, plot holes, cartoony action, and comedic characters - it's still hard to really hate the short-lived show. If you're a fan of Bruce Campbell, you've already got a foot in the door. The rest of the cast is strong and colorful, even if they really only sing one note each. Even the villains jump right out of comic books (or in the case of Pete Hutter, right out of a Wile E. Coyote cartoon), with all the flourish of a Coen Bros. character. Nevermind that every town is the same set shot from a different angle and new signs, or that every bad guy's cave is the last bad guy's cave, or that the futuristic special effects were lame. The writing, humor, continuity, and likeability of the characters kept it going as long as it did.

***1/2 out of *****

Kitty and Puppeh!

As the credits display, this film is actually an asian creation. Tho, narrated by Dudley Moore, you'd never be able to tell. Unless you're a cutesy animal fan, the film is mostly for the under-10 set with a children's story-book plot and kiddie dialogue (As xydexx said after the credits, "I feel like I'm five!"). Some scenes are a little unexpected and in-your-face, like the birth scenes, but otherwise, it's all romping kitties and puppies that make you go "Awww..."

** out of ***** (for adults)

Holmes' brother, Sigerson

When people watch Young Frankenstein, directed by Mel Brooks, they think Gene Wilder is very funny under his direction. But you may not know that Wilder and company are equally hysterical under Wilder's own direction. This film is a case in point. It stars Wilder, Madeline Kahn, and Marty Feldman in a sort of romantic buddy comedy, where the gags come at a pace only one or two notches slower than Brooks' do, but are no less silly or effective. Feldman is a real treat to watch, a lost comedy genius in his own right. And Kahn's eager go-along with the two men's silliness makes her one of the rare female comedy greats. Did I mention that it also stars Dom Delouise? How can you go wrong with a cast like that? The story is a tad hard to follow, involving stealing documents back from whence they were stolen originally, but you're probably too busy laughing to care, especially with the Marx Brothers-like climax on the stage which is pure cartoonish silliness. A real treat.

****1/2 out of *****

Surprisingly, the film is mainly a big promotional tool for the After Innocence campaign and the Life After Exoneration Program, but they do an excellent job of keeping that part subtle and instead telling the stories of a select group of innocent men and women who spent years, and even decades, in prison due to flaws in the criminal justice system and lack of DNA testing. The focus is primarily on what these people do once they've left jail behind and attempt to integrate back into mainstream society. Regrettably, there is no governmental procedure for admitting such a catastrophic mistake - a guilty person completing their sentence receives a portfolio of reintegration assistance, but an innocent victim gets nothing but bus fare. Not even an apology. It's shocking how poorly the innocent are treated when the law makes mistakes, and the documentary does a good job of convincing the viewer that there are likely thousands of innocent people in prison. A good reason to reconsider the death penalty and encourage DNA testing, if there ever was one.

**** out of *****

Cronenberg does drama

As soon as we popped this film in and the credits began rolling, we noticed David Cronenberg's name as the director, so we had an idea of what we were in for. Cronenberg does a very good job of taking scenes that other directors would depict as common action-violence and making them into hardcore ultraviolence with just a few tweaks of the script. There's a significant amount of contrast between the drama scenes and the action scenes. In fact, their placement made it feel like a videogame: level 1, boss 1, level 2, boss 2, level 3, final boss. I know that's a weird analogy, but it fits rather well. Cronenberg stated that he's against violence and was trying to make the film realistically. That's odd because the mob characters in the film, led by a very creepy Ed Harris, are nothing less than cartoonish. While they're fun, they're jarringly out of character with the rest of the film. There's also pointless full-frontal nudity and overlong sex scenes that distract from the flow. It's a very solid and very intense film, but some depictions could have been implemented better.

***1/2 out of *****

Documentary on Jim Cameron's ego

This documentary, directed by Jim Cameron of Aliens & Terminator fame, was originally screened in IMAX theaters at about 45 minutes long and billed as an exploration of deep sea creatures. Wow, they're cool, who doesn't want to learn more about them? Apparently not Jim Cameron. Instead, what you get is about 5% brush-off glimpses at a few plain fish, crabs, and octopi (never getting down to the really interesting ones in the trenches) and 95% of Cameron talking about how brilliant he is to set up the expedition, surmount difficulties, and how cool it is that Jim Cameron's working with scientists and in various underwater toys. Making it worse is that half of the film isn't even about the ocean! It's about outer space, with CG explorations of various planets. To finish itself off, it disrespects the same scientists it spent the whole documentary validating bysticking them in a recreation of the ending of The Abyss. For the masochists among us, there's also a 90-minute extended version included to showcase more of, you guessed it, Jim Cameron.

*1/2 out of *****

No comment.

Please accept this petition to hire me, the undersigned, to write the next Aliens or Predator or Vs movie you plan to make. I promise the following improvements to help the franchise regain its footing, creativity, and even its sanity. I will return to the original source material and will not violate the base concepts of the mythos any further, including not giving the Predators new weapons, armor, changing physical size, and bad facial FX. I will not have Predators performing wrestling moves. I will not cast a pop/soul music video star lookalike as the heroine and then have her strip to a t-shirt in the middle of the Antarctic. I will not conceive of a Mayan/Aztec temple 2000 feet under a glacier that changes rooms like a funhouse for no apparent reason. I will create characters that are not blindingly stupid so that when they're told not to split up, they dont; when they're told not to touch something, they don't; and when they see a device that wiped out an entire village, they don't pull the lever clearly marked REACTIVATE. I promise I will return to the no-holds-barred R-rated sci-fi horror that made these franchises so great rather than watering it down to PG-13 to gear it towards SuperBowl and American Dad viewers, the commercials for which are featured prominently in the Special Features section. And, for crying out loud, I will not even *pretend* to present the idea that anything can survive being both nuked and having a glacier and a town dropped on them. Please accept this proposal in all seriousness because the continued butchering of two of my favorite franchises is making me cry. Yours truly, Me.

** out of *****

Plane crash in the Andes

I enjoy a good survival story and this is a pretty big one. Based on a true story, a rugby team's plane crashes in the Andes mountains and they have to survive while waiting for a rescue. The crash itself is rather highly detailed and intense, but stops short of being particularly gory. After that, it tends to watch a lot like a Reader's Digest "Drama In Real Life" reads. There's plenty of standard survival efforts, some very rough setbacks, and it gets a little squirmy when starvation begins to set in. While not everyone makes it, I was amazed at how long they did manage to go on their own. You need to look past some obstacles, tho, including ten weeks of perfectly-manicured, clean-shaven, and salon-coiffured hair which is kinda glaring. It's also just barely starting to feel dated. A good dramatization.

***1/2 out of *****

Sequel to Kentucky Fried Movie

In 1987, someone thought it would be a good idea to make a sequel to Kentucky Fried Movie. It's hard to top classic comedy, but they did try. The film is similar to its predecessors in that it's a series of sketch comedy barely rising above non-sequitur. It has more in common with In Living Color, actually. The stars are dated, including forgotten fame such as Arsenio Hall and Steve Guttenberg. The humor is generally funny, but nowhere near the stop-the-movie level. They try to recreate the 70s with some full-frontal nudity, but you can tell they're holding back and the MPAA was tightening the noose around this era. It's a decent last gasp in the genre.

*** out of *****

An SS officer and a Jesuit priest try to prevent the Holocaust.

Think low-budget Schindler's List. The movie is extremely thick with political drama and focuses from a new perpective - that of a nazi officer. It's not very comfortable to have such an up-close and personal view of the machinations that went into the designs behind the Holocaust, but that just makes you cling more closely to the two characters attempting to fight back through the Vatican. The film runs a little longer than necessary at over 2 hours, but with patience the trip is well worth it. It's apparently based on a play, however it treats the events as non-fiction at the end, which seems to be a point of contention among movie critics.

**** out of *****

Bio-drama-documentary about Harvey Pekar, creator of the underground comic American Splendor.

Let's see... This is a biography because it tells the story of Harvey Pekar's creation of his comic from inception through today. It's a drama because it's mostly performed by actors and dramatized. It's a documentary because it's frequently interrupted by a backstage-style interview with the actual people being portrayed in the film. But the movie is also mingled with animated images, storytelling narrative, and media snippets. It's told in a fictional style, while remaining factually based. And on all that, the characters aren't glorified at all. They're not beautiful, they don't live in nice homes, they're rarely polite, and they're all dysfunctional. They're a little bit of every real person in this movie, which makes it reluctantly charming and watchable.

**** out of *****

Disney-fied documentary on America's lower & middle class

To see this film, you first have to get past any liberal firewalls you have up. This is a conservative-themed film and, while it doesn't delve into politics and it deals with religion briefly and lighthandedly, it's definitely geared to serve up the patriotic urgings in anyone who's got a flag waving from their porch. If you can get past that, this is really an excellent film that briefly showcases a myriad of average Americans in short anecdotes that range from quaint to abjectly hilarious, all amidst gorgeous scenery of both the urban and the countryside. It does get a little too syrupy at times, but not too detrimentally. This is the kind of uplifting and benignly manipulative film you'd see in any of Epcot's pavillions, but extended to 90 minutes. I would've loved to see it on IMAX because it must've really benefitted from that sort of size and impact. Well worth checking out for a feel-good diversion from ordinary fare.

**** out of *****

Folk Music Reunion

I didn't like Spinal Tap, either. Along the same lines as that and Best In Show, this film is presented as a faux documentary. The humor is very dry and subtle. Unfortunately, it never takes advantage of the great setup it designs. All sorts of buckets of water are poised over many doors just waiting to be opened, but the events never follow through. The madcap mania just waiting offstage never appears. As a result, the film turns out to be mildly satisfying as light fare, but not much more. It's also regrettable that the character resolutions at the end are negative, making you feel bad when the credits roll. For an upbeat movie, they sure drive the stake in before you leave.

**1/2 out of *****

Hide & Seek vs The Shining

In the movie Hide & Seek, a little girl has an imaginary friend with portents of supernatural evil. In the Shining, evil spirits make daddy go bad and try to kill the family. There you go, that's the plot of Amityville Horror. It's amazing how much the movie is nearly an exact mirror of the two, combined. It has some fun cliche moments and a few good scares, but most of them are rehashed ideas from other films which makes the overall effect incredibly predictable. The characters in the movie also just aren't particularly bright, and plot threads are left dangling or open-ended such as the hospital visit and the basement antechamber. Perhaps they're just saving it all up for remakes of the three sequels, or the four direct-to-video treatments? It's standard scares, no more no less.

**1/2 out of *****

More snakes!

If you haven't seen the original Anacondas, don't worry there's no prerequisite for this film. It borrows a bit from the prior one, like snakes barfing up prey and a funny, brief, panicky reference to the characters of the first film. Otherwise, tho, even though Anaconda was a pretty bad movie, this one manages to be somewhat worse. The movie is one huge cliche, endlessly predictable. We made a game of guessing what would happen next and we were usually right (Crusty, ornery boat captain! Run down boat! Scary monkey in the closet! He gets eaten next! etc). The cast themselves are completely fish-out-of-water and very extreme in their stereotype, and when I say "water", I mean right off of 90210. When they start dropping jokes like "Can you hear me now?" you know it's going downhill fast. The snakes are middling CG creations, although the huge teeth make them rather unbelieveable. Let's not forget the plot holes ("No boats go upriver in the rainy season!" Uh, but it's sunny?) It's all rather silly, but at least it's adventurous.

** out of *****

Billy Crystal & Robert DeNiro buddy comedy

The About section above pretty much describes it. There's not much here outside of the main two characters. The plot is essentially the same as the previous film. The other characters might as well be scenery. At least the pairing of these two sometimes-comedians is funny when they get their scenes together. It's nice, sappy, funny, but never going very far past a basic vaudeville act. I'll never forget "unf, unf, tuna casserole!" tho...

** out of *****

Don Bluth Disney wannabe

The desire to feed off of Disney's mid-90's animated blockbusters is palpable within this feature. Some elements, such as Rasputin's song & dance routine are strongly reminiscent of Scar's TLK number, for example. It's saddled with typical Bluth jittery plot, getting too excited near the end and changing environments and dialogue without enough fill-in. As well, the movie is based off of a play and, boy, does it show. The real-life modelling of character and movement is painfully obvious. The film does have good points: there are genuinely funny exchanges of dialogue, the cast is all-star, the CG is quite impressive for its day, and some songs are mildly memorable. This is a good entry if you want to fill your quota of 90's animated features, tho I strongly feel that movies with real people shouldn't be animated (see Polar Express).

*** out of *****

Lowbrow comedy about news anchors

I had originally been loathe to see the film because it didn't strike me in any particularly positive way. It ended up on my queue anyway because a coworker of xydexx recommended it and I'm now glad I saw it. This is a very lowbrow, stupid film like a Ben Stiller comedy crossed with a Jim Carrey movie. When it's bad, this film is truly painful to watch. But when it's good, the film is stop-the-movie hysterical. Several times we had to hit pause and catch our breath, particularly during the credits where the bloopers reside. There's never really a middle ground. Also entertaining is the abrupt cameos of a whole bunch of other comedy stars in the middle of the movie for a fight scene. If you can't bear really dumb movies, give this a pass, but otherwise it'll fuel some great laughs.

***1/2 out of *****

Part two of our Michael Crichton-fest. This film was reminiscent of Network in that it involed a lot of introspective dramatic discussion through much of the film. A full half hour is dedicated to scientific preparatory process rather than actual plot development of any kind. While it's kind of neat to watch all the poking and prodding and sanitizing, too much is too much. An element of convenient physical handicap becomes the films pivotal climax inducer and seems not only tacked on, but also contrived. Additionally, one must wonder how the film obtained a G rating when there's imagery of burns, gaping wounds, and a close-up of slicing someone's arm open. Ew. Still, I assume one has to suspend disbelief to some degree to enjoy the classics.

**1/2 out of *****

I had hesitated renting this back when it was originally released because I was concerned the content would be nowhere near the value of Smith's films and be more of a Meet The Press style event. Way off. Waaaaay off. Instead, the 2-disc set is a highlights tape of Smith's Q&A sessions touring various colleges shortly after releasing Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back. Half of the time is spent answering questions in rambling, yet interesting stories of up to 30-45 minutes in length. The other half is spent humorously humiliating hecklers and, unfortunately, honest questioners as well. This is where the laughs becomes a bit cruel, as Smith's humble nature is shown to be little more than an act when he has to deal with real people. Ego aside, the man can tell a good story and has plenty of anecdotes for fans of his films. Jason Mewes even makes an appearance, but has very little to say. If you're not into Smith's work, you probably won't make it through disc one, much less disc two, both together which clock in at around three hours total.

**** out of *****

Cruelty to others is funny.

As much as I don't like most of Adam Sandler's roles, I found this one particularly sympathetic because Jack Nicholson's character was a total @$$hole. Sandler portrays a nice guy abused by cruel people, but instead of pointing out that he's being harassed, the film tries to set it up that there's something wrong with Sandler's character that needs repair. Enter Nicholson, who then turns Sandler's innocent life into hell, training him to be a jackass in order to defend himself. Yeah, the film is funny, but the message would only appeal to mean people.

** out of *****

Woody Allen's murder-mystery turned romance

Supposedly, this was originally a murder-mystery which wasn't turning out too well, so Woody Allen dumped all the murder and kept all the romance. Unfortunately, this shows pretty clearly because the romance isn't really developed into anything believeable. The movie spends a huge amount of time on 4th-wall jokes and gimmicky fantasy scenes, but those just cover up the fact that Woody Allen's character, while comedic, is otherwise intrinsically unlikeable. It's just not realistic that any person could form a relationship with a character so crippled by neuroses and perpetually spiteful of anything and everything. Diane Keaton just appears to be faking it. The movie was originally titled 'Anhedonia' which means 'inability to feel pleasure'. It really should've kept that title. At least it's funny, but I have no idea how this got a Best Picture Oscar.

*** out of *****

Surreal, classic Vietnam odyssey.

I probably could've done just as well with the original version rather than this 3+ hour one, but it's still good to see a classic in its full glory. The first 2/3rds of the film are oftentimes surreal, shocking, and/or inadvertently humorous. Full of classic lines to watch out for and engrossing. The last third of the film, however, goes a bit awry and tries to be both shocking and dreamy/dopey at the same time, which doesn't exactly work. This is where you start checking your watch. Nevertheless, not having seen the film before, I did not regret experiencing it - and it's definitely more of an experience than a movie.

***1/2 out of *****

Pork rations in WW2

I picked this up as one of two Michael Palin films I thought I'd give a whirl. I don't recall why and, by the judgement of this film, I might regret it. While there are some striking moments of pure, contrasting absurdity going on in the background (watch for the police detective doing magic tricks at the screen edge in one scene), the majority of the film is pure, dry British. The humor dies out after about twenty minutes and we're left with a mildly confusing, non-threatening storyline filled with rather dull and dim-witted characters. It doesn't even manage to end properly, the conclusion not particularly resolving anything that could be described as satisfactory. Any film that needs an extra bit during the credits to fix the film (which this did, according to IMDB's trivia), is broken, IMHO. Let's not even go into the abysmal sound quality on the DVD, making some scenes unintelligible. It's a shame, too, with the talent of Maggie Smith and Palin. They deserve better.

** out of *****

The same dirty joke

A lot of people hear about this movie and ask, "Isn't it just the same joke over and over again? That sounds boring." On one hand, if you need significant variety or don't have a tolerance for absurdism, then it probably will be dull. The point of the joke is to ratchet up the storytelling either creatively or so far that the simple ghastly offensiveness or the Dali-esque non-sequitur wordplay turns it into an exercise in abstract humor. Over 100 comedians and actors tell or discuss the joke in various ways, from the filthiest they can muster, to turning the joke on its head, to complete incomprehensibility. During this parade of grossness, the same people discuss various elements of the joke, sometimes dragging the details and opinions out to pointless ramblings that make you eager to hear someone else. The editing done is also so fast, abrupt, and noticeable that you lose all rhythm sometimes and it feels more like MTV than a documentary. Everyone will have their favorite joketellers - in this case, mine were Bob Saget (probably the filthiest, I'll never look at Saget the same way again), Gilbert Gottfried (although his Dirty Jokes DVD is better), Billy the Mime ("told" on a public street), Larry Storch (hysterical in a British fogey accent), and Peter Pitofsky (as absurd as absurdism can get).

***1/2 out of *****

Jules Verne, Monty Python, and Jackie Chan

It's too bad that this film bombed so badly in the theaters, it's actually a very well-done comedy romp. Sure, some of the guest stars and cameos don't quite fit right (although they're rarely boring), and Jackie Chan's character's quest seems tacked on to explain his casting. But otherwise, it's a relatively fast-paced, full length feature with a lot of comedy that seems very reminiscent of old Monty Python sketches (it's even got a cameo by John Cleese). It also makes unique, creative, and whimsical use of CG animated transitions and steampunk inventions to color the storyline and up the energy levels. Additonally, the supporting characters are wildly colorful and clownish, something I usually only see in Coen Brothers films. Add in the clever and not-often-enough used idea of cameos by famous historical figures and it all works out to an enjoyable and silly family film with just enough action, fantasy, and wackiness to balance well.

**** out of *****

Attack on a police station

The best way to describe AoP13 is that it's a "gothic action". Phone lines cut, no power, in a blizzard, now add a lot of guns guns guns! The characters are relatively likeable, especially Laurence Fishburne who pretty much makes the movie by himself, chewing up scenery left and right with an anti-Morpheus act. It's generally a standard against-incredible-odds action shoot-em-up. The parts that are predictable are horribly so, although there are a few good twists of didn't-see-that-coming. Unfortunately, it suffers from a massive, gaping plot hole during the climax when our hero is running around in an industrial park in Detroit - and then, without a segue of any kind, he's running around in the deepest forest miles away from the city. Either something was critically cut from the plot or the script overlooked a blatant plot hole that really jars the ending.

*** out of *****

N/A

Yes, there were funny parts. But it's like reading a funny book a second time - you laugh less and less at the jokes because you've seen it before. Mini-Me is old. The car jokes are old. The 60's musical numbers are old. Dr. Evil is old. The foreign bad guys are old. The franchise is truly scraping bottom, at this point becoming no more than an unoriginal tv series. Even the FX were bad. Full credit for humor, no credit whatsoever for originality.
The few bright spots: Nathan Lane, the opening 3 minutes, the mole, and Nathan Lane.

** out of *****

Old guy stays young through pranks

This film is from Czechoslovakia and features a very likeable main character and his friend who run around town like teenagers, playing jokes and pranks, to the distress of his moribund wife who is only contemplating her upcoming funeral. The film is more touching than funny, although it has a few laughs. It's very slow going, so you gotta like the pace. It doesn't have much of an impact, but it does have a satisfying conclusion.

*** out of *****

Howard Hughes biopic

This film is, in a large part, a morbid human interest story. Not because of Howard Hughes' various issues, but due to the fact that so much time is spent dwelling on them. The progression goes like this: planes, planes, girlfriend, planes, girlfriend, crazy, planes, girlfriend, crazy, girlfriend, crazy, crazy, planes, crazy, crazy, crazy, girlfriend, crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy, etc. Decreasing time is spent on his work with aviation and movies and an unsettling amount is spent on schadenfreude. Unfortunately, this serves to lord over his sickness rather than his good works. It also reduces the interest level in the film, turning it into a by-the-numbers recipe biodrama. While DiCaprio does quite an aggressive performance, he can't support nearly three hours of lurid obsession with his character's condition. Good film, poor portrayal.

*** out of *****