H

The first of a set of stage musicals put to film that I wanted to try out, I had been expecting them to be a bit of a dated slog. Imagine my surprise as, right from the outset, I was quite enamored with this one. It has a "Harold & Maude" overtone, featuring a cast of hippies who try and teach a southern boy destined for military service to do whatever he wants whenever he wants. Most of the musical numbers are catchy and engaging, although they do tend to sometimes feature people just standing around and not doing much, and are at times deeply politically incorrect. There's little to no special effects - mostly just people frolicing around in Central Park. There's plenty of humor and a surprisingly strong and unexpected ending. It's great that even though it has a 70's vibe, the material still stands up to be enjoyable now. A fun and meaningful film.

**** out of *****

After seeing Cecil B. Demented (which I liked) and Polyester (which I didn't like), I cringe at the thought of going under John Waters's knife. Imagine my relief to know that Hairspray is not quite the ugly social window that many of his other films are. This is the original version, not the recent remake. Centered around 1960s racism and attempts at integration, the story of Tracy Turnblad's regional rise up the ladder of fame for her dance moves is a welcoming upbeat tale. There's still an undercurrent of off-color, but it's mostly in the form of wackiness rather than psychosis. The acting itself isn't particularly adept, feeling like it came right off the stage in all its overperforming hamhandedness, and the plot is rather docile, but I shouldn't complain too much as long as this is no Pink Flamingos. Cute, but not particularly memorable.

*** out of *****

Stupid, stupid people get stupidly killed.

Talking about not standing up to the test of time... Halloween has absolutely no value as a film anymore. This movie is only worthwhile for the laugh factor. It's prime MST3K material. The production values are embarassingly bad, the goofs are glaringly obvious, and the script is hysterically awful. The acting is totally dimensionless. Maybe the granddaddy of cliches has finally been worn down to a nub by the rip-offs and parodies. We laughed all the way through it. Totally not scary.

* out of *****

Killer kills, victims scream, blah blah blah...

Ok, credit where credit is due: this film is not as laughably bad as the first one. That doesn't prevent it from being almost totally uninteresting. The film moves glacially and has become just as cliched as the original. Almost no scares, predictable, zero character depth or creativity. The entire film is just an assembly line of victims, the progression is mechanical. Production values are up, interest is still negligible.

*1/2 out of *****

Girl power! After a bit of slavery...

This film was recommended during the same time period that I was renting political documentaries and films like 1984. While better than the film adaptation of Orwell's novel, this book-turned-film from Margaret Atwood also receives a lackluster treatment. The film watches like a cross between a Harlequin Romance and Linda Hamilton's character in Terminator. The quality of the presentation is right off of a made-for-tv movie on LifeTime or Oxygen, including the suggestion rather than visualization of injury and death. This film also has embedded lessons, but they are made vague in the mushy presentation and occasional lack of continuity or exposition. The tension levels are only just barely enough to keep a viewer interested, but definitely not enough for a recommendation.

** out of *****

Oh dear god...

Probably one of the hardest-to-watch, most offensive, blackest comedies I've ever seen. It's not rated for reasons that quickly become obvious. The story follows the intertwined lives of members of a family dealing with such issues as worthlessness, perversion, gruesome murder (no gore), apathy, and child rape. Incredibly difficult to sit through some scenes without squirming in revulsion. Deals almost entirely with sex. The last 30 seconds of the movie are particularly fetal-position inducing. I think this was more squick-ridden than Meet the Feebles...

I don't want to rate this movie, but not because it's bad.

Family tries to keep their hotel alive while their guests aren't.

This Japanese film came to us on a recommendation. A bad recommendation. The first five minutes of the film are a great setup for a total mindf*ck, surreal, unexpected, and inexplicable. The other 85 minutes of the film are nearly unbearable, humorless, nonsense. It seems to have been written by a five year old and performed by mentally handicapped middle schoolers. Abrupt (and boring) musical numbers interrupt inopportunely and jarringly. The movie can't decide if it's an unfunny comedy or a Shatner-esque drama. Definitely the worst I've seen in a while.

*1/2 out of *****

Uhmmm...pretty much what the title says.

This is a classic road trip kind of movie. Moreso in fact because it's basically just a string of anecdotes tacked together. Some are dull, some are hysterical ("This your special bush? You king of the forest?"), and some downright nonsensical. But that's what you get from a movie about the hunt for White Castle and marijuana. The film goes where it wants when it wants and you just follow along like a silly puppy dog. There's really nothing of value here, but isn't that the point? There are some times where it becomes *really* worthless, but they're outnumbered by the general feelgood vibe it gives off. A nothing movie to watch when you've got nothing better to do.

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

Death-obsessed teen falls for an upbeat older woman.

Interesting combination of stuffy elitism and eccentric rebelliousness. Harold's scenes of suicide are hysterical, especially at such inopportune moments. The characters are also both likable. The story suffers from slow-pacing as well, unfortunately, in addition to a few scenes that we'd generally accept, but would prefer remained in the privacy of a closed bedroom. When the movie is funny, it is very funny, but when it's not, I'd be changing the channel if it was on tv.

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

The further adventures of Harry Potter.

I like to think of the Harry Potter films as a skewed version of Indiana Jones, just younger and with more of a tilt to the occult instead of adventure. The film starts out as if the previous one never ended, like the next chapter in a book. It has the same look, feel, and experience of the original, exactly on par. The only significant difference is that, while still being wildly inventive and creative, it's substituted some whimsicality for some more frightening moments, at least for kids. For me, that just made it more exciting. :) There were a few too many coincidental events left completely unexplained, but the spirit of the film strives to make you brush them off as easily as you do the magic. Unfortunately, there's a difference between logical progression and fictional fantasy. Nevertheless, the film winds up as a thrilling whodunnit with a solid climax and a very satisfying conclusion. There's even a furry in it!

**** out of *****

The fourth installement

When I go see a Harry Potter film, I can be guaranteed several things. I know that I'm going to see a good movie. I know that several times during the film, I'm going to be smiling, even giggling, at the visually unique and creative inventive fantasy visualized on screen. I know that I'm going to see characters that I remember and have grown to look forward to seeing again. And I know that I won't be let down. So far, all these have been proven true. This fourth film is a wild adventure, filled with zany and well-fictionalized characters, an exciting story, and lovable familiarity. It even utilizes recurring characters from earlier films to forward itself, which is greatly appreciated. Despite the injection of teen drama and a little too overused three-trials plot, it advances the story in hand with the previous films so that I eagerly await the next installment. Don't miss Hagrid's giant polka-dot tie, it's a strikingly silly visual.

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

After so many films in the series, a sameness begins to set in and you have to wait a few days before the fog clears and you can begin to concertedly examine the good and the bad of each of the new Harry Potter films. OotP picks up very quickly from the start and is a bit disorienting if you've forgotten how the prior film went. It took me half the movie to remember who all the characters were without any helpful expositional reintroductions. As usual, the story is fun and inventive, with energetic subplots, cheerful resolutions, and an exciting climax full of violent magic that is well overdue for the series. Some elements didn't seem to have a purpose (the introduction of Luna Lovegood) and there were a few more plotholes than usual (including the massive one involving everyone riding the invisible horse-things). Overall, with the exception of one significant event, it seemed to be more of a gap-filler than an evolution or progressive continuity. Still quite fun, but not the strongest in the series.

**** out of *****

Eventually about a mad wizard after Harry.

By the time the film gets around to actually being about what the title of the movie purports, it's already run though at least a dozen miscellaneous side-plots and setups that don't particularly seem relevant. They're definitely whimsical and enjoyable, but upon reflection they were often non-sequitur, serving to forward the characters in the franchise rather than the film in particular. Aside form that, tho, the movie is filled once again with brilliant inventiveness, reusing old tricks in new ways and inventing clever new ones. It's still got plenty of humor and the characters are all familiar. It's even got furries! Be sure to watch the extremely well-designed closing credits sequence.

**** out of *****

Eddie Murphy vs Disney rides

Ok, let's get the good out of the way first: there are a few mild chuckles out of this movie. The sets are extraordinary and very detailed. The special features are fun. Uh...that's it. Otherwise, this movie is oftentimes simply difficult to watch. Eddie Murphy plays a VERY annoying urban-comedy character with two VERY annoying kids who somehow wandered into a Victorian-era haunted house. The house and the ghosts think they're in a horror movie, and Eddie Murphy thinks he's in Beverly Hills Cop again. The clash is nearly unwatchable. These two elements do not go together at all. The film is a great movie ruined by Eddie and blatant pandering to the urban crowd.

*1/2 out of *****

High school nihilism

I'd only seen parts of this film before, and even then through a fuzzy, scrambled cable tv signal back in my high school days. I figured that it's time to get the full feature . Maybe I should've done so when I was younger, because the movie certainly looks and feels dated now. The movie was made in 1989, but feels like early 80s. It's also very clearly a root basis for Christian Slater's future movie, Very Bad Things, which unfortunately makes said film look somewhat more of a hack job. The movie has some snarky dark humor, but it's never really on target and just winds up being insulting these days (Bottled water = gay? What?). Even the ending doesn't really seem sincere - the exercise seems to have come from a very bitter writer rather than a wry point of view.

** out of *****

Murder in New Zealand

This film is a 1994 Peter Jackson-directed real-life drama that tells the story of the deep friendship between two girls and their descent into fantasy, madness, and murder. By the end, you come to realize how cruel the movie actually is, making you love and enjoy the main characters and then throwing your sensibilities to the dirt. The imaginary elements during the course are rather entertaining and pure Jackson, if a little complex and inexplicable at times. The movie really bothered me when it was over and I had to wonder for a bit why it was made. What's the moral lesson the viewer is supposed to come away with after all that dread and chain-yanking? Still, it's well made and does what it set out to do.

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

Sequel to original Heavy Metal

There are comparisons that can be made between the original film and this new one. The original had cleverly tied-together vignettes while 2K has one continuous story. The original's animation was more detailed and varied from the serious to the wacky while 2K rips off Aeon Flux, uses half the framerate, ugly character design, and stays mostly serious throughout. Both have gratuitous nudity. 2K has giant lizardmen. The original's soundtrack was melodic, vocal rock, but 2K's soundtrack jumps from orchestral score to awful screaming, monotone thrash metal and back in a terrible juxtaposition of genres. Both have heaping helpings of graphic violence. 2K has mediocre-to-godawful CG. In all, 2K seems more like a weak fan-made shadow of the original with enough snarky laughs, cartoony violence, and cornball content to make it watchable.

** out of *****

Shaft + There's Something About Mary + Yentl

This film has pretty much the identical level of humor as a Ben Stiller comedy. Apparently, it seems to have been made from a student film and is propelled by grants from Comedy Central (based on the ads and short film in the bonus features). The fluff-factor is pretty high and it often feels like a Jewish version of Undercover Brother - not particularly deep, but very silly. There's plenty of laughs to be had and it manages to avoid being offensive. There's also a surprising number of cameos for a low-budget indie release. If you like parody humor and machine-gun gags ala Naked Gun, this would fit the bill.

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

Apathetic demon fights half-assed baddies.

I'd gone to see Hellboy due to the generally positive reviews it'd received. It was fun in a general sense. The clockwork bad guy was very cool, as well as the Abe Sapiens character. A few good fight scenes. Well-executed in terms of violence sans blood. However (here we go...), the main character was apathetic and banal. There was never a sense of danger or risk, Perlman's character was an indestructible force and indestructible forces are boring. The Samael critter was cool - the first time. After the second appearance, it was no longer menacing. The femme bad-person was no more than a post-it note. The main baddie was non-threatening. The finale was lame lame lame. I can easily compare this to Resident Evil with only slightly more creative characters.

** out of *****

Nebbish rescues plane crash victims

I'm not a huge fan of Dustin Hoffman, but his character in this film is both likeable and unlikeable at the same time, as well as pretty funny. It's also one of the more strangely amusing depictions of a plane crash and rescue you'll ever see. Hoffman plays a cranky petty crook with only one nice bone in his body that's overexerted, and then treated to the old axiom: no good deed ever goes unpunished. He wanders through the movie grumbling and muttering snarky comments. There's a lot of classic 80's faces in the film, too, from bit players to big names, including a huge, funny, and uncredited part by Chevy Chase. The film plays out with the same score, sountrack, and atmosphere that you usually expect from those years (late 80s/early 90s), depicting negative events with cartoonish and even slapstick good humor. It's quite feel-good and a neat stereotype of a different film era.

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

Father/Daughter bonding thriller

Featuring Robert DeNiro in one of his more unnotable performances, this film appears designed to freak out parents, particularly single parents, as well as stealing ideas from other movies (can't tell you which ones or the whole "twist" would be given away). The performances are relatively mundane and uninspired, it almost seems to take place in a box with the development being inevitable rather than scripted. You can pretty much tell what's going to happen at any given time. When Dad gets up to go to the creepy bathroom in the middle of the night for the third time, you know what's in there already. It's got some mediocre scares, standard gimmicks, and the daughter looks like Wednesday Addams. In all, it's an absolutely unremarkable suspense film.

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

Historical look at stereotypical toys

This documentary was produced before the turn of the century, so it's rather light on the recent revolution in Euro gaming or modern videogames. However, based on the content covered, those may not have been included anyway. When they say "history", they mean History. Much time is spent exploring toy cars and trains from the early 1900s and marbles from Egyptian times. A disproportionate amount of time is spent on dolls. While it doesn't get to quite the drudgerous level of examining doll fashion or models, it does cover their evolution from effigies to Barbies. The doc is narrated by John Ritter, another sign of the material being dated. Only brief mentions are given to videogaming (in the form of VR), Dungeons & Dragons, or board and card games. The focus tends mainly to be on toys and games for children, which assumedly has a wider audience. It's also a bit long at nearly two hours, so you have to be really interested.

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

Movie adaptation of the book

If there were ever a movie that epitomized the concept of 'Americanization', HGttG would be that movie. You've got a particularly bombproof Arthur Dent, a flavorless Ford Prefect, and an Owen Wilson wannabe as Zaphod, all surrounded by the most expensive CG money can buy to distract you from the fact that the movie is just plain dumb. The book was filled with humorous absurdism within a plot. This film is trying to stuff a plot into humorless absurdism. It's just not funny and, in many cases, it's wincingly annoying. Elaborate scenes are added for no conceiveable purpose. Critical plot points and some of the best scenes from the book are altered or eliminated to suck all the life out of them. It's simply implemented ruinously. They do get small kudos for managing to rein in the CG enough to portray the aliens with animatronics, prosthetics, and costumes - an authenticating technique long abandoned by other directors.

*1/2 out of *****

Kids dig holes for cruel master.

As much good as I'd heard about the film, it turns out that it's only valid if you don't look past the surface. Sure, after you watch, there's a feelgood sensation over it, but sleep on it one night and the judgement FLOWS. The film is basically an overlong Afterschool Special. The CG is laughable, particularly if you know anything about critters. Editing really needs help - in one scene, a hole develops stairs. While it's not candy-coated, it reeks of Little Rascals: The Next Generation mentality. The story is decent and the characters are amusing, but it just doesn't stand up to the test of big-screen filmmaking.

*** out of *****

Killing 2D animation

One must ask oneself - was this a deliberate attempt to drive a nail into 2D's coffin? It certainly was an expert try. Pretty much everything about this movie is awful. The animation retreats to the worst phase in Disney's history, the angular and pointy style of Hercules. The protagonists have the charisma of mud and are led by Roseanne, probably the most unengaging voice actor in a decade. Toss in hip-hop pop-culture references every five seconds, obligatory urbanized supporting characters to appeal to the city kids, misanthropomorphization (cows with prehensile tails?), the singular utmost worst musical number in any Disney film to date both visually and aurally, and absolutely nothing threatening whatsoever...and you have this movie. You should also be able to pick out self-loathing furry fan Shawn Keller's character animation at the drop of a hat.

*1/2 out of *****

Awful fairy tale cliches

The best part of this movie: Japeth, the goat. For no good reason, they abruptly throw in a non-sequitur, absurdist scene of a yodeling goat who sings a silly, catchy song and has absolutely no relevance to the rest of the plot except as a deus ex machina. Needs more Japeth. The rest of the movie blew. Everything was a ripoff of everything else. Patrick Warburton just phoned in his Kronk role from Emperor's New Groove (seriously, he has only one voice). Red stole her martial arts moves from Shrek. Twitchy is just a combination of Scrat and Hammy from Over The Hedge. And the entire plot is a mechanic used often in tv sitcoms. The CG is awful and the character designs range from deep in the uncanny valley to just some geometrical shapes stuck together - it often looks like it wasn't actually finished. It's not funny. And the ending is soul-crushingly predictable from about 30 minutes in. The 1/2 star is for Japeth, the rest is deservedly one-star material.

*1/2 out of *****

Dramatization of events surrounding a hotel during the 1994 Rwandan genocide

Talk about powerful films. It's been a long time since I've actually shed a tear while watching a movie, but that counter has been reset after watching Hotel Rwanda. It wasn't even the acts of violence that did it, it was instead the shameful abandonment of the Rwandan citizens as the UN evacuated all foreigners. It's a very strong depiction of events, with some parts a bit fictionalized. Additionally, it details events surrounding the hotel, but leaves the politics a little bare. As reported by many, it has a lot of similarities to Schindler's List, but survives on its own as a different story in a different time. Don Cheadle as the main character is excellent. Definitely worth seeing, an important and moving retelling.

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

Depression, supposedly.

I've heard it said that this movie is for women, but it came recommended so I watched it anyway. Yeah, it's rather depressing. Three women in three time periods, each connected by a single element. However, I tended to see some more sinister undercurrent morals in the subtext. Women are happier in lesbian lives? Marrying men is equivalent to death? Sometimes you have to destroy people's lives to make yourself happy? I could follow the themes of being unable to cope, being bereft of defense mechanisms, and unable to avoid confronting all life's burdens, but it tended to come out all muddled, as expressing an emotion without words. Nevertheless, fantastic character that I've never seen before by famous stars. I was particularly stunned by Ed Harris' transformation.

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

Ravers vs Zombies

At first, you think that it's just campy. Then it appears to be deliberately trying to be bad. Finally, you understand that this is just a bad movie. A bad bad bad bad bad movie. I don't recall ever wanting to fall asleep during an action sequence. More bullet time, from the exact same perspective, repetetively, than every movie that's ever used bullet time all added together. Embarassingly bad acting and dialogue. Brain dead plot. Logical sinkholes. This is a movie to actively dislike, to pro-actively loathe. It's just too stupid to watch. Don't even see it on cable. Save yourselves.

* out of *****

Romance/Action asian import

The good things about this film are the action and the twists. The fight scenes are quite unique and very well choreographed. The wire-fu is recognizeable, but just barely below the disbelieveability radar. The political twists of the script are also quite cool, especially when they hit you almost all at once. Alas, this movie was unable to hold onto that momentum all the way through. The romance scenes, which consist mainly of kissing, hugging, and two attempted rapes, drag the pacing to a crawl and seem to serve to merely lengthen the film. While the aforementioned action sequences are good, the CG used in them alternates between fantastic and jarringly awful. Most troublesome is the climax, which appears to have been ripped straight from Reservoir Dogs. If you're into the recent asian import blockbusters, this film fits right in, but while it's nice to watch, it's definitely the worst of the lot so far.

*** out of *****

It's a castle. It moves. What?

As Miyazaki progresses in his filmmaking endeavors, his movies just get more and more whimsical as they go along. He's definitely got an imagination, although this time it's buoyed by the fact that the movie is loosely based on someone else's story. Either way, there's all sorts of creative touches that really make the film fun to watch - you never know what new fantasy element will turn up next. The characters are generally mellow and likeable. More time is spent on the interminable everyday activities than plot development, however, which is a hallmark of Miyazaki's films. The newer ones manage to keep the viewer awake with the imagery through this, but you can only be distracted for so long. The story only seems to catch up with itself in the last fifteen minutes or so, when a climax and resolution are suddenly remembered and crammed into the end, so johnny-come-lately that it runs under the closing song and even the credits, resulting in some inexplicable actions and some "buh, wha?" moments. Overall a pleasant and imaginative movie.

**** out of *****

Biopic on Ray Johnson

Through interviews with family and friends as well as old video footage, the film documents the life of Ray Johnson, a fringe pop-culture artist from the 60s who associated with the likes of Christo and Andy Warhol, but never attained their level of fame and recognition. His works are along the lines of clip-art, mail-art, and absurdism. One piece involves him dropping hot dogs from a helicopter onto a upper-class party. Another has him beating a cardboard box with his belt and tie for an hour. His eventual suicide reminded me very much of Spaulding Gray. While the documentary is interesting, the really wild stuff is too few and far between. The rest of the time, what could be made entertaining is reduced to talking heads.

** out of *****

Small-town grad makes big-city good, Brazil-style.

First, let's talk about the first 30 mins of the film. Probably some of the best Coen-brothers work I've seen. Blazingly caricatured characters, machine-gun dialogue delivery, and borderline-fantasy plot and environments. It roars like a freight train, tasting both of "Brazil" and "O Brother, Where Art Thou". For some reason, the movie sours after that first 30 minutes. The snappy dialogue is still there, but the film's blown its characters and whimsy already. The rest of the way, you're starving for the dribs and drabs of high expectations the film began with. This makes the unexpected climax all that more jarring, and the ending jarring again in its predictability. This film is a good intro to early Coen material, before they finessed their art into gems.

*** out of *****

Visual documentary gone slightly awry

The best way to describe this film is a cross between Koyaanisquatsi and Magnolia. It's a lightly humorous and visually entrancing film with an undercurrent of broken. Lots of imagery of Eastern European rural life, including sheepherding, wildlife, harvesting - a generally slow montage of the activities of a small hamlet, interrupted on occasion by satellites, x-rays, and air force jets. And there's a police car driving around. It's very much a puzzle that you need to put together yourself since there's no narrative to do it for you, and it requires the viewer to pay close attention. A unique piece of work that's as much a film as it is a mental game, with surprising amounts of out-of-place FX.

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

Guy turns green, smashes puny humans.

Wow, talk about a disappointment. The movie definitely tries very hard to be a comic book, with every segue being some inventive new FX fade or switch. This puts a very non-serious onus on things because they're very jarring. A lot of scenes in the film make about as much sense as a comic book, too, that is to say almost none. There's no reason for Banner getting angry the first time, for example, he just does for no good reason at all. The long, long stretches of nothing in the first half of the film just bores you to tears and, unbelieveably, the unrealistic on/off action in the second half is even worse. It's just a comic book movie, you say, how can you ask for realism? It's a live-action translation. Without transcribing the ridiculous comic bookery to reality, it ends up being Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Almost unwatchable.

* out of *****

The conspiracy against Bill Clinton

Think you know all about what happened with Monica and Bill? Well, forget Monica and Bill - they're not even the story. This documentary, narrated by Morgan Freeman, goes all the way back to Clinton's original election and then some, detailing the fraud, corruption, backroom agreements, and outright irrational and possibly illegal efforts to discredit and destroy the president. It covers Whitewater, Ken Starr, and other organizations and events and exposes them as non-independent and partisan as you can get. The concerted effort clearly demonstrates where the "we can do anything we want" GOP mentality gained solid footing. It watches a little dry, like any political doc might, and sometimes rushes through complicated connections a little hard to follow. But it has a humorous set of epilogue epithets.

**** out of *****