T

Mocking marionettes

You have to really put some actual effort forward to deliberately create a film this stupid. The laughs come beyond dirt-cheap and are almost entirely based on gory (yes, they try to make marionettes gory) violence, puppet sex, or swearing. It's got the same humor and even voices as South Park does (made by the same guys). It's got one song that repeats at least four times or more during the film, which, while funny at first, gets tiresome. There are laughs here, but they're drunken fratboy giggles that you regret having to watch. Particularly the unrated version of the puppet sex scene, which was more screamingly unnecessarily gross than funny. The best laugh, I'm ashamed to admit, was the hero puking for two minutes straight. The technology and puppeteering is excellent, so it's such a disappointment that it was wasted on this level of humor.

** out of *****

Apartment hunting can drive you crazy.

Definitely an odd movie, very darkly humored. Much of the time, it's very dry and European, but every now and then you catch a glimpse of crazy psycho underneath. Unfortunately, the film doesn't entirely know how to express itself. The main character's descent into personal hell proceeds without elaboration, leaving the viewer wondering if they missed some valuable exposition. Still, it retains a solid Hitchcock-ian style and ending, although the getting-there is definitely perplexingly eccentric.

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

Fictionalization of Merhan Karimi Nasseri's story

Steven Spielberg is known for his epic, usually uplifting stories of heroes in various settings. This movie is no different, but it goes to great lengths to take a true story and convert it to formulaic Spielbergian. In the process, something is lost. There's a lot of humor in the film and the typical life trials the character undertakes. But the romance and goal is tacked on, the beginning of the film is not credible, and, in typical form, the movie ends long after it really should have. I love seeing Stanely Tucci doing his thing and I think I liked him even better than Tom Hanks. It's just unfortunate that the adaptation process to convert a tragic true story had to pervert it so utterly so as to lose the whole point of the ongoing struggle in reality.

*** out of *****

A documentary about bunnies.

First off, T3 is an adequate sequel to the franchise. It keeps the action high and maintains the same general feel as the prior films, at least superficially. It reminded me of the good 'ol classic sci-fi action films that I haven't seen much of recently. There was enough tongue-in-cheek to keep it from becoming too dismal. The actors were all earnest and didn't lack for intensity. On the other hand, they weren't really going above and beyond, either. In fact, there really weren't any memorable scenes in the movie that weren't already parodies of the prior films. Plotholes also abounded almost to the point of voiding suspension of disbelief. It's definitely worth seeing, but it's also definitely the least of the three films.

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

The general gist of the film, as I gather it to be, is to be a snarky, subtle protest at the tobacco industry and its practices of indoctrinating children to cigarettes, and its apathy towards their product's harm, among other negative attributes. But is it possible to be too subtle? Too snarky? Wink too much? Can satire go too far? Unfortunately, this film demonstrates that it can. The nudge-nudge method of communicating the intended message is completely lost in the absolute earnestness with which the anti-hero is portrayed and the opposite message is conveyed. The end result is that the moral is buried behind the opaqueness of determination with which the writer and director put towards the opposing theme. If a viewer didn't know any better, the movie could be believeably interpreted as an advocation of the tobacco industry. The creators earn kudos for so perfectly imitating the attitude, demeanor, intentions, corruption, and eliciting a number of laughs, albeit of horror rather than clued-in good humor. The actors are overly clever caricatures, each with their own arguments that are both ridiculous and all too real (with the exception of JK Simmons, who just repeats his J Jonah Jameson role from Spider-Man). But what comes across is more like being punched in the face and asked "Don't you get it?", leaving the viewer to come away bruised instead of educated.

*** out of *****

Ew.

I think this marks a record for me: the most number of times I've said "Ew" in a movie. Ew. Eeeeeew! Ew ew ew!!! Definitely in my top ten gore list, it's close to Dead Alive. Every third scene involves gruesome slimebeasts, vivid autopsies, internal organs, or some other level of ultraviolence. Nevermind that it was made in 1982, it's still nightmarish today - to the point that it almost eliminates its own scare factor. While the film is well put together, in a cliched manner, it feels like a movie version of Are You A Werewolf, paranoia and accusation running rampant. That was a great part of the movie when you could keep the bile down. Avoid if you can't take gore. Avoid if you don't want to see animals killed. Avoid if you don't like slimebeasts. Otherwise, this is a fun and whimsical romp. Oh, and Wilford Brimley tears some guy's face off.

*** out of *****

Dramatic retelling of Cuban Missile Crisis

I'm not usually one for political dramas, tho I'm getting moreso as time goes on, so I was kinda blase about renting this one and tossed it into my queue as filler. Now I can say I'm glad I rented it because it was quite gripping and entertaining throughout. The film is quite long, but the time flies by. Very little action, but plenty of tension and suspense. I wasn't very knowledgeable about the events depicted, so it was also educational in a Hollywood kinda way. Drawbacks included the on/off over-the-top accents and the annoying switches to black & white early on which were jarring.

**** out of *****

While the goal of this documentary is to get behind the scenes (and under the skin) of the MPAA, it does so by spending nearly all its time on two goals: pointing out titillating sex scenes and stalking MPAA raters. The goal of the former is to point out the discrepancies between rating violence and rating sex, as well as rating different kinds of sex, but the disproportionate coverage of violence on screen is very noticeable. The latter's sole aim is to expose the identities and personal information of the employee raters that the MPAA doesn't wish to divulge. This seems quite mean-spirited all the way up the the final scene where they divulge the identities of the appeals board, a different group entirely, and who they happen to be is rather disturbing. The information is presented in an MTV-style zap, biff, pow montage of graphical factoids and humor. The information between the lines is noteworthy, but for the most part not really damning. The director seems to spend most of his time running around in giddy glee, playing "gotcha" with a couple PIs.

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

Sequel to Saludos Amigos

This is a sequel to Saludos Amigos and runs about twice as long. It still acts as a South American travelogue, but most of it is animated or a mixture rather than live-action scenes. It centers around Donald Duck receiving a gift package from his southern friends which consists of a few intertwined cartoons, the reappearance of Jose Caricola, and the introduction of a new character: Panchito, a rooster-like cowboy from Mexico. Together, they visit various souther countries and sample the culture and women, but in the usual chaste Disney way. The last third of the film degenerates into what can only be interpreted as a bad acid trip, with wild changes in animation, colors, scenes, swirling tapestries, and no continuity whatsoever. It's slightly better than the first in that there's more content, more characters, and it isn't just four cartoons tied together, but there's still no real plot. Another interesting utopian timepiece.

*** out of *****

Trilogy of asian horror

Asian horror films are notably different from their US counterparts. This is most evident when a film is remade by the US, like The Ring or Pulse. While the western industry tends to go for the teen ooga-booga scare, eastern cinema portrays it in disturbing, freaky fashion. This collection of three short films by renowned directors of the genre makes good on that style. The first film, "Dumplings", emphasizes the squick factor - from the very first few minutes, you want to cover your eyes. The amazing thing is that it's done without gore or scares. The second film, "Cut", is a Tarantino-esque ultraviolet black comedy that's very fun to watch. The third, "Box", is an artsy, Tales From The Crypt or Tales From The Darkside-like painting that features some of the classic elements you may be aware of in the form of spirits and creepiness. These are very well-made films and fun to watch, but they all suffer from the fundamental flaw of becoming incomprehensible in the last few minutes. Things go wonderfully for the majority, but the last scene of each one doesn't make logical sense. Perhaps it's designed to make us think? Instead, it disappointed. Worth seeing for the rest of it, though.

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

Logan's Run with bald people

The film that we saw was the Lucas digi-fied Director's Cut which had the benefit of a very clean film with crisp pictures and sound, but also the CG assault that was forced upon the original Star Wars movies. There's plenty of pretty obvious and jarring fix-ups for a movie made in 1971, and the film was supposedly violently re-edited to dumb it down. Looking beyond that, however, it's otherwise a decent film, if a little blatantly reminiscent of Logan's Run. It requires a little patience since the scenes are rather slow and drawn out (it originated from a college short film), but many of the scenes have a very dark and cynical humor to them to keep it from being too lifeless. Not too bad and nice to have on one's resume of films seen.

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

To those who have never read the original series of comics in which The Tick appeared, the animated TV series may seem a little weird. Ok, a lot weird. Just as its published predecessor, the cartoon version is about an eternally blue-clad, nigh-invulnerable superhero and his meek, eternally bunnysuit mothsuit-clad sidekick fighting a parody of crime amidst The City crowded with C-list superheroes. Our hero spends much time in glib pronouncements of heroic-sounding, yet absurd prose (Unsightly!), and obliviously wanton violence. But it's for kids, and as such, the more mature humor of the comics is watered down for Saturday morning cartoons. The results are somewhat more of a shadow than a reflection. Comedy is found about three or four times per 20-minute episode, but the rest is generally adolescent writing. The animation, while respectful to the comics, doesn't translate well to moving pictures and is in some cases simply bad and of low framerate and no budget. Gone are the hints of Tick's prior insanitarium residence. No ninjas, no hedges. There's still plenty of recognizeable material carried over to reminisce about, tho. It's a pleasant diversion and the total watching time is only a few hours, so the fluffiness is still worth a try.

*** out of *****

As a previously-admitted fan of the original comic book series, which was a parody of superhero comics to begin with, I can only look upon this short-lived tv series as a parody of a parody. For the most part, each episode can pretty accurately be defined as 'insipid'. Unfortunately, enough insipidness can grow on you and I found myself starting to enjoy the episodes in a backwards, bizarro way. The Tick, played by one-note Patrick Warburton, doesn't translate to live-action. Especially without the trademark cartoonish goggles, the lack of which reveals his eyes that add far too much expression for a cartoon character, or the blatantly animatronic flailing antenna. The series is desperately low-budget, and thus focuses mainly on inane slice-of-life comedy (there's the 'gay' episode, the 'infidelity' episode, etc), which ends up being comical when you consider the characters such as BatManuel and Captain Liberty, both ripoffs of ripoffs of the comic themselves. This series shouldn't have been attempted because it's ridiculous, and because it's ridiculous I sometimes found it funny, and I hated myself for finding it funny.

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

Now here's a rather unique movie experience. The screen is split into four quadrants. Each quadrant is a separate camera following a different individual or individuals for 90 uninterrupted minutes. As the film progresses, these people cross paths, interact, and endure cause & effects from those interactions. The entire film, including critical points and several earthquakes, is depicted as a chart on the menu, showing where each quadrant crosses over with another quadrant. Your attention is directed to individual quadrants by volume levels of conversation in them. Pretty nifty, huh? While the concept and technical execution is great, this is unfortunately hamstrung by the acting. The script is a skeletal structure which the actors improvise around. So when one quadrant is in focus, all three other quadrants have to make stuff up to appear as if they're keeping busy, which becomes painfully obvious during long stretches without focus, standing around, staring into space, repeating themselves, talking very slowly, etc. The film quality is that of a reality television handicam, without the intense drama that's usually captured in those shows. The script has all the excitement of a daytime soap opera. This is a cool idea, but ruined by lame improv and lack of a script.

** out of *****

Connecticut Yankee with a sci-fi twist

I'd heard godawful reviews for this film, but I took a gamble to see it anyway and was pleasantly surprised. While it's painfully predictable and cliched, its execution isn't quite as atrocious as is led to believe. The film has some fun sci-fi elements, clumsy romance, likeable characters, and implements a few good scares and adventure. When it goes bad, it goes very bad (ex: rebar in a medieval wall that disappears). But not so far as to ruin a mildly entertaining popcorn flick.

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

Survival in post-apocalypse France

The description of this film sounded great: a family trying to survive in France after an unnamed catastrophe occurs. Cool! Unfortunately, "cool" is not the approach I would describe the film as having undertaken. This movie is DEEPLY unpleasant to watch, right from the outset in the first five minutes. And it just gets worse from there. There is nothing positive in the film, it's merely a downward spiral of human suffering and torment. To make it worse, this is only the third movie (others: Apocalypse Now, Roger & Me) I've seen where a real animal is slaughtered on film and this is probably the worst of them. The film does not have an ending and one reveiwer on NetFlix wrote that the film made them feel "suicidal." The only thing the film has going for it is that it's effective - it seems designed to instill misery and despair and it succeeds wildly. I don't see any reason a person would actually desire to watch this.

** out of *****

Wild-west gunslinger team-up

It's the whole Earp family together for a reunion! Say it with me because it's funny: Earp! Earp earp earp. Ok, enough of that - Tombstone is a rather lengthy story about the confrontation between the Earp brothers and a band of outlaws, with a rather entertaining toss-in of a perpetually drunk Doc Holiday, played somewhat gleefully by Val Kilmer. It's mostly a buddy movie/western with as much gunplay as social interaction between the characters. It trends towards the rather predictable and winds down without a significant climax and with rather soggy drama that doesn't really seem to fit. I recall being told that it was extremely gory when it first came out, but there's nothing even approaching unacceptable levels of blood for the film that it is. It's generally adequate entertainment, but could use about 45 mins worth of trimming. Bring lots of popcorn.

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

As much a fan of pinball as I am, finally getting the opportunity to watch this movie was somewhat unfulfilling. I get the story of the deaf, dumb, and blind kid who becomes a pinball wizard, that's easy. It's the ridiculous plot surrounding it that makes little to no sense. Tina Turner turns in a laughable performance as the inexplicable acid queen. The scenes post-wizard diverge into drug trip territory, with a lot of cheap fx, mirror images, and a rather gross scene involving chocolate, soap, and beans. In terms of music, the majority of this isn't a "rock" opera, tho it is put to music. Instead, it seems more like a poorly written script done in singsong. Add in the counterintuitive, unresolved resolution and the film didn't end up making a whole lot of sense. There's plenty of good ideas in there, but it could do without the rock opera part.

** out of *****

More in the way of cartoonish action and adventure. This time, Bond must spoil the plans of a media mogul hoping to create the news rather than be satisfied with simply publishing it. Jonathan Pryce plays an above-average villain this time around, quite flamboyant and energetic. Michelle Yeoh appears as a competing agent, but feels tacked on, especially when featured in a gratuitous and pointless martial arts battle in the middle of the film. With the exception of the central chase scene, most of the action is run & gun battles and a mildly quirky car chase. Luckily, each one is flavored with a number of gadgets and toys to make them more interesting. Otherwise, this is simply a continuation of the same style, requiring suspension of disbelief, disregarding of major plot holes, and ignoring prefectly telegraphed predictability. More popcorn, please.

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

Trans & son, crossing the US

The huge acclaim for this film seems to mostly be directed at Felicity Huffman's performance as a soon-to-be-female transgendered male. I agree that her skill at visual and vocal portrayal was quite convincing, but that can be attributed significantly to her makeup and voice coach. In terms of acting, I really wasn't as wowed as the majority of viewers seemed to be. Her lines were stilted and unnatural, not just the speaking but the delivery. It warmed up as the film went along, so I was able to get used to it and enjoy the other elements of the film, which are mostly positive and enjoyable. It's essentially a road movie with the unique companions being Huffman's character and her delinquent son, whom she is afraid to reveal her identity to. The film is filled with mild humor, charming interaction, and dramatic moments, although none are particularly out of the ordinary or unexpected considering the situation. It acts as a primer for the intellectually uninitiated, presented in a generally non-threatening but forthright format. Some scenes get a little uncomfortable and it doesn't really resolve too well in the end, but otherwise works nicely.

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

The importance of big explodey kablam boom!

Pretty cool action film about a courier who looks inside his delivery package. Not deep in the slightest, but plenty of great action and chase sequences. Big reliance on fist-fights, but the opening sequence is just as hysterical as it is fun. A few massive plot holes and a not altogether satisfying ending, but still great filler for when you want a die-hard, hard-boiled, no-nonsense action film.

*** out of *****

I didn't know stunts could be boring

I remember the days when people actually used to perform stunts. They'd jump cars and dive off buildings and have huge, expensive and destructive chase scenes through real streets. Now, like in this movie, the stunts have become so complicated and so unbelieveable, they simply don't do them anymore. They just CG them. And that just sucks the life right out of it. Do they expect me to believe that our hero can drive down the docks, hit a ramp, barrel roll the car in midair, use a crane to knock the bomb off the bottom of it, continue the barrel roll to a four-point landing, and not have a scratch on the vehicle? Ha ha, no. The main character has become a superhero who is never bloodied, drives a car that is never damaged, is indestructible, and will attack anything without judgement or concern for the danger it poses - and he'll always win. Yawn. An action movie where there's no danger to the hero ceases to be an interesting movie.

*1/2 out of *****

Sci-fi rewrite of Treasure Island.

If only Disney could be as creative with their stories as they are with their characters, settings, jokes, etc. There's no middle ground here, half the cast of characters is really cool and half is really awful. John Silver and Captain Amelia are very very cool. The former is overflowing with personality and depth. The latter...she is just SO cool. But then you look at Jom Hawkins, who's a sterotype of every Disney child protagonist from every previous Disney film. Or the robot BEN, whose character did not match Martin Short's voice at all. The story you know already, so there's really nothing to tell. It all ends in a big Goonies-ripoff blowout.

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

More it's-funny-because-it's-not-me humor

I saw the original Trekkies documentary in the theater and people were walking out because it was often so painful to watch. This sequel is more of a global tour, visiting extreme Trek fans around the world, interspersing the segments with revisitations on people featured in the first film. This one's not quite as agonizing as the first, but there are still plenty of moments of total absurdity and craziness that even put furry fans to shame. The difference between the original and this film for me is that in the ten years between films, I've actually *met* some of the people featured in the sequel (I knew four). And if you're looking closely, you may even recognize a furry or two amongst them.

*** out of *****

Gay orthodox jews

It's hard enough being Jewish. Try being orthodox. And gay. Apparently, despite all the teachings of acceptance and virtuous lives and things, orthodox judaism is still stuck in discrimination. Rabbis still tell gays that they need therapy. This film interviews a wide scope of case studies depicting the difficulties involved being gay and orthodox in a religion that rejects them. The film is very slow and interspersed with drawn-out artsy bits that are obvious filler. It also appears to have been filmed with a very poor-quality handicam - whenever the image moves, everything suffers extreme digital blur. While educational, the film isn't very informative. It lacks narration and leans completely on interviews. The message is conveyed, but probably would've been better if it actually discussed the problem.

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

Relaxed foreign animated bike comedy/musical.

In order to see the film, you need to be patient. Imagine that a standard American comedy runs at 30mph. This film runs at around 10mph. That doesn't mean it's any less funny, it just takes its time and savors the pace, relishing the much more low-key humor as nature delivers them. The animation is ultra-artsy in that there are no beautiful images, everyone is drawn fat or ugly, and everything from cars to ships to buildings are caricatures of reality, yet excruciatingly visually detailed. Most of the music is a variation of the same main theme, which is diabolically catchy. Another interesting quirk is that it's almost totally devoid of dialogue - the film is subtitled, but subtitles are never used past the opening credits because it communicates effortlessly with images. Truly a quirky, enjoyable film that'll make you smile.

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

Film within a film, UK style

Tristram Shandy is billed as a mockumentary about the making of a film based on an unfilmable book. The book in question is Tristram Shandy, a colonial-era comedy centering around the birth of the main character. The film starts with about 20 minutes of the film within the film, then abruptly switches to the film within a film being filmed. Follow? Unfortunately, what is billed is not necessarily what is delivered. If you've seen Spinal Tap, Best in Show, or A Mighty Wind, then you know the style of movie you should be expecting - but now make it even drier. Suck the life, meaning, and comprehension out of it. What's presented is almost devoid of humor, plot, or value. There are a few extremely arid moments of absurdity and wit, but they're an oasis of potential in a sea of apathy. The characters are beyond uninteresting and entering into unpleasant - I couldn't have cared less what happened to them, as if anything actually did. By the end, nothing of consequence has occurred, the most harmless of conflicts have been resolved, lessons have not been conveyed, and the viewer is left with less than no interest in Tristram Shandy.

*1/2 out of *****

Newlyweds try to sell off untimely wedding present.

Rounding off the weekend, we've got yet another Tarantino-influenced (writer) story. The DVD is the unrated version and, like Once Upon a Time in Mexico, is difficult to watch in parts due to the ultraviolence. Again, the Pulp Fiction shows through. It's also got an all-star cast, each of whom often show up for only one scene and then are never seen again, like Samuel Jackson who's listed in the opening credits but has a total of 60 seconds of screen time and two lines. Definitely falls into the 'love story' category, one you find yourself shrinking back into your seat as you watch things unfold with wide eyes.

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

Tunnel escape from East Germany

This film is basically a lighter Schindler's List-style retelling of an effort to tunnel underneath the Berlin Wall shortly after it was erected to free some of its citizens in secret. When I say 'lighter', I don't mean comedy - it's a very serious movie, just post-WW2 so without that particular baggage. Nevertheless, it's a survival/escape tale based on true events that is oftentimes tense and interesting. Throughout it is a romantic subplot that isn't really necessary and even becomes unrealistic at certain points, denting the movie's overall polish. The performances are competent, but the characters lack some depth seemingly cut from the same cloth although they supposedly come from different backgrounds. The film is also long at nearly three hours, so you need to commit the time. But it's ultimately worth it with enough adventure and political intrigue to keep it interesting.

**** out of *****

Kids in pre-war Iraq

I'm somewhat torn on how to rate this film. On one hand, it seems rather amoral and light on plot, story, or ethical lessons. It begins as a depiction of harsh, poor life for village children in the days before the US invasion of Iraq, and it ends in unwarranted and undeserved tragic suffering. It simply tells an open-ended tale of what happens to the village and the children. Within that story, however, is a strangely efficient presentation. I couldn't get the Dickens-ian subtexts out of my mind. It feels like an alternate version of early 1900's America, with our protagonist leading a gang/labor force of other kids who, while speaking their local language, nevertheless communicated a Little Rascals atmosphere - tho decidedly destitute. I found that buoyed the film a bit, even lending to some darkly humorous moments. It's still rather dry as most foreign, low-budget independent films tend to be, but there's some filmmaking skill noticeable beneath the depression.

*** out of *****

One chair has jewels, but which one?

Mel Brooks' second directorial film after The Producers, he's also a supporting actor in this one and shares the title of funniest character along with Dom Delouise, both who give brief, but hysterical performances. Unfortunately, neither of them are the protagonists, who are not quite as funny by half. Their story, based on a Russian book, leads them across post-Czarist Russia in search of one of twelve chairs that have jewels sewn into the seat. While it has some wildly zany moments, there are long gaps of meaningful storyline that do not mirror the percussive comedic syncopation of Brooks' later films. The film also ends without a particularly satisfying resolution, and on a rather politically incorrect note that would be frowned on today. Fun if you like Delouise or are interested in Brooks' earlier material.

*** out of *****

Tigers!

Ok, let's get this out of the way first: I'm biased, I love tigers. There, I said it, like you didn't know already. Past that, this movie, made by the same director who created The Bear, is a different experience. There's much more dialogue in this film and instead of focusing only on the animals, it balances between them and the humans they interact with, including star material, Guy Pearce. The people have plenty of character, which is necessary when playing opposite animals. Speaking of animals, you'll believe a cat can act! The camera work and training of the tigers effectively communicates and anthropomorphizes them for the audience in an understandable way. Not to mention the kittens are terribly cute. The story itself is engrossing rather than boring, although it might be a little over the head of many kids. The DVD also has a great documentary.

**** out of *****

Gay marriage documentary

It seems to be a trend these days to make a documentary without narration and just a lot of video clips scrounged up from the local media archive. Yes, it can prove effective to show the emotional bits with a mood-enhancing instrumental audio track, but it seems almost lazy. This documentary on gay marriage (or the lack thereof in society) covers all the bases with talking heads, case studies, and lots of file footage of happy couples. If you follow the news, no topics are covered that haven't already been publicized and no invetigative exploration is done. It's mostly just a showcase of the mess things are currently in, in case you hadn't noticed lately. Plenty of right-wing politicians and public figures shooting off talking points to cringe from and yell at.

*** out of *****