Bill-276 Reviews

The Net (2003)

Fear the Fear

[2/10 · 12 February 2015]

Despite some lofty dialog and cherry-picked quotes by everyone from Norbert Wiener to Wittgenstein, this documentary is a train wreck of thesis, exploration and conclusion.

Let me summarize the entire film for you here so you do not have to view it: In an attempt to understand the evolution of computing and it's future impact on humanity (a noble endeavor), the director takes such a disjointed path that the audience can only draw this conclusion: Rather than joining the "Digerati", computer scientists or other profound government-related technology projects like his contemporaries at Harvard and Berkeley during the 1960's, Ted Kaczynski "may have" developed his anti-technology views and perspectives after being subjected to psychologically stressful mind-control experiments while a student at Harvard.

There you go.

There is certainly a conversation around cybernetics that needs to be had by society, but as it's pointed out emphatically and eloquently multiple times by those who helped orchestrate "the system", killing people to have this debate takes away any legitimacy or credibility Kaczynski had. And the Unabomber is the primary source of counter-argument which the director depends. These repeated encounters destroy the director's agenda (whatever it actually was).

You can fear technology as Kaczynski did or as the director is trying to make you, or you can view it the way Stephen Hawking does: Humans, limited by slow biological evolution, will not be able to compete with machine evolution, and would/(will) be superseded. Hawking believes machines are the natural evolution of humanity and likely our only way to get off the short life of our earth and solar systems, and navigate the universe.

I don't know what I think, but I'd rather not live in fear if possible. And fear of technology, while completely excusable (Ed Snowden, et. al.) is not presented with any effect in this film.

And I still don't know what LSD had to do with the film's premise!

Confessions (2010)

Stylish, Political and Effective

[10/10 · 5 May 2011]

I wanted to review this film from the perspective of a typical modern American movie-goer, who realizes foreign films have greatly surpassed Hollywood in the field of dramatic work. I don't claim to be an expert on Japanese films having seen only a few, but I can't help but credit the innumerable levels with which this film works. The direction, the acting and the story are gripping. I particularly liked how the overlapping narratives (or confessions) continued to paint a clearer picture of the events as they unfold or unfolded in the past and present. I found this technique very original, clever and extremely effective. The visuals, editing and photography are stunning.

But on a deeper level, I was struck by what seemed to be a heavy-handed critique of current Japanese culture--unruly middle school classrooms where student attention spans are non-existent, parents placing their needs ahead of their children's (or the opposite extreme), and mostly, the film's assault on Japan's coddling obsession with juveniles who are essentially excused by law from any wrong-doing, including the murder of another human being. This film does not take it's opinion of these laws lightly.

Because of it's strong sociological perspective, I find it hard to quantify this film as a genre piece (psychological thriller/horror, etc...) The film has a lot more to say than typically fit in those kind of boxes, and I highly recommend it because of this.

Heckler (2007)

Policing the Police

[4/10 · 12 April 2011]

I want to try to be as fair to this film as possible, because it's clear from the comedians interviewed in this film that criticism from anyone can be taken very personally.

Since this film isn't about hecklers so much as it is film critics (it's a bait and switch), let's address the latter. Comedies in general have always been held, fairly or unfairly, to the same standards by most movie critics as an Oscar nominated Meryl Streep film. And that is unfortunate. I can be guilty of the same comparisons. However, I don't see that changing anytime soon, and as long as Adam Sandler's target audience remains 12 year old boys, many critics are not going to recommend his films. Sure there may be a caveat ("If you're a pre-teen...") but generally, critics are looking to recommend films not to genre-specific buffs or age groups, but to all audiences (unfortunately this isn't really examined in this documentary).

"Heckler" takes an almost defeatist approach at the hands of film critics when actually there is a solution. Using eBay or even IMDb as a prototype, the buyer and sellers on ebay, and the critics here on IMDb are graded by the readers or themselves, thus helping to weed out unnecessary incendiary and non-constructive deals and/or reviews. Does it work for movie reviews? Do audiences have a way to grade Roger Ebert or Leonard Maltin? No, but it's likely to happen very soon.

I would compare the current film critic industry to the news media in general before profiteering became so prominent post Cronkite. The news media and their personalities have nearly lost any and all respectable viewers. Bill O'Reilly draws 4 million viewers to win his 8:00 time slot. But that's only 1/4 of 1 percent of the population. The 4th estate has been so inept, and the difference between "experts" with special interests so intertwined, that's it's taken Jon Stewart to create what I've been calling "The 5th Estate" to police the 4th estate, because they haven't been doing their job of working for the public, but rather the government, special interests or themselves. And that's where I see the process of film criticism heading--toward a state of viewers policing and correcting, if necessary, critics reviews.

I like Jamie Kennedy based on what I saw from "The Jamie Kennedy Experiment". I haven't seen any of his films but they don't appear to be targeted at me. There's a place for silly farce, slapstick and toilet humor (The Farrelly Brothers...) And there's a place for very sharp dialog comedies with small but adult themes like "The 40 Year Old Virgin", "Superbad" and "The Hangover". Unfortunately, Kennedy's film fall into the former category, and it's difficult to gain traction among critics who only want to recommend films to wider audiences than the 12-18 year old demographics in the Adam Sandler vein.

"Heckler" is not a documentary I would recommend because it's filmed to be more of a defensive commentary on Kennedy's movies (or at least a cathartic release for Kennedy to confront his critics) than anything constructive about critics of comedy--which ironically and to it's own point, is self-defeating. The day will come when the poison arrows are graded. Jamie Kennedy is not for everyone, but that's OK, and great! But like Sandler and even Vince Vaughn, David Spade, Tina Fey etc... he needs to realize this himself, and the sooner the better.

Limitless (I) (2011)

Definitely better than the tag-line

[8/10 · 7 April 2011]

I think a lot of the reviews here (both good and bad) have this film pretty well depicted. I had a lot of problems with the shortcuts the plot takes and the fact that the film seemed more interested in being a thriller full of thriller clichés, than a thought-provoking film about mind expansion (see PhantomAgony's post on all the plot problems). But despite not reaching it's full potential to be a smarter film, the flaws in the storyline (and the contrived sub-plot), "Limitless" still held my attention very well. I would actually put this movie in with films like "Groundhog Day" and "Phenomenom" which are in the better-than-they-had-any-right-to-be category.

The aspect of the film I want to focus on though in this review is the ending, and the reason is pretty simple: Most movies about medicine or science tend to show the negative aspects of the science they are depicting and it's writer/producer implied affect(s) on humanity (take your pick of any science fiction film - "Moon", "Blade Runner", "Brave New World"... The theme is always "Here's a new concept imagined by scientists that could happen or apply very soon, and here's why it's bad for humanity"). And for the majority of "Limitless", this broken record seems as if it's going to skip it's way to the same conclusion. But it doesn't. Instead, at the end of the film, we see the character of Eddy trying to use his newfound powers for the good of humanity (a la "Phenomenom" rather than the scientific stereotypes Mike Myers might mock in the Austin Powers series). And this turn, in my opinion, puts "Limitless" in the company of a very small group of "positive existential" films. Generally those two words put together would seem like an oxymoron, but they're not. And I was very glad to see the film turn the negativity it creates around the fictional drug, into somewhat of a dark but happy ending. This is a very rare feat in today's cinema. In fact, I can only think of a handful of films that leave this kind of impression ("Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", the soul-punching "Ponette", and arguably "Good Will Hunting" and "Contact").

Now overall, I wouldn't put this film in a league with those first three films, but that message of "positive scientific potential" as opposed to "apocalyptic doom because of science" was a breath of fresh air to me. I would love to see more stories like this take hold in our collective imaginations over the predictable negative sci-fi thrillers that are churned out in a limitless supply by Hollywood.

I have to admit, I was expecting a purely predictably bland thriller copy--and there's some of that. But I was more than pleasantly surprised by the movie overall. Ultimately the plot line will annoy, but the message, the direction and the performances are worthy of a recommended viewing.

The Seventh Continent (1989)

Grading Haneke

[7/10 · 31 March 2011]

It's very tough assigning grades or "stars" to the films of Michael Haneke. He tends to trap his audiences within the context of the films themselves, which makes any judgment of the film a reflection of the viewer on his or herself. This is very difficult to do as a director, and very uncomfortable for Haneke's audiences--and Haneke wouldn't have it any other way.

That said, this is my 4th Haneke film, and I was impressed to see the vision, style and moral perspective Haneke HAMMERS his audiences with as vividly present in "The Seventh Continent", as all of the films I've seen Haneke has released since. However, once again, as fascinated as I am personally by Haneke's style and efficiency, "The Seventh Continent" is another Haneke film that is difficult to recommend to what I would consider a normal functioning adult.

I don't doubt that the story told in "The Seventh Continent" could happen. I don't doubt that it did happen very similarly to the way it was presented. What I take issue with is that it comes off as a stinging rebuke of the monotony of modern middle-class life (television's influence, etc...), when more likely, what happened to the family the story is based on was probably caused by something more tangible and less speculative. But even if that wasn't the case with the family the story is based on, the presentation of the fictional family in this particular film is intended to assign blame. And the daily mundane and boring rituals of a typical modern family (even monogamous marital sex) are clearly guilty in this film. And I don't think I personally agree with Haneke's assessment on this issue. (But that's between me and Mr. Haneke ;) )

My recommendation for now is to avoid Haneke's early work in general (maybe up to "The Piano Teacher"). It's not that there isn't much social value in Haneke's early films, it's that Haneke tends to focus on the EXTREME fringes of the human condition in his early work where insanity, mental instability, sociopaths and psychopaths are always going to linger. No amount of cultural change or faults addressing modern suburban middle class existence (or upper class apathy and ennui) is going to change that fact.

The ending and central themes of the film did remind me in a lot of ways (and it's been mentioned here as well) of Todd Hayne's brilliantly dark existential drama "Safe" (Julianne Moore, 1995). And though "The Seventh Continent" came out before "Safe", I would highly recommend "Safe" over "The Seventh Continent". As for Haneke, I would recommend "The Piano Teacher" or "The White Ribbon" as the more evolved director starts to catch his stride. Because Michael Haneke has SOME stride!

Lost Highway (1997)

All style, no substance

[2/10 · 18 March 2011]

After having seen "Mulholland Drive" and finding it's rearranged narrative gimmick a poor excuse for trying to pass off a LONG dream as a film with hardly any social value, I decided to give Lynch a second chance with "Lost Highway". Either I just saw the same bad film twice, or "Lost Highway" was even worse.

There seems to be a lot of concern over the plot of the film--most of it on whether or not one even exists. Let's take Lynch at his word and on credit, piece the fragments of the schizophrenic Pullman character together, and contrive the plot of a jealous lover seeking revenge. Presentation aside, is this subject matter new, topical or even interesting? Does the film have a comment to make on that subject? Does the film have a comment to make on schizophrenia or mental derangement? The answer to all of these questions is simply no. I don't have a problem with Lynch's escapism or surrealism as a baseline for making a film. But I do have a problem with using those formats for no other purpose than to tell an uninteresting story that has such little social comment or value beyond being a different way of telling a simple, unappealing story.

There's a trend and flood of movies recently that seem to take place in the mind of the protagonist where the audience is forced, due to mental illness, a dream or some other reason, to accept the main character's mental state as the objective reality for the audience. But a writer/director should have a reason beyond just keeping the audience as confused as the main character for using that subconscious or alternate reality to tell the story. A few good examples of uses of this technique are "Jacob's Ladder", "Memento", "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", and I would even add "Shutter Island" (though quite predictable) to that list. But "Lost Highway" uses this medium/format with no good reason other than to keep the audience as confused as the characters for the majority of the film.

With Mulholland Drive, the best you could take from the story was that Hollywood is a vapid and lonely place. In "Lost Highway", I can't pinpoint anything Lynch has to say that hasn't been said before, let alone said exponentially more succinctly. And any style points are washed out by the lack of substance from the narrative.

Se7en (1995)

Se7en Problems with Se7en

[1/10 · 26 February 2011]

I can't remember the last movie I saw that was this full of crap. How did they convince that cast this story would be anything other than the "t-shirt"/"movie of the week" Brad Pitt's character said it was going to be? The performances were fine (particularly Freeman's and Spacey's). The script, however, was a travesty.

First, the consistency of the killings is completely muddled. The first five murders were committed by Spacey's character ("John Doe"--how original) because of what he perceives to be the sins committed by those he's killed. OK so far. The 6th murder (of Paltrow's character) is also done by Doe, but not because of a sin she's committed, rather because of the sin Doe perceives HE has committed. Got that? And the 7th murder is done by Pitt's character to Doe because of the sin Mills (Pitt) carries with him (I guess?). But even if you link the "Envy" murder of Doe by Mills as one of the 7 sinners who "deserved" to be killed for their sin, why was Paltrow's character killed again? And along with that, why does Pitt's character get to live for the sin of Wrath?

Another plot point that I don't think can be overlooked... If Doe was the religious lunatic he was presented to be, the murder of Paltrow's character and her unborn child would surely have been the 6th AND 7th murders. Doe was aware she's pregnant. Of course, how do you link an unborn child with a deadly sin? I see the writer's problem. His solution was a train wreck.

I also didn't buy at all that Doe was actually envious of Pitt's character. It made for a quirky plot twist, but it seemed so inconsistent for that character. It also didn't make much sense from a plot perspective (see paragraph above).

Have I got to 7 things yet? Did I mention the silly 7 in the title? How about the constant allusions to Somerset's knife, the knife tossing, etc... which turns out to be needed most in the film to open a box?

I guess if you make the assumption that John Doe is insane, then this master plan might make sense to the audience: He's insane, his plan probably shouldn't make sense. But to think that his plan worked, succeeded, was effective or even consistent at all (as Somerset's character implies by telling Mills not to kill Doe and fulfill Doe's plan), is giving WAY to much credit to the writer, and almost no credit to the audience.

I recently saw and reviewed Michael Haneke's "Funny Games" which would fall into the same psychological/horror/thriller genre as "Se7en". And as much as I was affected by "Funny Games" and impressed by Haneke's vision and direction, I said that I couldn't responsibly recommend it. After seeing "Se7en", however, I finally found Haneke's target audience. If "Se7en" is on your recommended must-see list, then "Funny Games" is really the must-see movie for you.

Mulholland Drive (2001)

Borrowed and Blue

[2/10 · 20 February 2011]

I'm having a hard time trying to like this film. The photography is stunning, and the unorthodox narrative style actually does tell a story. The problems though seem to be everywhere else.

Let's start with the narrative as if it were told linearly. Would the movie have been as interesting? Definitely not. It's a story about a down-and-out actress in Hollywood who has her lover killed and then fantasizes/dreams about how it all could have turned out differently. People are actually using the words "human condition" and "universal" to apply to this story. But is hiring a hit man to murder someone part of the human condition? Oversimplifying? Not much.

Another problem I have with the film is it's point, or central theme. The vapidity of Hollywood seems to float to the surface, but not much else. I don't doubt the character of Diane (as played by Watts) experiences the shallowness of the industry. But that theme has been overdone in everything from "The Player" to "L.A. Confidential" to {pick just about any film ever set in Hollywood}.

So what does that leave? A film where Bob Newhart wakes up at the end and sees Susan Plechette next to him and says, "Honey, you wouldn't believe the dream I just had," and then kills himself.

Well, actually that would have been worth watching.

Elephant (2003)

The gimmick doesn't quite work...

[4/10 · 18 February 2011]

There's something to be said for Gus Van Sant's stylized version of the Columbine shootings. The idea of expanding about 15 minutes of time into an 80 minute film by using different character and camera perspectives I found unique. But the reasons for using that style just didn't add up in this particular film.

Most people would probably walk away from "Elephant" saying it's point is simply to show the realities and horrors of an incident like Columbine without speculating on motives or glorifying the killers' actions in any sense. And certainly that was one of Van Sant's intentions. But two things stick out about that point: One is that it's been made before ("Funny Games" beat it by about 4 years). The second is that the film's style lends itself to introducing us to a number of characters in a "literal" short period of time; in my opinion/(hope), to elicit a sense of empathy with the students. But that empathy never comes. Aside from the character of John in the opening scene (and probably his drunken father), we never learn enough about the other characters to elicit a sense of empathy for them. And with that loss goes the time perspective gimmick.

That distance from the characters may have been a conscious choice. Again like "Funny Games", the audience appears to be intentionally denied of expectations we have become accustomed to in our current 'good vs. evil' culture of films. If so, then that leaves a film that's simply about the realities of violence, and again, Michael Haneke beat Van Sant to this punch many years before. Not that I'd recommend "Funny Games" or "Benny's Video" or any early Haneke work either, but the similarities are too much to go unnoticed, and watched.

Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010)

Take it at Face

[8/10 · 20 January 2011]

Generally what makes a documentary "great" is when a director sets out to make a point and what they capture on film while making the documentary goes beyond their wildest expectation for furthering that point. This is the case with "Exit Through the Gift Shop".

Banksy's intention was to take the footage Thierry collected and make a documentary that commented on the sudden hypocritical commercialism of the emerging street art scene. As Banksy and his hired staff were putting the film together, what happens to Thierry's career as a street artist not only validates that social commentary, it hilariously puts the exclamation point on Banksy's intent!

I would suggest to not get caught up in the "eloborate hoax" discussions on this film. They go nowhere and they're not necessary. The film stands on it's own either as a straight documentary OR as a hoax. Either way, it makes the same point. I would watch the film and take it at face value. Mr. Brainwash, whomever that may be, is a legitimate success--whether he was originally a work of fiction or not. And therein lies Banksy's simple, hilarious and cutting point on what is real art, and what makes a real artist.

Funny Games (2007)

Nothing to see here...keep moving folks...HOLY CRAP...!!!!

[8/10 · 6 January 2011]

This is a film in which I cannot in good conscious recommend to a single person. Seriously, no one needs to see this movie. You can stop reading this review and search for another film title. Please. Please.

If you haven't clicked away yet, than let me add that despite my inability to recommend this movie to a single person or living being in the known universe, it is quite a remarkable, genre-busting film. I had to stop it 6 times, wait 24 hours to recover, and then pick up where I left off (which thankfully indicates I'm normal. According to writer/director Haneke, "...if you watch the film all the way through, there's something wrong with you".) But I didn't turn away or turn it off for the reasons you may think. There's maybe 2 minutes of actual violence in the movie, and all of it is done off-camera. It is not a violent for violence-sake film (like say "Natural Born Killers" or "Kalifornia"). And though I certainly see it's classification as torture porn, it's actually a little more complicated than simply that.

Again I can't recommend this movie, but I also can't hate it. Anyone who does is falling into the director's trap. The movie taunts even it's target audience constantly. It's really no different than an Andy Kaufman stunt (and who thought, other than maybe Jim Carrey, that Andy Kaufman was funny in his lifetime?) Don't give Haneke the satisfaction of seeing the movie, or hating the movie if you do see it. There actually is some minimal social value in the film. But for 99.9999999% of humanity, it's nothing new.

Proof (2005)

Great Casting, Not Much Else

[4/10 · 3 January 2011]

I was definitely expecting a lot more from this film purely based on the cast (and maybe the hype of the story as a critically acclaimed play). Gwenyth Paltrow and Hope Davis as sisters is like a casting orgasm for me.

But two things really seemed to hurt the movie. First, it's not that great of a story. I wasn't invested in any of the characters, nor were they developed in any compelling direction to make me like or even dislike them.

Second, Gwenyth just didn't carry the role. I'm not sure if it was the direction or just poor choices (probably a little of both). I do suspect had they switched roles between Davis and Paltrow, it might have gotten more to their "types" and may have worked better--but that's pure speculation.

I'd love to recommend a movie with this ensemble, but I just can't. It's not a showcase of anything that a movie could be.

Capturing the Friedmans (2003)

Irresponsible Film Making

[1/10 · 12 April 2004]

In general, documentaries that are based on crimes (moral or otherwise) tend to want to accomplish one of two things: They either try and raise a high level of doubt as to the innocence of the accused, or they try and raise a high level of doubt as to the guilt of the non-accused. This film doesn't come close to either.

Arnold Friedman was arrested for accepting deliveries of and owning stashes and stashes of child pornography. During that investigation, and even more heinously, he and his son Jesse were charged with molesting some 30-40 boys who were taught in computer classes at the Friedman's home.

While there is no disputing the child pornography charges, the objective of the director in this film was to try and shed some doubt on the molestation charges by claiming that the town and children of Great Neck, NY were whipped into hysteria by the line of questioning of the police during the investigation. While a couple of the children who claimed to be molested during questioning (Friedman was arrested in 1988) have later said they were not molested by the Friedman's, 95% of the other kids have not. And granted, there is no physical evidence and hence, the only basis at all for this movie getting made.

But the problem I had with this film, as did most of the people interviewed in the film, was not the information the movie contained, but the information the director LEFT OUT. For example, after Jesse was released from prison (late 90's) he went on Geraldo Rivera and essentially confessed (I could go on and on with the "omissions"). On top of that, there is account after account of Arnold Friedman, through journal entries, interviews with his wife (how about having to sleep in the same room with his mother while she had sex with dates?!?), his attorneys, etc... who all only help, almost nonchalantly, paint Friedman as even SICKER than just the story of the molestation charges. If anything, the movie in my opinion, CONVICTS ARNOLD AND JESSE even further!! It seemed like nothing more than an attempt by the director (and probably Arnold's son David) to try and drum up some sense of sympathy for Arnold and Jesse. And the worst part is, IT BACKFIRED!!!

This was absolutely horrendous and irresponsible film making. Was there a lack of physical evidence? Sure. Did some of the children who levied crimes later remit? Yes. Did Jesse have to dance around on the courthouse steps the morning of his sentencing? No. Even the eyes of Arnold and Jesse in all of the footage during the trial seemed to make you feel as if they were winking at you with everything they said and did.

I was terribly offended by this movie and it had nothing to do with crimes committed or charged. It had everything to do with the agenda of a documentary film director who did not put out an objective film, but rather a slanted, skewed and blatantly edited version of what I'm sure he understood, was not the picture he hoped for when it was all over. It was National Enquirer film making at best. I could recommend "Thin Blue Line" or many other documentaries that actually do raise suspicions convincingly. The subject matter of "Friedman's" is hard enough to digest, but the fact that the direction doesn't accomplish it's objective makes it simply putrid. Do not waste your time or give money to the makers of this film. You will only be disgusted with yourself afterward!

Traffic (2000)

"Traffic" is NOT the solution. You are!

[10/10 · 22 January 2001]

I only wanted to review this film because I felt that so many people I've heard talk about the movie dismissed it as an anti-drug war film. I thought "Traffic" did an amazing job at NOT taking a side and allowing the audience to decide what it thinks about the subject. It presented a story--a very credible one in which it shows the United States losing badly to the drug trade with Mexico--and it walks away leaving you to decide what to think and do about it.

The problem with so many audiences today is that they want to be told what to think. In my humblest opinion, the mainstream wants to be hit over the head with a message and when it doesn't get one, it will invent one where one doesn't exist. I actually heard someone in an elevator the other day say, "Don't see 'Traffic'. All it says is, 'We're losing the drug war and we're not going to win it so why even bother?'" This is NOT what 'Traffic' is about. I also had a friend tell me one of the movie's points was, "Once drugs make their way into our family's homes, there's nothing that can be done." WHAT!!??? I assure you, "Traffic" does NOT make this point either.

I think the line in the film that negates those views comes at the end when Michael Douglas' character tells his daughter's support group that he is there "to listen." The movie definitely makes the point that our current campaign against drugs is a miserable failure. That leaves two options if you believe this. One is to quit the war on drugs, legalize everything and hang on for dear life. Or the other is to talk to these people who are creating this overwhelming demand, find out what personal and societal problems cause them to become addicts and try a more tolerant, empathetic, educational approach (see the Netherlands and their statistics on drug addicts and crime). The current strategy by the United States of thinking that blindly arresting drug lords will wipe out a major supply when all it does is create a new drug lord is obviously not working.

I think THOSE are the things "Traffic" wants the audience to think over and to talk about afterward. It does not go into the solution whatsoever (which again is why I think so many were disappointed). But I found it to be an outstanding film for that very reason. Hopefully it will create better dialog on this sensitive subject.

American Movie (1999)

Borchardt is just CLUELESS of his own shortcomings!

[9/10 · 2 January 2001]

They say that when you can make people laugh and cry at the same time than you're approaching art. Mark Borchardt doesn't quite achieve this as a film director, but this documentary about Borchardt's relentless determination nearly does. What makes "American Movie" an almost hauntingly ironic documentary is that Borchardt is completely unaware of the potential of the film being made about him. He is so consumed by his own poor products that he doesn't comprehend the value of his own sad, sad life story and the events surrounding the making of his b movies. The production of his own short film ("Northwestern") becomes a backdrop to a depressing and still uplifting tale of middle-American so-called "artists". He along with his antithesis of a best friend Mike Shank, are living proof of what years of no-cause, anti-septic suburban life can produce. The rest of his family seem to have their feet on the ground (which only makes the story that much more credible and holds it together--Poor Uncle Bill!!) but if Mark and his friends influence just one person to make or be part of any one film, look out for the future of cinema! Whether you find Borchardt's talent and taste abysmal (and you will) you still have to admit you're bewildered by his passion for recognition. You also have to wonder what Borchardt thought of the documentary himself because he's completely clueless of it's implications as it's being made. I would definitely recommend this documentary. It's not in a class with "Roger & Me" or "Crumb", but they do capture some unexpected moments on film that really drive home the movie's point. It's a sad story that somehow made me happy to just be me.

Cradle Will Rock (1999)

What is YOUR price?

[9/10 · 1 February 2000]

This is a classically written piece about the corruptability and compromises of politicians, businessmen and yes even artists. Tim Robbins is quickly becoming one of my favorite writers. I'll admit I had a hard time trying not to misinterpret the dialog, but at least the movie made me think. I also commend Robbins for tackling the hypocrisy involved in being an artist. It's slow, but give it a chance. By the end of this movie the levels and themes he's hitting on tie together very, very well.

Dogma (1999)

Takes itself too seriously too!

[5/10 · 22 November 1999]

I'll give this film credit for one thing--it is a ground-breaking movie in it's attack of blind faith. However, being ground-breaking or different doesn't necessarily mean it's good. This is Kevin Smith's best film by far although I don't think that's saying much. My problem with the movie is the same problem the movie has with religious activists: STOP TAKING YOURSELF SO SERIOUSLY!! "Dogma" doesn't quite know whether it wants to be a comedy or a drama and being stuck in the middle really kills the point. Had this been an all tongue-in-cheek comedy, it would have been great. But it gets caught up in trying to make sense out of it's own myth while it's making fun of the nonsense of every other biblical allusion, and the movie ends up contradicting itself in this way.

The second point I'd make about it is IT'S WAY TOO LONG! Cut out some material. I don't care if you make the plot ridiculous or complex (that's religion). But by the end you feel like you've been preached at not to preach. It's like telling somebody they need to lighten up while you're smoking a cigarette and popping a valium on two hours of sleep. You look like a hypocrite.

I will say that Smith has finally learned a little bit about subtlety, but he's a long way from using it consistently. The "When are we going to f**k?" jokes are so tired in his movies. That was about 45 minutes of this film. Cut it out! PLEASE!! You had something to work with on this one and you blew it. I will say the acting was great. Affleck, Damon, the whole cast. It's particularly tough trying to deliver some of Smith's dumb-downed, gen-x insulting, overdone cliché references too. The cast did a great job with what they had to work with. But overall it was a great idea with a poor, ill-conceived script. I can't wait for his NEXT film though and I can't believe I'm saying that.

Pi (1998)

It's a hard film not to think about...

[8/10 · 3 May 1999]

It took me the whole movie, but I ended up really liking the message(s) of this film. I was a little queasy with where the writer was going with his third premise: If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns will emerge. I know Einstein believed the same principle and took it to the same level by saying that if you could map out the points for every object in the universe at a given time, you could not only see where those objects came from, but also where they were going and literally predict the future. Of course quantum mechanics later proved this to be physically impossible, so I was hoping that Aeronofsky wasn't going to try and profess that he had some new 'key to the universe' answer. The interpretive ending was exactly what this film needed and it sure makes you think. Too much!!

House of Games (1987)

I'm beginning to realize just how overrated Mamet is...

[6/10 · 19 April 1999]

Maybe I've seen too many thrillers/con men/sting movies. Once you've seen "The Sting," there's almost no other reason to see or make another one. I'm not going to say that the screenplay for House of Games was a bad one; it was fine. But I had the plot figured out in the first five minutes and wasn't fooled by a single plot twist anywhere except for why it ended the way it did. I even think the Dirty Rotten Scoundrel's comedy with Michael Caine and Steve Martin was more clever than this film. If I had to pick out my two biggest problems with the film I would have to choose David Mamet the writer and David Mamet the director. First of all, there was nothing--I mean nothing--I could find to like or relate to about Lindsay Crouse's character. Mamet has a habit of making all his characters seem distant and shallow which is fine if that's the point, but who wants to sit through two hours of all monotone, one-dimensional characters? I even like stories where there are no heroes and everyone's a bad guy, but not when Mamet writes it. It's almost as if I sense Mamet thinks of himself as the good guy because he's exposing you to these kind of people.

The problem with Mamet's directing is that his actors don't even appear to "listen" to the other actors in the scene. Every actor looks so rehearsed it looks more like a bad play than a film that had a chance to take a few takes and get the dialog right. I don't know why every scene has to feel like a business meeting instead of regular people having a conversation. You would think in a film about con men, the audience has to BELIEVE in these characters. They have to trust them. And at no point, could I understand, with what little experiences the two main characters shared, why Crouse's character would trust Mantegna's. And Mantegna's such a great actor, I KNOW he can evoke sincerity. But not with Mamet directing. Maybe in this age of irony I was expecting too much, like for example, Crouse's character to have been conning Mantegna's the whole time. Or at least when she figured it out, to have gotten even with him on his own level. Instead, she shoots him!? How 1950's! Like I said, if the characters in this film were interesting (and they are just plain NOT) or if there were some NEW insights into the art of confidence men (and there's NOT) then I would recommend it. But this film, from my point of view, is being judged on how great a thriller it is or how great a psychological film this is, and I don't think it's either. But then again I like films that have good character development more than a formulaic plot any day.

Edtv (1999)

What the Truman Show wanted to be

[8/10 · 6 April 1999]

I just want to make the obvious comparison between this film and the Truman Show. Neither of these films are going to be remembered as GREAT movies. But EdTV was what the Truman Show was not: Believable. I loved the fact that it didn't take itself all that seriously and feel that it needed Jim Carrey in a boat sprawled out in a cross-like position to make a God-awful point.

The point both of these films should have been making was that it's not the television executives who implement these shows that perpetuate the stupidity, IT'S THE AUDIENCE THAT TUNES IN TO WATCH IT!!! Neither of these movies turned the camera on the audience (both in the fiction world of the TV show and the real audience watching the film) and said, "See, look what YOU'VE done." (because an idea like that would have been much too poignant for a studio film let alone not profitable enough). So Ron Howard and whatever ego directed the Truman Show both took the safe road. Ron Howard, however, at least tried to have fun at the audience's expense.

The casting of EdTV was fantastic. My only regret was I wanted to see more of Woody Harrelson's character after such a great start. The acting was what you'd expect though I was really impressed with Jenna Elfman in this. I thought her character wasn't an easy one to play and yet she still wins you over. I was so severely disappointed with the Truman Show that this was refreshing. Had EdTV been released before Truman, Truman would have tanked at the box office. You have to give credit to Howard for releasing this movie with essentially the same premise only eight months after Truman was a so-called "box office smash". Obviously he thought he had something better, and I would agree that he has.

Queens Logic (1991)

Holy screenplay!

[10/10 · 22 March 1999]

Queens Logic is an excellently written film about a bunch of late thirty somethings who are still trying to figure out how to get their act together. I worry that this film is only going to be accepted locally (i.e. New York, Long Island target audience) when it really has a multitude of universal levels to it. The acting was brilliant--absolutely brilliant, from Kevin Bacon to Linda Fiorentino, Joe Mantegna and John Malkevich. The actors really understood these complex characters (Malkevich is SO good once again it's scary). And the writing and direction could not have been better for these roles. Congratulations for writing a script with so many thoughtful, intelligent and original characters which reflect so well on the time and all of our struggles to figure out what it is that makes us happy--and to do it so humorously as well. This is one of those rare very smart and very funny films. Like I said though, people who are not necessarily from the New York area may not buy or believe these characters, but I guarantee you there are so many people like them. Guarantee it. They're great people with same problems as everyone else. They just choose to deal with them on their own terms and in the best format they know how: with Queens logic.

Buffalo '66 (1998)

Good, but not a must-see

[6/10 · 17 March 1999]

This is certainly not one of the worst films of the year. Gallo's acting and direction were well-beyond amateurish, but I'm looking forward to something a little more poignant from his next film.

I particularly liked the unfolding of Billy's character. The development was well done, although I faster paced-script and dialogue would have suited the story and plot much better. The direction was great, and some of the shots were outstanding (Christina Ricci's tap dance at the bowling alley comes to mind--as does the scene of them in the picture booth that was all done in one take). But as always, EDITING, EDITING, EDITING!!

Dream for an Insomniac (1996)

Nearly made me an insomniac!

[1/10 · 15 March 1999]

This film was simply a vehicle for Tiffany DeBartolo's ego to clobber you with her trivial clichés and quote collection. I think I can sum up 'Dream' with just one line from the script: After David gives Iona Skye's character a glass of milk to help her sleep, she says to him, "You're not going to make me drink any more warm white liquids are you?" The dialog could not have been more trite. Take for example the conversation where the characters waste ten minutes of your life comparing Bono of U2 to God, and Eddie Vetter to Christ. If you like THAT KIND of dialog, this film is for you. The only thing I can say about the film is that the supporting acting wasn't THAT bad (Astin & Aniston were great) though Skye looked like she could use a few more takes or reads of the script before she took on this know-it-all character. One of the films major problems were all the pop culture references. It would have been fine to leave in one (say, the Laverne and Shirley theme song for example), but the U2/Pearl Jam debate (if you can call it that), the "Anyone, Bueler" line, begin to wear you thin because 'Dream' becomes a highlight film of other film lines and song lyrics instead of something unique or even close to original. The movie is laced with them simply because the author isn't clever enough to come up with her own witty turns of phrase. The over use of quotes is enough to make you want to turn it off after 15 minutes. The second major distraction was the soundtrack because it NEVER STOPS PLAYING! I also don't know why the film didn't switch back to black and white when they find out David has a girlfriend. Why use that metaphor at the beginning if you're not going to stick with it throughout the film? I think that's the last Jennifer Aniston film I ever see. I like her, I think she's a great actress, but her nose for scripts is not going to keep her around once Friends is over. Kudrow has done much, much better at finding good independent scripts. Rent The Opposite of Sex, or Clockwatchers, if you're a Friends fan. This film was terrible.

Next Stop Wonderland (1998)

Very good film!

[9/10 · 22 February 1999]

This was a well-done and unconventionally written film about the nature of destiny. People who are still convinced that they have no control over their fate (which is still most of the world's population) aren't going to like the challenge the two central characters pose to the intellect.

But for those of us who feel that we "create our own luck" and can change the course of our 'destiny' (whatever that means) this is a really sweet and intelligent love story.

I particularly liked the way the two story-lines run parallel to each other throughout the film. I can see how some viewers would not care whether these two people ever met (I didn't either), but that's not the point. Hope Davis once again plays an extremely savvy, independent woman (Her choices of scripts lately has been superb) who shows that you can find meaningful contentment without a 'soul mate' (again, a relative term).

There is some very smart writing and Davis helps carry the film with her solid understanding of her character. I'd highly recommend it.

Kicking and Screaming (1995)

Don't bother

[6/10 · 8 January 1999]

This film is fine if you're a college student who hasn't declared a major and enjoys sitting around stoned and discussing trivial ironies and popular culture.

The writing is definitely a little more intelligent than "Clerks," and the acting is certainly better. But it's a film that has very little to say about having very little to say.

It seemed more like an ego trip for writer/director Baughman which is too bad because he really did assemble a great cast and then forgot to develop the characters.

I wish I could recommend a film like this I like better. It's in the realm of Clerks/Dazed & Confused/Slackers, which are cult hits at best. But the whining of Generation X is getting old for this GenXer.

If you're a Parker Posey fan like I am, rent "Daytrippers" instead.