Bladerunner• Reviews

Lonely Hearts (1982)

Excellent movie about real people..

[9/10 · 12 March 2012]

Some reviewer here said that Paul Cox wasn't a good storyteller, I'm not sure how he decided that, but Cox is a wonderful storyteller. Perhaps this person disliked the movie because it didn't have enough explosions or buxom women in bikinis.

Lonely Hearts is a movie about a middle-aged man, Peter, and a woman named Patricia in her twenties who is shy, a bit naive and unsophisticated in the ways of love. They both visit a dating agency, which introduces them to one another. Patricia is a lovely woman, played by the enchanting Wendy Hughes. Patricia's father is a stern man who treats his daughter as if she is still 12-years-old. Her mother hovers and frets over Patricia, while her father attempts to control her life. Peter's mother has just passed away and he lives now alone in the house he has inherited from her, he is played by the always competent Norman Kaye. Peter has never been married and lives a quiet life as a piano tuner. His sister is a nice person, though a bit domineering and talkative, ruling her somewhat dim husband, Bruce.

Patricia visits a therapist, where we discover that she is sexually inexperienced. When she and Peter are watching ducks on a pond, two of them begin to mate and Patricia interprets it as one duck bullying the other - she has no idea they are mating. Peter smiles knowingly, but says nothing. He is always kind and gentle towards Patricia, which is exactly what she needs. Their age difference works well for them, because Patricia needs an older man's patience, confidence and maturity. When Peter is asked to act in community theater play, he brings Patricia and the director asks her to act as well. This helps bring her out of her shell somewhat and gives them both something exciting to do together.

After they've been dating for a while, she is at Peter's home and they are drinking wine. Patricia teasingly asks if Peter is trying to get her drunk, and states that she will not be able to drive home if she is drunk. Peter replies that he will not be able to drive her if he is drunk. They then both agree to drink more and Peter then says he does not want her to go home. Patricia asks if she can trust him. Patricia then suggests that they go to bed together, but "don't do anything", to which Peter agrees.

Once in bed together they begin kissing and it appears Patricia is willing to go further. However, when Peter attempts to make love with her, Patricia panics, frightened and confused by what is happening. She begins crying, leaving abruptly and cuts off all contact with him. Patricia views Peter's actions as a betrayal, despite her therapist's suggestion that it may have simply been a miscommunication. Her fear of sex is powerful and she seems to view any sexual contact (other than hugging and kissing) as a betrayal. Patricia stands firm and refuses all contact with Peter. He tries to communicate with her at a play rehearsal, professing his love for her. Patricia rejects him saying she doesn't believe he loves her and leaves the rehearsal.

Distraught, Peter shoplifts a small amount of cheese and sliced ham, but is caught and taken to the police station, where he gives false information using Patricia's address. The police demand to take him home where a confused Patricia asks him what is going on, using his real name. The police realize he has given them false information and take him back to the station. Patricia interprets his actions as a response to her rejecting him and feels guilty, phones Peter's sister. Patricia's parents visit, hovering and dominating her life. The director shows up, asking Patricia to visit Peter who is depressed and despondent. Her father confronts the director, telling him that he doesn't want Patricia in any play, the director dismisses him glibly and Patricia leaves with him to go to Peter, finally asserting her independence.

The director drops Patricia off and she peers in the window at Peter softly playing the piano. Here Wendy Hughes does her best acting work, communicating volumes with her facial expressions, illustrating clearly that Patricia is in love with Peter. She knocks on the window and Peter is surprised and happy to see her. During a very moving, silent exchange through the window where Patricia sees Peter with his toupee off, Patricia mouths the words "I love you" and asks to come inside. Once in the apartment they reunite, with Patricia again proclaiming her love. When she asks if he "has any of that wine left" (referencing the last time they attempted to be together) it is clear now that she is ready and willing to be intimate with Peter.

This is not a film about the beautiful people, although Wendy Hughes is beautiful (despite the filmmaker's attempts to make her look plain). This is a film for those people on the fringes of human interaction — those people who lack the confidence or social skills required to allow them to function successfully in the arena of human interaction. It is a beautiful love story about imperfect human beings who find strength, purpose and meaning together. It operates at a wonderfully languid pace, finding humor in their clumsy, but moving attempts to escape their lonely lives. Paul Cox is a fantastic director who understands the human condition and is able to allow a story to unfold naturally before the lens, without any attempts at ridiculous characters or absurd situations. He finds meaning and humor in the quiet, realistic events that surely happen everyday throughout our world. This is a film for those people who feel just a bit out-of-place in this life. An encouraging message that love can find any one of us if we're only willing to put ourselves out there, just a little bit.

Stigmata (1999)

A beautiful film, fatally flawed by the erroneous assertions of its story...

[7/10 · 23 November 2009]

Father Kiernan - a researcher of miracles on behalf of the Vatican – is in Brazil conducting an investigation into a bleeding statue in the church of a recently deceased priest named Father Alameida who lies in state in the church. A small boy steals the rosary of Father Alameida and runs to sell it to a woman in a market. This woman then sends the rosary to her daughter, Frankie Paige, living in the United States.

Patricia Arquette plays Frankie, a free-spirited young woman who has no specific religious beliefs and is uninterested in spiritual matters. After she receives the rosary, her life begins to unravel as she is attacked by invisible forces, physically traumatizing her body. The punctures, cuts and lacerations on her body mimic the "stigmata" – the five "wounds" of Christ. Eventually Father Kiernan's boss, Cardinal Daniel Houseman asks Kiernan to look into what is happening to Frankie. His investigation unravels a dark mystery that involves the Vatican itself and three priests – one of whom is Father Alameida - who share a unique bond as translators of an ancient document.

The movie is beautiful and haunting, but the plot and specific points of the story are greatly lacking. The suggested romance between father Kiernan and Frankie is quite unbelievable, as is the notion that the Catholic church would be frightened that their church might become extinct if the document in the film were to be made public. It is public, you can read it online at multitudes of sites, and you could do that when the movie was released in the theaters.

The soundtrack music by Corgan and the song Identify (also penned by Corgan) is haunting and compliments the movie perfectly. There was a CD released with music from the movie which is quite good. The song "Identify" written by Corgan and sung by Imbruglia is gorgeous. There are moments when Imbruglia seems to enjoy the sound of her own voice so much, she is almost euphoric. Those moments tend to coincide with the most richly sonic cues of the song. Some songs are throwaway, but others are aptly included on the CD, such as Inertia Creeps by Massive Attack. If you only bought the CD for the song Identify, and the soundtrack cues by Corgan, it would be worth the price.

For those who watch the film and wonder what all the hubbub is about, here it is in a nutshell... The Gospel of Thomas was found, along with many other "rejected Christian writings" in Nag Hammadi (Egypt) in 1945. Contrary to the fiction of the film, the writings found are nothing new, although finding them so well preserved and more importantly *complete* was quite amazing. The works were only available as fragments, as the Catholic Church basically outlawed them sometime in Middle Ages, and all copies were supposed to have been destroyed. However, BEFORE the Catholics ever burned them up, the early church fathers rejected the works because they contain heretical quotes attributed to Christ and other fatal inconsistencies. Contrary to what the film proposes, the Catholic church had no fear of the Thomas gospel ruining the church because it suggested that people didn't need churches of "wood and stone" to worship God. The early Christians met in caves and personal homes for many, many years before the first "Christian" church was ever built, and no one rejected the idea that a building was the "Church of Christ" more than the early Christian leaders. The problem centered solely upon the validity of the documents, period.

Another fact that is contrary to what the film purports concerns the scholarly opinion of the Gospel of Thomas and other rejected writings. The Gospel of Thomas was NEVER accepted by the early Christians, neither were any of the other documents that were "officially" not canonized at The Chalcedon Council in 451 A.D. The heretical books that weren't canonized at The Chalcedon Council had LONG been rejected *unanimously* by the church fathers, over a long course of time. The rejection of the Thomas Gospel was unanimous and continual at every council (including Hippo {393} and Carthage {397}). It is very important to note that during all this time, and all the councils that rejected the Gospel of Thomas, the Catholic Church — as it is known today — was not yet in existence. So, the Roman Catholic Church had absolutely *nothing* to do with the Gospel of Thomas being rejected as the words of Jesus, or being rejected as a book of the Bible. I mention this because at the end of the Stigmata movie, there is text which asserts that the Roman Catholic Church is alone in it's rejection of the Gospel of Thomas, while "scholars the world over consider (it) the most accurate document of Jesus' words". That is BUNK. All you have to do is *read* the Gospel of Thomas to see why the book was rejected. The Gnostic influence is unmistakable; in point of fact it has become a cornerstone document for the Gnostic movement. For them it is a revelation, for evangelical Christians it is pantheistic propaganda tantamount to blasphemy.

The movie and the soundtrack are fun and beautiful, but the assertion that the Roman Catholic Church is suppressing the Gospel of Thomas because it doesn't want people to reject the buildings of the Catholic Church is absurd. Watch the movie for the great performances of Byrne and Arquette, the great visuals and effects, but be assured that there is no conspiracy against the Gospel of Thomas, it was rejected long ago by those very qualified to make that decision, some of them had known or been friends with the actual disciples of Christ. Other "false writings" that came earlier than the Gospel of Thomas were actually rejected by some of the disciples themselves. It doesn't get any more qualified than that.

Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson: The Acquaintance (1980)

Very good, but not the best.

[7/10 · 22 May 2009]

A lot of people make a big deal about the fact that in the Sherlock Holmes museum, Vasiliy Livanov's picture is the largest. The only thing this proves is the British found a great way to soften relations between the U.K. and the Soviets. I see it as a political maneuver, and little else.

There is no doubt that these films are of excellent quality, but they suffer from an overemphasis on the farcical. In particular, Vitali Solomin's portray of Watson borders on camp at times, with little subtlety. The relationship between Holmes and Watson, something that is near and dear to many a fan's heart, is too kitschy. Missing is the deep, abiding friendship that Jeremy Brett and David Burke (and later, Edward Hardwicke) portrayed so eloquently in the Granada productions.

The Baltic locations are clearly Eastern Europe and at times that is a bit distracting. The biggest problem is of course, the language. First of all, the subtitles have been poorly done. I have spoken to a couple of people who speak Russian and English who have bemoaned the quality of the subtitles. They assert that English-speaking audiences would appreciate the films more if they could experience them as intended rather than through the poor subtitles. Some characters are meant to be heard in their native language and Holmes is certainly one of those characters. Hearing Doyle's detective speaking Russian is very distracting as are the poorly translated subtitles. Perhaps in the future someone could redo the subtitles and the films would benefit from this.

The most interesting thing about these films are the little jokes and ironic elements that are littered throughout. Little jabs at the Soviet government and the British are present and done very slyly. In one instance, Doctor Watson is speaking to Holmes about his lack of understanding of things outside his profession, but it is clear he is speaking of the oppression of the Communist government in the Soviet Union. Watson says, "How awful it would be to live in a world, where you couldn't talk to anyone about poetry, about art, or politics." The irony is, the actors in this film — at the time this production was made — did live in a place where you couldn't talk about many things without fear of reprisals. There are quite a few of these moments and it is very interesting to listen for them. Surely the producers of these films had to be very careful not to glorify a society of the West, albeit a hundred years in the past. Perhaps it was at the behest of the Communist party that Holmes gets the following line: "The British are conservative, and we don't like changes. Anyone who is not like us in the ways of mind, is easily taken for a rogue". Great fun.

These films do deserve their place in the cinematic Holmes canon, but more for what they reveal about the Soviet Union at the time and their relations with the British. An interesting interpretation that demands viewing, but ultimately pales in comparison to the Granada productions with Jeremy Brett.

Big Buck Bunny (2008)

Admirable effort designed to draw other animators out of the shadows...

[8/10 · 7 January 2009]

This little animated short is a truly admirable effort, designed to draw out other talented people willing to donate their time to help create the film and to enhance the free tools (named "Blender")used to make the movie. It succeeded wildly in that effort. Many modifications were made to the Blender tools to simplify the creation of animation and the efficiency of the workflow. In addition, the raw files that were created to render the movie are included on the DVD allowing others to experiment making their own version of the film or use the files as a tutorial in their own creations.

The story revolves around our hero — the title character Big Buck Bunny — and three nefarious characters: a portly, absent-minded woodchuck, a dizzy, goofy fox and their cruel leader, a mean-spirited flying squirrel. The gang of three seem dedicated to tormenting Big Buck Bunny and generally terrorizing the other creatures inhabiting an otherwise serene and gorgeous forest. After purposely crushing a butterfly Big Buck Bunny has been admiring and gently pursuing, the three ne'er-do-wells proceed to hurl various nuts and forest debris at Bunny's head. Then, the wicked flying squirrel (who is by far the most reprobate of the three) crushes yet another butterfly that makes the mistake of landing on a nearby rock. Shocked and saddened, Big Buck Bunny runs from the meadow into the forest as the gang of three throw prickly thistles at him. Angered by the gang's hateful actions, Bunny begins a humorous Predator-style vengeance preparation, which then plays out with a truly hilarious ending. Stick around during the credits for various little animations of the gang of three and an additional sequence after the credits where one of the maligned victims of the gang serves up some scatological comeuppance.

Some reviewer commented that the tools used in the making of this movie might render (pun intended) big animation studios like DreamWorks and Pixar obsolete. Nonsense. What makes a film a success — regardless of medium — is story and the execution of said. If nothing else, Pixar's success has taught us there is no substitute for a great story excellently told. The faulty thinking that leads to erroneous conclusions such as this is the continual underestimation of artists and the creative process in general. Each new generation is driven to push the boundaries and squeeze every little bit of functionality out of the tools they have to work with, not to mention the irreplaceable importance of performance by voice actors. This is why we will never see "push button" characters and the dissolution of big names studios with pockets deep enough to pay for such talent. Ours is a culture that all but worships famous personalities and as long as they demand large salaries, only the big name studios will be able to afford their services. The tools, however, are another matter.

The free, open-source Blender animation/rendering software puts powerful tools into the hands of a much larger section of the population with far less money at their disposal. Instead of costing tens or hundreds of thousands (or even millions) for the software and hardware necessary to make a professional-looking animated movie, open-source software like Blender brings that cost down to a few thousand or so. For the cost of a mid-level Macintosh, the free Blender software suite and a few other reasonably priced software tools, a person or group could make their own feature-length animated movie just like the makers of Big Buck Bunny did. Hopefully, after enjoying the efforts of the team that made this movie, more people will endeavor to make their own animated fare. If this film is any indication, animation fans are in for a heck of a ride.

Dracula's Guest (2008)

Grade Z horror director branches out with little success

[3/10 · 8 August 2008]

This is a VERY ambitious undertaking for Michael Feifer, who usually keeps to grade "Z" horror, and he is really in over his head. In fact, most of the actors are also in over their head in this vampire period piece. The accents, the acting, all are amateur at best (with one or two notable exceptions). The film does have a few merits, but they are overwhelmed by the poor direction and overall lackluster acting.

This tale is based on one of Stoker's short stories where Elizabeth is trapped by Dracula in his castle and Bram Stoker (himself) must save her. Obviously it takes liberties with the actual short stories (placing the author himself in the tome), but it is based on a couple of Stoker's tales, one of which is Dracula's Guest (the same name as the film).

In this film, Bram Stoker (yes, the lead character is named after the writer of the story this is based upon) and Elizabeth Murray are engaged to be married. Stoker is a junior associate at a real estate firm who gets his chance at a promotion through handling the property search for Count Dracula (obviously, it is very similar thus far in exposition to Stoker's novel, Dracula). Elizabeth's father, Admiral Murray (played terribly by Dan Speaker) refuses to give Bram his daughter's hand in marriage until they have separated — with no contact — for one year. Bram acquiesces to the Admiral's wishes much to the chagrin of Elizabeth who runs away in response where she runs into the Count who takes her to his castle by casting a spell over her. There he imprisons her to get to her father who the Count says descends from a long line of vampire hunters who have "wreaked havoc on {his} family for centuries". It seems Dracula wants to breed with Elizabeth to bear a child which will lift the curse on his family, by creating a new race of super vampires (one presumes, because actually his plot is confusing and never fully understood). Bram sets out to rescue Elizabeth, which pits him against the Count.

The film does manage a few positive elements, however one of them is *not* the soundtrack, which seems like it was created by a high school amateur in his living room on a Casio keyboard. Dracula is played by an actor (Andrew Bryniarski) who usually plays the stupid jock in films (The Program, Higher Learning) which is probably what he should continue playing, as he is not capable of pulling off a challenging and meaty role like Dracula. Andrew hams it up terribly, and for some reason constantly waves his hands around his face like he is auditioning to be a hand model.

Particularly bad is Dan Speaker who plays Admiral Murray, he is simply not an actor or shouldn't be. Second worse is Kelsey McCann who plays Elizabeth; she is very clearly a native product of California struggling (abysmally) to play an English débutante. Those two alone make it very, very difficult to keep watching the film. To be fair though, Kelsey does get a bit better as the film goes along, but not enough to merit her playing this role. The actor who plays Bram, Wes Ramsey, however does show potential. His acting is very natural and his accent quite realistic especially considering he was born in Louisville, Kentucky. He even manages to speak in a somewhat "lower-class" English dialect (a bit Cockney), which helps us understand the Admiral's objections to his marriage to Elizabeth who is from the upper classes.

The real crime though is committed by Feifer who has clearly not prepared his actors for their roles. I would doubt they did any rehearsal as each scene seems like the first time any of the actors have read the material. In fact, each scene seems like the first take he shot, as if Feifer is conserving film or a product of the Ed Wood school of film-making where the first take is the only take. The final sword fight in particular is a victim of this poor direction... it is pure camp, ridiculous and unrealistic. Count Dracula and the Admiral drone on and on, reciting the most inane dialog. The movie ends abruptly, with a sappy denouement.

Production however is one area which rises above. The sets and items like carriages seem authentic to the period. Some however are a bit out-of-place, for example the scene where Elizabeth seeks to leave Dracula's mansion and ends up in a hallway of stored crematory urns. It is clearly a modern crypt (an indoor cemetery). It looked to me like the Hollywood crypt I visited as a tourist many years ago. Still, many of the sets are very good. The costumes are by far the best element in this film, particularly considering the shoestring budget with which this movie was made. A couple of times there appears an anachronistic shirt collar and such, but overall the costume design is superior.

In different hands and with a better cast this story would have merit. It is one that hasn't been seen in the mainstream, although Coppola did direct the quintessential Bram Stoker novel, Dracula (a different story than this). The production designer has a lot to be proud of (as does the costumer) and lets hope we see more from Wes Ramsey, but the director should stick with low budget horror films.

Autopsy: Emergency Room (2007– )

Amazing and educational show with the ability to polarize...

[10/10 · 3 July 2008]

This three-part show uses real cadavers to illustrate how injuries and wounds cause trauma and death. Cadavers, from bodies freely donated for educational purposes, are dissected in front of an audience consisting of living body donors. The examinations done on the systems and organs of the body are performed from the standpoint of an emergency room physician. Live nude models are painted on by a medical illustrator to help augment the demonstration illustrating the internal systems, organs and how injuries impact them.

It is frankly amazing how this simple topic can polarize an audience. There are very powerful opinions, feelings and dogma concerning the treatment of the human body (postmortem). For some this is sacrilege, while others see it as enlightening and ground-breaking in expanding our knowledge of the bodies we inhabit.

The hosts offer some excellent emergency procedures and information and a Red Cross expert is on hand to demonstrate basic first aid techniques. The donor bodies are treated with respect (as much as can be expected) as they are being dissected and examined. At no point do you feel anything is being done for sensationalism, which thankfully avoids any "freakshow" atmosphere. Everything is done in a quiet, frank manner showing systems in the body and the results of certain accidents or injuries. Only once do things become a little farcical when a demonstration concerning head injuries goes a little awry.

The shows deftly avoid a morbid or macabre atmosphere. It is simply an excellent, informative series for anyone who has an interest in biology and or the inner workings of their own body. It is not for children, but late teens interested in medicine or nursing might gain some insight and test their meddle with the events occurring on screen (with adult supervision). Overall the shows are presented in a mature, professional manner with informative demonstrations and a wealth of medical information.

State of Grace (1990)

Electrifying portrait of one man's battle with his own demons.

[10/10 · 7 April 2007]

Once in a while a movie comes along that is a gift for an actor. It is like a golden opportunity that has been given to them, but there is a catch… they have to deliver. Three actors were given that opportunity in State of Grace: Ed Harris, Gary Oldman and Sean Penn. All three deliver performances that easily merit a Best Actor Oscar, but it is the chemistry between Penn and Oldman that issue forth true gold. Oldman completely and utterly loses himself in the role of Jackie Flannery, a small-time Irish gangster that happens to be the younger, impulsive, reckless brother of the head boss of the Irish mob in Hell's Kitchen, Frank Flannery. Frank is brokering a deal with the Italian Cosa Nostra that will result in a major windfall of money and power for the much smaller gang of Irish mobsters. Frank is one of the only people who seems to understand how important this deal is, while the rest of the gang bristles against the direction of the much more powerful and organized Mafia. Every time it looks like the deal will go through, some member of Frank's gang does something stupid to insult the Italians, and each time this happens Frank is called upon (by the Italians) to do their retribution upon his own people.

In the midst of this very dangerous situation enters Terry Noonan (Sean Penn), Jackie's best friend from childhood who is now a cop and undercover with the directive to do no less than take down Frank's entire gang. In the beginning Terry seems eager to do his job, but as the reality of what he must do comes crashing down he is torn between his love for his old friend, and his duty as a policeman. This is further complicated by the fact that Jackie's sister Kathleen (Robin Wright Penn) and Terry were childhood sweethearts. As Terry renews his relationship with both Jackie and Kathleen he begins to lose his identity and his soul as he is torn apart by the things he must do as a policeman, what he sees being done by Frank and his gang, and his deepening relationship with Kathleen.

Oldman delivers an explosive performance and he seems to become even more unhinged and unpredictable each moment that he and Penn spend together. The true beauty of his performance is the fact that we know how intelligent Oldman is; yet he is totally believable as this half-witted madman who is rushing towards his own demise. It is Penn though that has the heavy lifting to do, because he doesn't have the luxury of hiding behind the frenetic machinations that Oldman's character does. You actually feel pain as you watch Terry get in deeper and deeper, drinking more and more, sleeping less and less, losing his direction and his mind.

The music by Ennio Morricone is haunting, brooding and electrifying; perfectly suited to the evolving story on screen. As we watch Terry betray his friends and himself, it seems as if pieces of him actually float away, carried on the wings of Morricone's music. Robin Wright Penn also delivers as a young woman who is desperately trying to escape the mean streets of the Kitchen, the violent world of her brothers, and her meager upbringing. She also underestimated what being with Terry would mean, especially after learning Terry's true identity. She is sucked back into what she has tried so hard to become free of, and must watch as her family and Terry disintegrates.

The entire movie is set upon a collision course between Terry and Frank, and when they finally collide, director Phil Joanou films it almost like a dream sequence. The power of this film is how it manages to so vividly portray one man's attempt to finally confront his past and his own character flaws. All of us have demons and we promise and strive to finally confront them, but do we ever? Facing our fears is one thing, but the true measure of a person's character is how we perform when that fear stares into us, face to face. Here, Terry comes full circle and finally confronts the demons of his youth, and the showdown might cost his life.

Watch this film for the terrific performances of all the lead actors, for the fantastic music, the frenetic action, and the moving drama, but watch it also to ask yourself, what are your demons, when will you finally face them and what will happen when you do?

Masters of Horror: Family (2006) Season 2, Episode 2

Landis proves he is one of the "Family"...

[8/10 · 6 November 2006]

The second season of Masters of Horror (MOH) got off to a rocky start with The Damned Thing, but Landis puts it squarely back on track with Family, a bright and cheery decent into the mind of a madman.

George Wendt is picture perfect as the neighbor we all wish we had, or at least we think we would like to have. His social skills are spot on, and gone is any trace of the irascible Norm from Cheers. Some might begrudge the obvious mud slinging to all things Republican or Religious Right, but we can forgive those little jabs as simply Landis playing against type.

David and Celia are moving in next door to Harold (Wendt) and all seems like suburban heaven, but something isn't as it seems with Harold. As the new neighbors get to know one another, Harold develops a crush on Celia. It all seems harmless until something happens that gives Harold the opening he was looking for. To give anymore away would be criminal.

The thing that makes this entry so delicious is the environment that Landis creates to unfold this little horror/comedy. He is truly a "master" of the black comedy, as is more than evident in the much lauded American Werewolf in London. As he did in last year's Deer Woman, Landis shows his acute savvy at creating believable characters and surroundings that allow the audience to really hook in. It is this gift which gives his work such power and impact. In too many horror films the circumstances are so alien it is difficult for the audience to identify, but in Landis' work you feel right at home just before the hammer strikes your skull. The darker episodes in MOH have their appeal, but with Landis' entries there is a strange fulfillment that comes after viewing that is difficult to describe. It is as if you are happy that you have escaped the fate of the characters, the connection is that good.

With Family, Masters of Horror once again lives up to its name. Lets hope the rest of the "family" does as well this season.

Chasing Ghosts (2005)

Good first film with great music on a shoestring budget...

[8/10 · 14 August 2006]

Madsen does Madsen like he always does, but here it fits the movie like a glove. The cinematography is outstanding; the Director of Photography deserves an Oscar nod for doing what he did on this budget. The music is spotty, one minute it is near greatness, the next minute it seems forced and mis-matched to the tension of the film. Still, the composer did an incredible job considering his budget. He did the whole thing on a Mac, with a MOTU Traveler using samples and a single recording session with strings only. The kind of atmosphere the director (Kyle Dean Jackson) was able to stir up with such a limited budget is remarkable.

There isn't a poor performance in the bunch, save one: Corey Large. Large has all the passion of a rice cake. The guy simply cannot emote, which is sad because Shannyn Sossamon gives a tour de force performance opposite someone giving her nothing. I am very interested to see what this young director will do next, because he certainly does have what it takes to make a good movie. Frankly I tend to believe that the writer, producer and (uncredited) second director Alan Pao had a LOT to do with this film's excellence. Here's hoping that we'll see many more good things from both Jackson and Pao in the future.

Red Rover (2003)

A confusing plot, weak direction and poor acting take all the thrill out of this thriller.

[3/10 · 1 May 2006]

First off let me say this, I'm not an overly picky person who finds it fun to trash movies by griping and complaining about every little thing. I*wanted* to like this movie because I thought the premise was intriguing and I believe that Jodi Lyn O'Keefe has some real talent, but how could I? This movie is supposed to be a thriller complete with a shocking ending, but a confusing plot, poor acting and weak direction remove any possibility that we might become invested enough to *be* thrilled or shocked. There are no likable characters for us to really care about, and that alone would be enough to ruin this movie, but far more than that contribute to this disaster. The plot is convoluted and confusing with too many ghostly apparitions that we aren't sure are ghosts or just figments of the lead character's twisted imagination.

To be fair, the story does have some potential and fits right in with the recent crop of horror thrillers e.g., The Secret Window, Skeleton Key and Hide and Seek. I *wanted* to like this movie because I thought the premise was intriguing and I believe that Jodi Lyn O'Keefe has some real talent, but how could I? This film though squanders any impact the story may have because it can't decide whether it is a ghost story, a supernatural horror flick or psychological thriller. Because the director cannot decide everything is too loose so there is no tension, which is essential for a thriller or a horror movie. The acting is poor because the writing is poor and the actors can't seem to get a handle on who their character is and why they are acting the way they do.

The story is supposed to be about William Baldwin's character Will Taylor trying to cure his mentally ill sister Kylie Taylor played by Jodi Lyn O'Keefe. After the death of their father, Will takes his sister to their ancestral home (that has been in the family for at least four generations) supposedly to confront her with the past and free her from fears and delusions she has about what did or did not happen when she was a child. It sounds ridiculous just writing it here and it is twice as absurd as portrayed in the movie. He takes her off all her medications, isolates her in a very creepy place and basically harasses her into a state of total hysteria. How this is a prescription for Kylie getting "better" boggles the mind. Lastly, William Baldwin — god bless his soul — simply cannot sell the audience on being any kind of believable psychologist or doctor who could really help Kylie.

As the movie progresses instead of the plot getting clearer and the action becoming more taut, things get more confounding. Important characters are introduced very late in the movie, which adds to the confusion. As the denouement nears, the editing becomes even more careless which drains any suspense that some events are creating. It is only in the last five minutes that the director decides where this movie is going and we aren't utterly confused about what is happening. Even then though we are left scratching our heads as to what really occurred, because it simply doesn't make much sense.

If this film had a more competent director armed with a tighter, *comprehensible* script and possibly a couple of better actors this movie might have been good, but that is a lot of "ifs" & "ands". Instead, what we are left with is a muddled, confusing mess that simply doesn't work. If you want to know how *not* to make a thriller... watch this movie, but if you actually want thrills with your thriller this isn't the film for you.

In July (2000)

Wonderful German take on the romantic comedy

[8/10 · 19 April 2006]

It is very nice to see how a director from a country besides the U.S. creates a romantic comedy. This type of film isn't what one would expect from Germany, and perhaps that contributes to its charm. Certainly Christiane Paul who portrays the title's namesake is luminous. Every frame she is in, she lights up the screen. It has been said that they success of a romantic comedy depends on the audience falling in love with the main characters as they are falling in love on screen. If this is true, then both Christiane and Moritz Bleibtreu (who plays Daniel Bannier) do a marvelous job of seducing the audience, both are very likable and by the second reel you are cheering for them to be together.

The plot has the basic framework of a road movie/romantic comedy. Daniel is closed off and stuffy, and Juli is the free spirit who is his guide to individual freedom and expression. Daniel meets her at a street fair, and she immediately recognizes him as "the one" who is his destiny. She sells him a ring with the symbol of the sun that is supposed to unite him with his one true love who will also be wearing a solar symbol. Daniel doesn't know it at the time, but Juli has a tattoo of the sun on the small of her back. That night he meets a pretty young woman named Melek who is carrying a backpack bearing a picture of the sun. He takes this as a sign and pursues her. At drinks together she informs him that she is meeting someone under a well-known bridge in Istanbul. He is disappointed that she is meeting someone who she might be in love with, but after they part ways he decides to go to Istanbul and meet her under the bridge on the night of her meeting with this other man.

Meanwhile Juli, having seen Daniel and Melek together becomes depressed and decides to leave the city. As she stands at the crossroads of the highway, she says her goodbyes to her friend and states that she will go wherever the next ride takes her, no matter where they are going. Sure enough, Daniel stops for her and they begin their journey together. Along the way, Juli falls even further in love with Daniel even though he is on a quest to meet another woman. As they make their way, the usual kinds of twists and turns that one expects in a comedic road movie crop up: the car breaks down, they lose all their money and are forced to depend on the kindness of a quirky bunch of characters to complete their journey. All the while Daniel is learning to let go of the very tight grip he has on his life. As he loosens his hold his heart also opens to Juli, and when she leaves him to complete his odyssey alone (an act of unselfish love, and an indicator that Juli is learning lessons herself), he finally realizes that the girl he truly wanted was with him all the while.

Near the end of his trek he runs into the very girl he is going to Istanbul to meet and finds her very happy to see him. Here he must make a choice to stay with Melek, who obviously wants him to stay, or complete his adventure to the bridge where Juli may or may not be waiting for him. I'll leave you to find out the rest, but rest assured there will be no unhappy ending here.

As Hollywood tries to come up with increasingly improbable scenarios to breathe new life into the romantic comedy, German director Faith Akin follows a familiar path and allows the heart of these characters to draw us into the story. The exotic places they travel through becomes a separate character as well, and Akin allows the beauty and mystery of these locals to seduce as much as the main characters do.

The charm of this movie is in the reminder that humans the world over feel the same excitement and happiness when falling in love. Akin wisely relies on the desire each of us has to feel that love, and the delight of seeing others experience that joy as well. It will never grow boring watching two likable characters fall in love, especially when they are willing to fight, trek thousands of miles, and endure any hardship to be with the one they love. With In July, Akin spins a wonderful tale of love, growth and discovery. You won't go wrong spending a couple of hours with this film falling in love yourself.

Girl Play (2004)

Z Grade Lesbian flick, nerve grating and mind-numbingly boring...

[3/10 · 21 January 2006]

Whoever the "independent critic" was who fawned over this flick and cracked on someone who panned it, they obviously had relationship issues. No relationship, hon??? From a "guy" point of view, this movie is like a "chick flick" on Drano. Imagine all the elements of a whiny, "Joy Luck Club", estrogen-overdose, and then add in grating, abrasive and utterly uninteresting griping (directly into the camera, no less) about one's "partner". There is a gratuitous girl-on-girl scene or two, but the leads are mannish, adult tomboys trying oh-so-desperately to act and sound like street-cool, arty types, with bodies like limp tube-socks, so any appeal from a strictly hedonistic perspective is devoid of any turn-on.

I will give it kudos for having the guts to be a bit more realistic in it's physical portrayal of lesbians. Unlike some "lesbian" films (which are little more than soft-core porn for gawking guys) where the women are super-models or Pam Anderson types, the women in this movie reflect a more accurate image of the "average" lesbian. With the exception of one character, the women in this film are of average, or below-average looks, blue-collar body types, and clothing styles like an unmade bed. Mannerisms and body language are truer to form as well, mostly devoid of feminine overtones.

Unless you have a burning desire to see the irritating details of a lesbian relationship on the rocks, skip this movie and watch Lost and Delirious instead. Though the women in Lost and Delirious aren't as realistically lesbian "looking", they're waaaaay easier on the eyes, the story is much more interesting (and actually quite touching), and the characters are people you'll actually care about.

Four Brothers (2005)

Four Brothers... One Mother... A whole lotta trouble... and fun...

[8/10 · 5 January 2006]

Singleton finally hits his stride with this surprisingly deep character study disguised as a mystery, action flick. What a delight it is to find a truly color-blind movie that isn't *trying* to be color-blind. The fact that two brothers are white and two are black isn't trawled for the "We Are the World" fakery that usually accompanies dramas with mixed-race families. The brothers here are just that, brothers who have a common bond in the horrors they suffered before a selfless, loving woman adopted them. The relationship they share is admirable, by anyone's standards. The mother isn't portrayed as a saint, but rather a real person who had a genuine love for hurting children, and a knack for putting them on the straight-and-narrow.

This film marks the first time I have ever seen a movie that was able to capture the deep, abiding love that I have for my brother and sister. Singleton shows his maturity in this film in several ways, the most pointed is the common personality traits the brother's share that obviously has been imparted by their mother. Her loving presence is felt throughout the film through the actions, emotions and relationship the brother's share. Sprinkled here and there are little flashbacks showing Evelyn interacting with each of her sons; it is done with great sensitivity and is very powerful.

The pacing is crisp and steady with absolutely no lulls in the story. The plot is very believable, and the villain is not the run-of-the-mill bad guy. No punches are pulled vis-à-vis the violence, people die and the brothers do the killing. I LOVED this about the film; I am so very tired of movies trying to keep the principles sympathetic by separating them from the dirty work of busting heads and shooting folks. The brothers are on a mission to find out who killed their mother and why, and they are willing to do *anything* to find out. They don't spend loads of time arguing with the bad guys, or pretending that they will hurt them, yet never doing so. They march right through each situation, hurting and killing the people responsible for their mother's death, and it is *refreshing*. Men from the street don't mess around, they don't carry around lots of moral baggage, and this is what we want to see in a revenge movie. When we go to see a film like this, we want to see people do what we wish we could do to people who wrong us. Four Brothers promises to show this, and delivers on that promise in FULL.

Typically in movies of this nature, character development is sacrificed to make room for the action. In this film the character development DRIVES the action. It is deft and deeply creative, a three-punch combination of script, direction and acting comes off like clockwork. Singleton has, at long last, found his niche in this genre. As a younger man he thought that poignancy could only be found in dramas that indict some segment of our society. In Four Brothers he clearly understands that relevancy is found in issues of the human heart, and what MOVES the human heart. In past films it seemed that he was only interested in touching his audience through the stark and painful aspects of life. In Four Brothers, Singleton is exploring so much more than the meaner side of life, here he is interested in dissecting the entire beast, and he succeeds with beauty and affection.

Better Than Sex (2000)

Finally, a real woman in a sexy romantic comedy!

[9/10 · 7 September 2005]

I get so tired seeing heroin thin, twenty-somethings in romantic comedies, especially ones with lots of nudity. This one has the luminous Susie Porter reclining, pacing and prancing around nude, with the most fantastic confidence and comfort with her body. She doesn't have the perfect body mind you, but the type that I love more than a Hagen-Daz milkshake. She's got some meat on her bones, but she isn't fat. She is voluptuous, curvaceous, with the sweetest milky white, freckled skin. Her smile can take your breath away, and her eyes seem like they can see every lie you've ever told, and you want her to know. She's a WOMAN, a real woman, not some kid trying to be a woman. Most times with *women* you get lots of trying to be younger, but Susie LIVES in her body, her soul is older, wiser and more mature. She knows how to treat a man too. She lets a guy be a guy without sacrificing her will or self-esteem. Oh, I'm supposed to review this movie... OK...

Basically in this excellent flick you are watching two adults fall in love. Both are mature and confident, but they're leery of jumping into a relationship, but it never lingers on past baggage, and nobody needs to "get free" of some obstacle before they can continue. I've found that women rarely say they're ready for love, or looking for love, but if it presents itself to them they won't chase it off. Basically a woman is never NOT ready to fall in love, and this movie does a great job of showing men how a woman who isn't even THINKING about falling in love, can. It also illustrates luxuriously how head games, lies and bullsh*t are NOT the way to enjoy falling in love. Most young people think that head games are the only way to get what you want, or how to protect your heart, which is toss-all. Here two people say what they mean and mean what they say, and what they don't say they don't say because they're not sure yet that they feel it.

Have you ever met someone and it just clicked and while it was clicking you spent a day or three in bed? This movie sumptuously wallows in that intoxicating experience. These two people devour each other sexually and while they do, passion blossoms and intimacy becomes more and more desirable. I can't remember a movie that so eloquently illustrates the difference between lust and passion, between sex and intimacy.

Buy this movie now, you will not regret it, but watch it with a lover because watching it while you're single will make you jones too much for the real thing and that could be depressing. View it with someone you love and it could re-kindle a little magic, it will at least get you laughing and getting aroused in the same room.

A movie about adults for adults that makes you feel like a kid.

Men Boxing (1891)

Engaging and stark, but without clearly drawn characters...

[7 March 2004]

This hotly anticipated film fails to deliver. The special effects are spectacular, but the real action is lacking. The characters aren't defined at all, you simply don't identify with them in any way. The dialog has it moments to be sure, but subtitles just can't convey the idiosyncrasies of the human voice. The direction is pedestrian, at times I wondered if anyone was at the helm at all. It is a lengthy tome to be sure, but not overlong given the subject matter. The cinematography is rather good, and the decision to go monochromatic was a masterstroke. No sequels were planned or made, though many iterations have followed. This is not on the par with Rocky, and doesn't even come close to the sparkling, violent energy of Raging Bull, with which is shares a common theme (and common color - B&W). There is some very deep subliminal ideology, on several levels at work here. However, I think it will be many years before many of them are recognized and appreciated by the savvy filmgoer. All in all this is a masterpiece, even if the technical aspects, and certain performances lack the power of the subject matter and denouement.

The Ghost and Mr. Chicken (1966)

Great fun for kids and family...

[10/10 · 14 December 2003]

This is a fun family comedy, that doesn't have the syrupy "message" nonsense you find in such movies today. This film hinges on Don Knotts and his trademark physical comedy, which he delivers with ease. I loved his movies as a kid, and my kids love them too.

It is amazing how much Knotts is willing to make himself look completely ridiculous to make you laugh. One such scene happens when he is courting his girlfriend on the porch of his boarding house. He starts to chop his hands in the air, she asks what he is doing, he replies "Oh that's karate, I've been studying it through the mail for years". Then he puffs up his chest and boasts, "My whole body's a weapon". You almost can't watch it, but my seven and nine-year-old sons make me rewind it over and over, laughing their heads off each time.

Introduce your kids to this, and other silly movies starring Don Knotts. They'll enjoy them, and it will give them a little insight into your world as a child.

Finding Nemo (2003)

Excellent film, especially for fathers and sons...

[10/10 · 6 June 2003]

I have two sons, one six and one nine; we hugged, laughed and cried during this whole film. People that whined that their kids were "traumatized" by the action must be smothering their children. Only a very small child (well under two) or a kid in desperate need to loosen the grip from mommy's apron strings could possibly be "terrorized" by this film. Movies are about love, loss, fear, laughter, surprise, etc. Asking a film to be some bland thing that every little wimpy baby can see without boo-hooing is absurd. Get a life, and quit raising simps.

The message of the film is very pertinent, especially in today's world, yet it is not bludgeoned over the audience's head. It takes head on the fact that children are increasingly pushing for more freedom at a younger age, and shows that a balance can be reached. It doesn't shy away from the fact that danger exists, and no parent can safeguard against every possible threat. It embraces the fact that each parent must loosen the grip, while maintaining as safe an environment as possible.

Another wonderful aspect concerns little Nemo's "lucky" fin. He actually has a damaged, or handicapped right fin, although the movie never portrays Nemo as disabled, in the traditional sense. Instead it is an allegory for a parent's justifiable reluctance to allow their children to pursue their own independence in a dangerous world - and a very subtly powerful one at that.

The voice talents are excellent, with Ellen DeGeneres stealing the show. Even if you don't like her, you'll like her... here. Willem Defoe and Albert Brooks also give performances, which take advantage of their public image, but add delightful twists to deepen the impact.

It is a film that focuses on the father/son relationship throughout, whereas many Disney movies kill off the dad early on. This isn't to say that everything is all roses here either. Caulk a realistic relationship, with the faults and missteps present therein to a Pixar team that increasingly continues to school animation studios on the fact that STORY MATTERS MOST.

This film is a great opportunity for families to feel close to one another without the impression you checked your brain at the door to achieve that. My boys and I hugged for five minutes after this film ended, and then proceeded to crack up during the humorous end credits. Parents who balk at the fear factor, need to put away the pampering powder and concentrate on bringing up kids equipped to deal appropriately with a frightening world, at that age. It's not Alien for crying-out-loud. What it is, is great movie-making and real fun, especially for families with strong, independent kids testing boundaries - as all healthy children do.

Compromising Positions (1985)

Fun rainy day movie, with a hilarious Judith Ivey

[8/10 · 27 May 2003]

This is a movie that you will have fun watching, and you might find yourself watching it again and again. It is certainly throwaway, and will never show up on anyone's top ten list, but it works nonetheless. Like The Late Show with Lily Tomlin and Art Carney, it involves a woman investigating a mystery, a seasoned detective and humor evolving from the lead character being involved in something so over her head. Judith Ivey has some great moments as an artist/housewife who loves her husband but seeks out meaningless sexual trysts. Her pure hedonistic attitude toward her lifestyle, and unshakable lack of guilt make for some hilarious moments. Susan Sarandon plays a naive housewife who used to be a reporter. She longs for the excitement, but is hampered by a domineering husband who wishes for nothing else from her than a hot meal and clean underwear. It's no wonder she's ripe for an affair with the lead detective on the case, Raul Julia. He finds himself falling for her despite the fact that she's driving him crazy by horning in on the case.

I love this movie for the same reason that I love Six Days and Seven Nights with Anne Heche and Harrison Ford, it's funny and has a nice romantic plot that keeps me coming back again and again to experience it. This is Sunday afternoon fodder, lazy day entertainment that won't ruffle your feathers with too serious subject matter and objectionable content. It's just a fun movie.

I really enjoyed seeing Raul Julia pining over Sarandon. Too many times he was the heavy in a film, or being subjected to the machinations of one. Here he is just a man who happens to be a detective, and the only thing heavy about him is the change in his pocket. Sarandon plays her part well, acting oblivious to her growing interest in Julia, a point that Judith Ivey makes clear in blunt and humorous terms.

It's a little silly, and you can see things coming a mile away at times, but all in all you'll be glad you rented it. My wife liked it a lot as well, and it's always nice to find a movie that women like that doesn't smell like potpourri before you even get it in the DVD player. If you like movies like Fletch, The Late Show and Six Days, Seven Nights, you'll enjoy this.

Blink (1993)

A good thriller that can get under your skin...

[9/10 · 18 May 2001]

I don't know why, but out of the thousands of movies that I have watched over the years, certain ones gain a weird status. I have favorites, and those that I believe are the best of all time (like Vertigo). Then there are a handful that I can't really categorize, except to say that I watch them over, and over and over. There are only about six of them, but I can watch one and rewind it and watch it again and keep repeating if time and a life didn't intrude. These movies aren't necessarily great, some aren't even good by critical standards - regardless I can view them over and over. Blink is one of those films. It's not a great movie, although I think the acting of Stowe and Quinn are quite good. Yet out of all the movies I have on DVD or VHS (and it's around 500) this is one of less than ten that I would always answer "yes" if someone asked if I wanted to watch it. I think the music has a lot to do with it. The soundtrack is good, and the songs by the Drovers are excellent. The blind woman theme is a favorite of most men in particular, however this one throws two great twists - one, she is more independent than most other women who aren't blind and two, she regains her sight very early in the film. The well done love scenes don't hurt, but edit them out and this film would still retain it's "multiple watching" status for me. Women I have watched this with enjoyed it, and surprisingly a few said it was the scariest movie they had ever seen. The reason given was the unknown element of danger and her level of vulnerability. I can see how this would be much more scary to women than to men. It is in no hurry to finish itself, and I find that leisurely paced movies that hold your attention and provide suspense all the while, are winners. I'm sure everyone has that movie or two that they love, but can't explain why. Siskel and Ebert used to do a show once in a while called "Guilty Pleasures" about movies that were critically bad, but they enjoyed. Which is the nearest thing to what I'm talking - but not quite. Overall a good movie and who knows, it might become one of your cult favorites.

Zelly and Me (1988)

Total chick movie, that all men should watch...

[8 May 2001]

**SPOILERS**Zelly and Me is just about the most total chick movie there has ever been. I say that in the kindest way possible for a guy to do. Most guys would rather have their groin set afire and run screaming through a pool of gasoline than have to sit through this movie. I admit that the first time I saw this I had visions of bolting for the door to ride my motorcycle to freedom. That said, let me tell ALL guys why they should unequivocally watch this movie - because unless you can sit through this movie, and unless you can get something out of this movie you will NEVER begin to understand women. As I just turned 39 years old, I realize that women, all women have a functional form of Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD). It is normal for all women to have several (or a lot more) women living inside of them. Which is why men get so confused when they try to understand women. You can meet a woman one night and she might be the wildest , carefree spirit you ever met. The next morning she might be a totally conservative, shy and quiet thing. While you are trying to figure out if you are hallucinating you remember this movie and you start to understand the excellent weirdness that is womanhood. Many facets of what it is to be a woman, what it is like to be a little girl, and how a grown woman can be like a little girl in one moment and a completely sexual adult in another are illustrated in this movie. In this film Zelly (played by Isabella Rossellini) bridges the gap between the cruel grandmother (CoCo) and the little girl (Phoebe) that she is in charge of as her nanny. If nothing else, this movie tries to show how women are so many people at once. As Zelly attempts to protect little orphan Phoebe, and keep her job by not offending her disfunctionally stern grandmother CoCo, she illustrates the strength of women. As she plays with Phoebe, (as childlike as Phoebe herself ) - interacts as an adult with CoCo - and becomes romantic with Willie (played excellently by David Lynch) we get to see the many sides of a woman and how we as men will NEVER understand the complexities of being a woman. As men, we are raised in the role of dominate persons. Our personality is so much more simple to understand because of this. We pursue things, we aggress, we penetrate life. Women have it so much more difficult. They want to submit, to acquiesce, but also they want to pursue and to dominate. Just think about how difficult it is for a woman to be daddy's little girl, to be a sexual person with a man, to be a mother, and to be someone's boss at the same time. ---------semi-spoiler alert-----------

One moment in the film that really illustrates this is when Zelly goes to Lynch after being fired by CoCo. They plot to take Phoebe, and Lynch moves in to kiss Zelly, she pulls away and says something like she doesn't want to kiss him with her cross on. He takes it off and she kisses him and later we find that they have made love. Here is a little girl who is supposed to be pure, daddy's girl that shouldn't want to make love, but at the same time she is a sexual person who desires this man. How complicated is that? WAY more complicated than being a guy. Can you imagine how messed up a woman could get if her parents weren't good at helping her work out all these seeming contradictions? Whew, thank god I'm a man! If you are a guy and you have any woman in your life - your mother, a sister or some woman that you are in love with, watch this movie. For them, for yourself, for that little girl you may one day have (or already have). It offers some insight into what it is to be a little girl, a woman in her prime and one past. It will also show you just how powerful women are, in a way that you will never understand, but should try as long as you live. It made me appreciate my mother, my sister and my wife a whole lot more. Ummm, after I got over the urge to grab the clicker and turn the channel to The Man Show, football, anything other than this. Chicks, I love 'em. I won't ever understand them, but it's a fun trip while you try. And the best part is they put up with us while we never get it.

In the Company of Men (1997)

Thanks, my wife now hates me!

[28 August 2000]

This movie is awesome. It is evil, cruel, hilarious, misleading yet true. I watched this movie, and then like an idiot watched it again with my wife and my sister. At the end they just both looked at me like I was Satan and had just clubbed a baby seal. If looks could kill, I'd be dead TWICE! Then the worst part was I started laughing. They just got up in disgust and walked out of the room. Which made me laugh harder. Oh GOD! It took weeks to repair the damage. I tried to explain that it was the kind of laughter that comes after a funeral. That did NOT help. I tried to explain that they were both looking at me like I had killed someone and it made me laugh. That didn't help either. It was the first time in my 12 year marriage that my wife called me a s**thead! My sister, thank god, later (much later) started laughing too, and she helped me out with my wife. Who by now was telling my children that I was Rosemary's Baby! I laughed so hard during this movie that I thought I was going to throw up. I also cried (yes cried). There are scenes that will tear your soul out. I think the reason why this movie hit me so hard, as funny and horrid was because I knew someone like Chad. A guy totally devoid of all love or morality. No compassion or kindness, but he was CONSTANTLY getting laid. I could tell stories about this guy that would make Chad look like Alan Alda. Whew. This movie is a tour-de-force, especially when you consider that this was Neil LaBute's first movie, which he wrote also. The sickest part about this movie is that there are guys like Chad out there. Hopefully only a few, but this movie will make women think there are LOTS more. Watch this movie, if you have the guts. But take my advice...DON'T WATCH IT WITH A WOMAN, unless you are trying to break up, because it will certainly help you do that if you wish.

P.S. If any women out there watched it and liked it, would you mind talking with my wife? ;-)

Tarzan (1999)

Powerful, beautiful and moving version, marred only by it's weak villain

[9/10 · 14 February 2000]

Without a doubt, this is the most visually impressive animated movie Disney has ever created. In the entire visual history of animated films, this one stands head and shoulders with the best, and above most. The concept of incorporating all or part of the actual person's face and mannerisms who provides the voice for an animated character (which Disney pioneered), has been raised to near art form in this movie. The casting of voices for the characters is excellent, and adds greatly to the impact of the animated performances. Indeed it adds immensely to the entire movie. The visual richness in this film is absolutely awe inspiring.

I look for little things, that normally get overlooked, as a guide for how devoted animators are to bringing quality to the screen. For a small example of this, check out the scene (pretty early in the film) where boy Tarzan asks Terk if he can come with him to play. Terk says no, because `...you can't keep up'. The next scene Terk comes through a group of ferns and starts talking to his friends. Check out the movement of the ferns behind Terk, and also when boy Tarzan comes through them. They are incredibly detailed and are constantly moving (realistically). All this requires time, money and talent and NO WHERE in this film is that scrimped on.

Deep Canvas, the new technique created by Disney, adds immeasurably to Tarzan. This film wouldn't be NEAR what it is without it. Normally for animation to occur where we follow the action `into' the frame or toward and away from you, the background has to be redrawn continuously because (for instance) elements get larger as you move toward them. This, In contrast to action that moves side-to-side where the background can be drawn once and only character cells need be redrawn. Its like moving `into' a painting, rather than back and forth across the canvas (hence the name probably).

Animators rarely do much action `into' the frame, because the time and cost involved is very great. Deep Canvas uses backgrounds, hand drawn into the computer, to "computerize" (to an extent) this process. This not only greatly reduces the time and cost involved, but it also adds new tools at the animators disposal. Really, it allows the background to "come alive". It doesn't look computerized though, it looks like traditional animation. The technique resulted in many spectacular sequences in Tarzan. The scenes where he `surfs' the trees showcases just how awesome this new tool is. There is MUCH more to Deep Canvas than my over-simplified definition. There is MUCH to like in Tarzan... the visual lushness, excellent character animation and voice performances, the music (even if you aren't a Phil Collins fan, it's good) and it has an excellent sense of humor. It also shies away from the overly cute depictions of animals (as in Bambi) for more realistic ones which really took a big turn for the better in The Lion King. The sequences with babies and children (human and animal) and interactions between parent and child also rang very true, something else that began to really take off in The Lion King.

Some scenes are very powerful, and will rock even adults. One scene in particular comes to mind. Directly after the fight sequence with Sabor (the leopard), Tarzan does his traditional "Tarzan" yell. This raised the hair on top of my head. I have found myself watching this over and over again. It's just about as perfect as animation can get. The yell itself is new and fresh, not the traditional yell we have heard so many times before (which is great, but shows it's age). Tremendous power and emotion is translated by less than six seconds of screen time. You will feel yourself fighting back your own yell, or tears when you watch this.

Disney did so much right in this movie, but they continued one long, bad tradition. Which is the weak writing and casting of the villain. Indeed the whole conceptualization and portrayal of the antagonist in Disney films, including this one, needs a massive overhaul.

Alfred Hitchcock, above all others, understood how important the villain or antagonist was to a film. Hitch made the `heavy' attractive and intelligent. Often the villain was a much better person in most respects than the protagonist of the film, with only one fatal flaw marring him. The villain might be a person that you would really want as a friend or a lover, if it weren't for that ONE thing - which was a BIG thing, like he (or she) was a psycho or a traitor or a murderer. On one hand you wanted the `good-guy' to triumph, but you could identify with the villain and you often liked him more. Making the villain a desirable and multi-faceted character created incredible tension in the audience.

I mention all this because this is one area where Disney REPEATEDLY fails in it's animated films, and Tarzan is no exception. The anti-hero in Tarzan is one-dimensional, and we don't identify with him in any way. He is the `bad hunter', used often as a villain in recent Disney movies, e.g., Beauty and the Beast and Pocahontas. We are drawn into the way Tarzan himself is torn between his adoptive gorilla family, and his identity with the human race. This tension is well done in the film, in every way from the writing and casting to the actual animation of emotion. We aren't however, a bit drawn in by the antagonist of the film.

That aside, overall this film was GREAT. I loved it and anyone who likes animated films will love it too. Even if you don't like animation you will probably like this one. It far surpasses most if not all in recent memory. The only gripe I have is the cardboard cut-out villain. I long for more three dimensional antagonists that can get the audience thinking and emotionally involved in the struggle occurring on screen. Enrolling all the writers of the Disney animated movies in a college-level course on the films of Alfred Hitchcock could do WONDERS for their next projects. But that's about the only area where they need help. In every other way Disney is holding class, and all other feature animation studios could do well to sign up for a course or two.

The Jesus Film (1979)

Excellent version with one serious flaw...

[14 February 2000]

I have seen this version many times, and I still get goosebumps watching it. Being a Christian myself, this film has a whole different impact on me unrelated to the actual quality of the movie itself. So I rate the film higher than I might because other criteria, like accuracy to actual scripture and the focus of importance to Christ's message itself, are well done. I think this is the best version, including the Franco Zeffirelli film Jesus of Nazareth, for a 'searching' person to watch. Partly because it is so accurate, and the Zeffirelli has some important flaws.

The only contention I have with this film is the fact that the lead actor is white, and European. I have read the FAQ about this film and I understand that the director, John Heyman, meant nothing racist by casting Brian Deacon (the actor who plays Jesus). From accounts of his auditions, Deacon was simply the best actor for the job. I believe this, and I'm sure there is no underlying racism in the film whatsoever. Having said that, I still believe the casting of Deacon was a mistake.

Accuracy and strict adherence to the scriptures were among the most important guidelines in the making of this film, according to the film's creators. Yet, there is a very significant lapse in accuracy with the casting of a white actor. Jesus was NOT white. He was Middle Eastern (for lack of a better word). He was a Semite, a Jew, and the lead actor should have been also. Or at least physically similar to who Christ really was.

The message of Christ is often marginalized because His message, or His actual historical self, is conformed by man to suit his/her own agenda. It is important to present Him as accurately as possible, so that a person's decision concerning Him may be solely based on Christ Himself and not spurious, inaccurate garbage. The popular image of Christ (in America) as white, European, blonde-haired and blue-eyed is inaccurate, and it bastardizes the purity of his life, message and mission. As any gross false representation of Him would do.

Presenting Christ as a white person allows critics (of any racial background) to label His message, and indeed Christianity in general as "Western" religion. Accurately portraying him as a person of Middle Eastern descent, in one moment, renders that argument false. As false as it really is. A Middle Eastern, Israeli Christ is accurate and truthful, and truth is the very core of Christianity.

I am white, and I can accept a savior that doesn't share my skin tone. When white people make films depicting Christ as white it sends a message. The same kind of message that whites send when they hang paintings of Him in their homes that depict Him as white. All this has an underlying message that Christ's skin color, His heritage is important, for a very wrong reason. It says He must look like us for us to believe in Him, for Him to be respected. While His being a certain race and lineage was important to fulfill scripture (hence it is important to portray Him as He was), it is NOT important to His message, His mission or to our acceptance of Him.

People all over the world have responded very well to this film. If you are a believer in Christ, it is easy to understand why. Because the power of His message is as real today as it was 2000 years ago. The more accurate the re-telling of His story, the more powerful the message becomes. This movie' s power comes from that accuracy. That attention to detail. It's just unfortunate that any major element, like the actual personage of Jesus, was allowed to be inaccurate. Christ Himself spoke again and again of the importance of fulfilling prophecy, concerning His coming, accurately. He said, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." - Luke 24:44 (NASB). I think it should be our duty as Christians to present Christ as genuinely as possible, as genuinely as he lived.

Bleeding Hearts (1994)

Bittersweet, ill-fated romance actually a racist commentary...

[4 February 2000]

This movie, directed by Gregory Hines, disguises itself as an ill-fated, tender romance between an adult, male, white tutor (Mark Evan Jacobs) and his 17-year-old, African-American, female student (the excellent Karen Kirkland), but it's not. Oh, it has all the elements of a sweet inappropriate romance, and the leads do an excellent job of creating a very believable love affair. The chemistry between the two is quite strong, and in another movie you would forget completely that they are an inter-racial couple, becoming instead caught up in the bond that these two actors share.

(CAUTION: what follows, gives details about the movie, INCLUDING THE ENDING, that might spoil the picture for those who haven't seen it. Also, the content of the movie discussed is adult in nature).

You won't however, be able to get too caught up in that in this movie. Instead you are dragged, unwittingly and unhappily into a commentary by Director Hines about the evils of the white man intruding into an innocent African-American world. I know it sounds racist, and it is.

(!!! Again, caution; this gives away the ending !!!)

Consider the final moments of the film. Jacobs is invited to dinner, by the begrudging mother of Kirkland. The mother disapproves of the relationship, but is beginning to relent because her daughter is seemingly upset to the point of illness by her lack of contact with Jacobs (actually she is physically ill, but not for that reason). As Jacobs knocks to no avail on Kirkand's door, a neighbor tells him that Kirkland has been rushed to the hospital. Jacobs rushes to the hospital and finds Kirkland's mother falling to the floor, wailing in agony. Jacobs finds out, from a doctor, that Kirkland has died because the sexually transmitted disease (Chlamydia) Jacobs gave her caused an infection brought about by an abortion she had two days prior. The baby was Jacobs' and Kirkland was a virgin when he met her, by the way.

Totally devastated, Jacobs leaves the hospital, and while stumbling down the street, a passing Limo driver offers a ride for $10.00. Dazed, Jacobs falls into the Limo like a rag doll, catatonic with grief. Here he is treated to the following story from the white driver... It seems the driver makes excursions to jungle areas where black native girls who (because of poverty) are willing to have sex with Americans (he has videos to sell, too!). Young girls who (in the driver's words) "[will] do anything. They're not whores, they're just poor. These jungle girls are almost virgins, and they don't have any of our diseases yet." I almost threw a brick at my television!

I might not have been so mad if the movie had ended with Jacobs wandering down the street. Because, I might have thought that Hines meant to denounce romance between girls in their late teens and adult men, or any adult and a young person (actually Kirkland turns 18 before all the grief happens, so technically she is an adult). That is a message I could have agreed with. Anyone can agree that these kinds of romances are inappropriate, ill-fated and downright criminal if the person is under 18. But the final words by the driver, reveal that Hines has a whole different message in mind.

What other message can we construe than this one? That Jacobs, the evil white pedophile, had intruded on the innocent, poor and pure black world of Kirkland's and destroyed everything. Just like the vile white American men that trek to jungle nations to have sex with poor, black, innocent girls. Indeed, like all evil white devils.

This movie is the anti-thesis to "Guess who's coming to dinner?". Hines, very obviously, is telling us that white and black do NOT mix. It wasn't enough that we had to suffer Kirkland's untimely death, and the agony of her mother. We had to have the film's racist, moral conclusion crammed down our throat, in very harsh and blunt terms. Why? Is there some statement about society that could bring some understanding or healing or just plain information? I don't see any. It just smacks of the basest type of racism; threatening of tragic consequences if the races mix.

If anyone comes away with a different message than this, please email me with your take. I'd welcome it, because this movie hurt me. It sets you up with a romance-drama theme and then drops the roof on you with bigoted aplomb. This is just hardcore racism; "Don't mix the races, or tragedy ensues!" And this theme, as you look back over the whole movie, is pervasive throughout. It is not present just in the heartbreaking ending.

I read an article once, while researching for a study I did on black and white racial issues in college, that has similarities with this film. It was in a little known Texas magazine for African-Americans that was published by a group of white persons (I'm sure African-Americans of the time said "gee, thanks"... NOT). The article was called "Are White Women Stealing Our Men?". It was supposedly a gentle tirade by African American women about how good African-American men were being taken by white women. Actually it was a not-to-subtle warning to African American men about dating white women. The tone of the article was very terrifying when you started to get the real message of the piece. Right there, in a African-American person's magazine was an article by white men, warning them to stay away from white women.

This movie shares elements with that article, as it also disguises itself as something it is actually the opposite of. Presented as a tender, wrongful romance between two people. Instead it is a mean-spirited statement that white people (intentionally) only bring destruction to African-American people. And both the article and this movie have the same closing admonishment... "Stay away! We don't want you devils around us!". Except in the article it is spoken by white people and in the movie it is spoken by an African-American. No matter who says the words, it still sickens. And in this movie it adds a little cinematic grief and heartache to the mix, just to grind it in.

Watch this movie for the excellent acting and chemistry between Kirkland and Jacobs (little else is good, except the brief performance of Kirkland's mother, the always awesome Lorraine Toussaint). But be ready to be hit over the head HARD in the end with heartbreak and a racist conclusion.