I sat there slack-jawed watching this movie. How in the world did it received an academy award nomination? How did Daniel Day-Lewis winning an Oscar for doing an annoying imitation of Clint Eastwood imitation of John Huston in "White Hunter Black Heart." I was going to write a long detailed review, explaining why this was such a dreadful movie. But it isn't worth the effort. It's hard to know what was the worst part. There is the the interminably slow and utterly boring first half that goes on and on with out advancing the the story. Then is the bizarre and totally out-of-place. I guess the winner is the absurd final half hour of purely irrational behavior by Plainview. The movie makes no sense, dramatically, psychologically or rationally. And it's boring.
Reviews
7 Reviews
Inside Man
(2006)
Everyone Misses The Joke
22 June 2007
****Spoilers****
One poster said that he didn't understand who the "Inside Man" was. I guess he didn't get the joke. Spike Lee plays with the audience a bit by suggesting the the rabbi was the inside man (which was obvious because who else would have known about Plummer's involvement with the Nazis?) But then Lee reveals Clive Owens' whereabouts and that he was the "inide man." Get it: he was hiding inside the bank and inside false wall. The title is a clever play on words.
Anyway, it was a fun movie. Anyone who thinks that such movies should be taken seriously or carefully examined for detailed accuracy is wasting is being silly. It woul have helped though, if the movies had included the deleted scenes on the DVD that talk about all the loud music.
One poster said that he didn't understand who the "Inside Man" was. I guess he didn't get the joke. Spike Lee plays with the audience a bit by suggesting the the rabbi was the inside man (which was obvious because who else would have known about Plummer's involvement with the Nazis?) But then Lee reveals Clive Owens' whereabouts and that he was the "inide man." Get it: he was hiding inside the bank and inside false wall. The title is a clever play on words.
Anyway, it was a fun movie. Anyone who thinks that such movies should be taken seriously or carefully examined for detailed accuracy is wasting is being silly. It woul have helped though, if the movies had included the deleted scenes on the DVD that talk about all the loud music.
Gettysburg
(1993)
Good drama but appalling history
22 October 2006
Gettysburg perpetuates many popular misconceptions of the Civil War. Despite the Chamberlain's noble speechifying in the movie, for example, the North fought the war first and foremost to preserve the union. Ending slavery was a minor concern, especially since most northerners had no more interest in freeing salves than most southerners. The popular perception of the South as fighting the war in a noble, but impossible battle to retain their independence, freedom and traditions is pure revisionist history. After the war, the southern elite rewrote history to make disguise their real motivation, maintenance of slavery, which they knew would not sell well, especially overseas. These "lost cause writers" made up this nonsense about freedom from central government, etc. No, the South's one and only goal for fighting the war was slavery.
The other major fiction perpetuated by the movie is that the fate of war hung in the balance at Gettsyburg. This is more nonsense. If the north had lost, there would have been no "clear road to Washington" because the Union army would simply have pulled back and set up a new defensive line. The South didn't even see the battle as a major defeat at the time. The war went on another 2 years and the South, in fact, came closest to winning in summer 1864, a year later. Despite the blather in the movie, Gettysburg was no more significant that many other Civil War battles. The "lost cause writers" elevated the battle to unwarranted significance because they could pinpoint their loss to a specific battle and specific villain - Longstreet, who oddly shows up as the main hero in the movie. By far, however, the strangest part of the movie was the portrayal of Longstreet, as the sagely Cassandra who sees the future but is ignored while and Lee shown as gentlemanly and kindly, but not really too bright. This is a complete reversal of the norm, where the "lost cause writers" vilify Longstreet for losing Gettysburg and by delaying his attack in a fit of pique when his advice was ignored while Lee was the brilliant, infallible military genius who could only be defeated by the incompetence of his subordinates in this case Longstreet.
Apart from the poor history, the movie consists of three parts, reenactments of battles, dialog about strategy and dialog about the deep meaning of it all. The first two are fine, but the corny dialog that boils down to "ain't it shame that two swell fellas like us have to fight it out" is mind-numbingly sappy. They movie-makers are careful to airbrush the entire issue of slavery right out of the movie so as not to offend anyone. For example, the relationship between Armistead and Hancock is clearly meant to symbolize the relationship between the two sides, but borders on homo-eroticism.
In sum, enjoy all the battle scenes and laugh heartily at the ridiculous looking phony beards, but don't take the story any more seriously than you would Star Wars or the next Batman movie.
The other major fiction perpetuated by the movie is that the fate of war hung in the balance at Gettsyburg. This is more nonsense. If the north had lost, there would have been no "clear road to Washington" because the Union army would simply have pulled back and set up a new defensive line. The South didn't even see the battle as a major defeat at the time. The war went on another 2 years and the South, in fact, came closest to winning in summer 1864, a year later. Despite the blather in the movie, Gettysburg was no more significant that many other Civil War battles. The "lost cause writers" elevated the battle to unwarranted significance because they could pinpoint their loss to a specific battle and specific villain - Longstreet, who oddly shows up as the main hero in the movie. By far, however, the strangest part of the movie was the portrayal of Longstreet, as the sagely Cassandra who sees the future but is ignored while and Lee shown as gentlemanly and kindly, but not really too bright. This is a complete reversal of the norm, where the "lost cause writers" vilify Longstreet for losing Gettysburg and by delaying his attack in a fit of pique when his advice was ignored while Lee was the brilliant, infallible military genius who could only be defeated by the incompetence of his subordinates in this case Longstreet.
Apart from the poor history, the movie consists of three parts, reenactments of battles, dialog about strategy and dialog about the deep meaning of it all. The first two are fine, but the corny dialog that boils down to "ain't it shame that two swell fellas like us have to fight it out" is mind-numbingly sappy. They movie-makers are careful to airbrush the entire issue of slavery right out of the movie so as not to offend anyone. For example, the relationship between Armistead and Hancock is clearly meant to symbolize the relationship between the two sides, but borders on homo-eroticism.
In sum, enjoy all the battle scenes and laugh heartily at the ridiculous looking phony beards, but don't take the story any more seriously than you would Star Wars or the next Batman movie.
Limp, Flabby and not much fun
27 September 2006
Narnia is a paint-by-number Disney children's movie, and not a very interesting one at that. The characters are uniformly dull and lifeless, except for the little girl, who was a real charmer. I was particular put off by the Liam Neeson's flat, ponderous voice of the lion. In a better movie, the lion would have roared, and the wicked witch would have hammed it up a bit an at least looked like she was having fun doing all those dastardly deeds. Tilda Swinson, always a staid, drab and colorless actress, was her usual drab, staid and colorless self. The special effects were routine. How many times are we supposed to be in awe of seeing animals' mouths move as they speak? The story was nonexistent. There is no explanation given for why the witch does the dastardly deeds or how thing came to be as they were. You would at least expect that in a children's movie, the children would learn some basic lesson about life, about growing up, etc. Here, there is nothing but pure child fantasy. The boys get to vicariously lead and army and fight with a sword and the girls get to vicariously become queen of the realm. There no learning, no awe, no magic, no nothing.
The Weather Man
(2005)
A Pointless Waste of Time
24 September 2006
It is deeply disturbing that such a pointless and flabby movie could pass for deep and profound. Yeah, I get the metaphor. The movie heavy handedly hammers home the theme: life is like the weather, unpredictable and random and like the wind, just blows around. We are all weathermen. Gee, that's deep. All the while, we watch Cage wander about in a state of confusion, Michael Caine dispensing vacuous advice, he shrew ex-wife castrating him at every opportunity and his screwed up kids whine. Whining is big in this movie, since Cage does his share too.
This movie is supposed to be about the characters since there is no discernible plot. Well what about the characters? They never change they never learn, they never have any insights. This movie is indeed like the weather full of hot air.
This movie is supposed to be about the characters since there is no discernible plot. Well what about the characters? They never change they never learn, they never have any insights. This movie is indeed like the weather full of hot air.
Eight Below
(2006)
They should have said: "Based On Science Fiction"
17 September 2006
Poetic license is some thing, but changing reality to make an absolutely impossible story seem plausible is another. The writers obviously need better advisers about Antarctic travel. Here are just a few of the errors. They show the dogs running when pulling the sled. They would kill them in short order. Real sleds dog simply walk at a very fast pace bordering on a trot. Real Antarctic travelers don't try to travel through storms. They just wait them out in a nice warm tend. Now lets get into science fiction. Bruce Greenwood falls through ice into water. Where exactly would you find water on Antarctica? The ice is several thousand feet thick. (While on the subject of water, where exactly did the dogs find any water to drink?) There are no birds in the interior of Antarctica in the winter and none even on the coast in winter. But lets get to the biggest absurdity bright sunny days in June and July. Huh? There is almost 24 darkness at that time of year. I hate it when they claim that a story is based on reality and the present something that is obvious complete and utter fiction. Am I missing the point but dewelling on these gross distortions of anything faintly resembing reality? Well, if you have a story that consists of nothing more than contrived emotional manipulation using a pack of dogs, you could at least get give the setting and circumstances some semblance of reality rather than turning the world upside down to confirm.
Bad Santa
(2003)
Absolutely Revolting
1 September 2006
If this isn't the worst Hollywood movie in years, it's close. There is very little to say about the movie. It is a pathetic, adolescent one-note joke Santa Claus spewing obscenities for an hour and a half. You are supposed to laugh at the notion of a symbol of childish innocence cursing and drinking himself into a stupor. It ain't funny. It's pathetic in the way that a 5 year old shouting excrement words to get attention is pathetic. Bad as the same character was in the "Bad News Bears." Thornton takes this himself to a new low. It's one thing have the occasional profanity for effect or to reveal something about the character, but it's another to assault the audience with an unending stream. The only thing more depressing than the fact that a movie like this could be made is all the positive reviews.
Tell Your Friends