morlock9 Reviews

American Beauty (1999)

Great performances marred by a politically correct ending.

[8/10 · 21 December 2014]

This is Redford's "Ordinary People" updated for a new generation with a lot of political correctness thrown in- which ultimately undermines the film's impact. Great performances are turned in by all. But while Spacey gets most of the credit, Benning and Suvari far surpass him for complex and powerful performances. Spacey is too cocky and glib to make a truly believable ordinary suburban dad. AB is the story of a family held together by spit and shoestring- trying to present an appearance of normalcy to the outside world and to themselves. When Spacey loses his job, he comes to grips with who he really is and what he really wants to make him happy- and we find the other characters in the film struggling with this same question. Added into the mix are the new neighbors. We get a drug-dealing voyeuristic neighbor kid (who looks a lot older than 18), his gun-obsessed closeted homosexual Marine father, and a depressed, catatonic mother. It's the Marine father who kills Spacey, after Spacey rejects his advances. Sure, a surprise ending, but in a very contrived and "WTF?!" way. I would bet that the original screenplay had Spacey being killed by the father of Suvari- who was outraged and thought that Spacey had defiled his daughter. This ending would have made far more sense. But we never do meet Suvari's parents- who could have been just as interesting and complex as Spacey and Benning were. In fact, it should have been Suvari and her family who lived next door, and forget about the Marines, guns, and homosexuality. Admittedly, it would have been a completely different movie, but maybe a better one. Still, a good flick and if nothing else see it for the brilliant triad performances of Suvari, Benning, and Spacey.

Arbitrage (2012)

A LifeTime Channel movie made by committee

[5/10 · 30 November 2013]

Arbitrage doesn't hold up in any category except cinematography and maintains a Lifetime Channel feel throughout. Casting first: Gere never quite shakes his male model past. There are countless scenes of him gliding around New York with his patented walk. Why should we care? Also, his rat-face and beady eyes are not convincing to his wall street sharpie character- he just doesn't look that smart. Miscast. And you get the impression that he looks at himself in mirrors or windows when he passes them. Gere was probably a c-list choice for the role. Douglas would have been far more convincing, and about a dozen others. Not that it could have saved this movie. Sarandon is OK, but as a family, I don't see how the two of them could have produced the tall leggy blonde who plays the daughter. So the unreality sets in early. Next, even super-secretive hedge funds would have a tough time in hiding a half-billion dollar loss in arbitrage, especially if it came out of foreign investments. And this guy was a high-profile operator, apparently appearing regularly on CNBC. Madoff was just shuffling around client's money and making false reports, not making actual money-transfer investments in foreign companies. A huge difference paper-trail wise. The crime aspect as well was contrived and unbelievable. Every billionaire is surrounded by yes-men. Certainly, there are people he should have been able to turn to in a situation like this beside a young black male with a felony record. And the reporters would be all over this in the real world in a second- as well as CNBC- and the jig would have been up for Gere quickly. Then we see that Gere cracking a police set-up against the black guy. Silly, actually. And for the unbelievable finale, the guy who bought the company just shrugs off the 400 million dollar shortfall. Excuse me? Legally, there are all sorts of ways that sale could have been broken after-the-fact. To make the ending stick, we needed more backfill on Mayfield. In fairness, there probably was but it didn't make the final cut in favor of Sarandon's emoting and Gere's angst. This ain't Wall Street, folks, it's LifeTime Channel Avenue.

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)

Almost great but for the miscasting

[7/10 · 8 November 2013]

The amazing cinematographic touch of Leone is there, and his flawless capture of the grit and grandeur that MUST have been the west of 150 years ago is worth the price of admission alone. But amidst this visual feast are flaws that prevented a higher score from me. The first is the plot itself, which revolves around a woman, a "former" prostitute, and her three lovers- all of whom are major characters in the film who battle each other in some form or another. Actually, I read this afterward on IMDb. You could have fooled me on that one. Women have no place in a Leone western to begin with, and Claudia simply did not have the acting range to pull it off. She was in a lot of scenes but I never thought of her as the focus of the film. Sophia Loren cast in the role might have brought a magnetic quality to the woman, perhaps, but not Claudia. Which comes to the miscasting. With Leone's star firmly in the ascendant, it is clear that all of Hollywood wanted in on this one, and Sergio obliged, to the detriment of the movie. Jason Robards, as a commenter already noted, is dreadful as Cheyenne. He brings nothing to the movie and his hang-dog acting style is irritating and tiresome. Bronson as the protagonist Harmonica is too short and ethnic looking to be convincing as a tough guy. And the harmonica playing "hook" of the movie is laughable, though it makes some convoluted sense at the end of the movie. Hey, a tough guy has to be ready to draw his gun at ALL times. If you play a harmonica, not only do you use two hands, but you must concentrate on the melody. Just didn't work for me. The main theme was superb, but the secondary theme- where the banjo is being plucked in a jaunty tune- was out of place and WAY overused. Other plot holes are where the heck did McBain get the money to build a big house and purchase lumber and supplies to build an entire town? And if he had money, why would he marry a New Orleans prostitute? So a great movie, for it is a Leone, but with many, many flaws.

Stargate (1994)

Director's DVD comments confirm suspicions.

[9 November 2011]

The first part of SG is great stuff, and the music is A+. Heck, I bought the DVD! But once the team hits the desert planet it descends into a lame Lawrence of Arabia rip-off, with many aspects borrowed from better films. In the director' halting voice-over (..sort of..like..you know..) he reveals his fascination with the native people, and the kids, and making them likable, etc etc. Worst part of the movie for me, and he complains that many desert scenes he was forced to cut. I can see where producers, seeing the rough cut, would be concerned. Many plot holes here as well, and the director reveals that they had to make a major change at the tail end of shooting- probably at the urging of the producers. The most glaring plot hole is that you have a 10,000 year old godlike being with omniscient powers who has the Stargate technology to go anywhere in the universe, but he hangs out in a stark spaceship that looks like a Egyptian tomb. Why wouldn't he find the most pleasant planet in existence, and set up a personal garden of Eden, and to hell with the pyramid ship (a dorky and contrived device)? On a technical side, the key dialog between Spader and the God being are subtitled. The director wanted things to be authentic, but it just makes the movie confusing. The take home lesson is that desert cultures and outer space Sci-fi do not go hand-in hand. Remember, Luke Skywalker got the hell off his desert planet as fast as he could. SG wallows in one-to its detriment.

Avatar (2009)

For what I expected, this was like watching "Clutch Cargo" again.

[3/10 · 20 February 2011]

What a disappointment. I was looking forward to seeing this last night. Several people recommended it. I was going to wait for a three-D opportunity to see it, but figured, "Why not tonight?" Typical Cameron techno-military setup, and here we see Weaver again. Okay. Good start. Then the Pandorans are introduced. Tall and lanky, just like NBA basketball players. Hmm. Okay. Then the guy gets on Pandora as a Pandoran, and starts to get chased around by cartoon monsters in a preposterous fluorescent world. Hmm, What's next? Then the Pandoran babe shows up, and they both start running through the colorful woods....that was it. End of show for me. Just another high-tech Clutch Cargo episode. Minus Paddlefoot.

Three stars for effort.

The Island (2005)

Great film, but did Bay just get lucky?

[8/10 · 15 February 2010]

I was all set to give this movie nine stars and a gushing review, but then I watched the DVD version with the director's commentary and have to rethink my initial impression. Bay made a telling and devastating remark regarding the final scene, where Jordan and Lincoln are seen on the Italian boat from an aerial shot. Bay almost apologized for putting it in, calling it "cheesy." Wow. Cheesy? The balloon deflates! That could have been even more of a brilliant scene that it was. Bay missed an opportunity to craft a Bergman-esquire ending, linking the strong and haunting opening sequence with the final scene, and bringing home the dream versus reality aspect to the film. This is very revealing. It tells me that Bay is far more of a corporate-driven technical director than an artist. He can complete a complex movie on time and within a budget (sometimes). Even Bay is proud that he shoots more scenes per day by far than the average director. Were the great parts of the movie created by the assistants and the writers? (One "great" part was actually created by Ridley Scott in "Blade Runner." You'll know when you see it.) Perhaps the DreamWorks recognized Bay's failing and makes sure that he is surrounded by brilliant people. Spielberg viewed the dailies while this film was being made, and gave many suggestions to Bay. I think the great parts to this film are due to Spielberg's uncredited influence. Other aspects of the movie I was willing to overlook now become more suspect. The Hounsou transition from bad guy to good guy was clumsily handled. The bond that developed between him and Jordan bordered on the ridiculous. Bay admits that having Hounsou wandering outside the destroyed complex with the rest of the "products" and smiling back at Jordan was something he threw in on impulse at the last minute. It shows. This also explains the product placement- Dreamworks wanted it for extra revenue. Were the clones called "product" as an inside joke referring to this? Still, a good if not great movie. The music was tremendous and incredibly moving when synced with the helicopter pan shots. Ewan and Scarlett were utterly believable as the clones. The Merrick set was spectacular. The action scenes were first-rate, of course, which is what Bay is known for. Unavoidably, the lighting was dark in order to accommodate the CGI. That's to be expected these days. So instead of concluding that "The Island" was a flawed but brilliant movie, after hearing the director's commentary I have to conclude that Bay just got lucky in having talented underlings and advisers, and taking their advice.

Die Another Day (2002)

Movie-by-committee with cheesy CGI. Thumbs down on Dench, Berry.

[5/10 · 25 December 2008]

There is never a truly bad Bond movie. Even the worst of them have a certain style and panache, and the requisite "three good scenes" that define half of a good movie (the other half being "and no bad ones") were there. The problem is that the Bond movies of late don't stick with a single story line. Easy to see at a script conference someone jumping in "Hey, what about this?" or "Wow, I saw the greatest gizmo, and we could us it like this", or "Let's throw in a McGuffin here and pull it out here". So that's a problem of success. Let's stick with a single vision, Producers. OK? PB, of course, is no SC. Peirce just doesn't have the eyes- too slitty and baggy. Connery had eyes that were large, wise, soulful, and somehow otherworldly- he was the dark Angel of Death (and with a sense of humor, at that!). So that's what made the Connery movies click- the women here helpless in the face of this power, the villains, ultimately, had no where to run. Bond knew he was an Angel and couldn't really lose, and therein sprung his confidence. So with a lack of an actor of Connery's caliber, the producers have to work on gags, production stunts, and CGI nonsense. In trying to make up for the lack of power in their lead, they make the supporting actors stronger- most notably, the women. This has had disastrous results. What the deal is with Judi Dench, I don't know. As a stubby "M", she is horrific. Plus, a whole metaphorical dimension is lost without a crusty, older, once-powerful M in control- an Arch-Angel guiding a dark one. Making the women stronger, in fact, only makes Bond look less so. Berry is the worst of them. Stubby, like Dench, with fake tits and a big butt. Puhleeze.... Her chipper repartees were totally out of place. And, like I said, cut out half the actions scenes (plenty there for another movie) and Die would have been better.

The Upside of Anger (2005)

Pseudo Chick Flic with savagely brilliant ending

[9/10 · 17 February 2006]

This film is perfect for the guy who's girlfriend/wife likes to watch chick-flics. Guys, rent this one, showing her how sensitive you are, and then be patient for the powerful ending. And then have a discussion about the roots of the mother's self-pity, anger, and hostility. This is in reality an anti-feminist, anti-chick flic movie- almost a parody of the genre.

Remember Millionaire Baby? You thought that was going to be a guy film, but it was really a soap opera tear jerker set in a boxing gymnasium. This movie is the opposite. Admittedly, the first 90% of this movie is standard fare, but well done with some good lines. The story is about an upper-class suburban family whose Father suddenly runs off to Sweden with his secretary, leaving the mother bitter and alone to raise four daughters. Costner, a neighbor, turns first into her drinking buddy, and then a boyfriend as we cover next three years and watch the four daughter's growing up, dealing with their Mother's anger and their own adolescent problems.

So your girlfriend will be sucked in by the first part. Natch. Then discuss the ending. I won't spoil it for you....

King Kong (2005)

Naomi Watts and a smasheroo finish save it......

[5/10 · 31 January 2006]

Where has Watts been all these years? What a stunner! Watt's acting is understated and spot-on, and you BELIEVE her as much as can be expected for what is essentially a CGI cartoon adventure. If it wasn't for her, I would have walked out a third of the way through- and missed the great finale.

I am no CGI fan. It is very tough to do right even in dark or rainy scenes (where the effects are less noticeable). In sunlight, CGI fails miserably- the reflected light looking weird and unnatural. The technology is simply not there yet, and detracts from the movie. I will give credit where credit is due- the final action scenes are stupendous. You had the sensation of height and vertigo and the fear that goes along with it. It made the movie worthwhile to see on the big screen. I gave it a 5/10 on that basis- plus the performance of Naomi.

Also a positive I should mention- when was the last time you saw a recent movie, set in the 30's, where one of main characters had a German accent, and turned out to be a good guy? Thanks to Jackson for not falling into the anyone-with-a-German-accent-is-a-Nazi-so-I-hate-them school of film making.

The New York set was stunning as well- nice job by Jackson's team.(BTW, this movie gives new meaning to "picking up a blonde in New York City".)

Now the bad stuff. For such a brilliant lead as Watts, how Jackson came up with the other two leads is beyond me. Black looks like the Pillsbury Dough Boy and is totally miscast and lacking any quantum of gravitas. The Writer, the other love interest for Darrow, is another puzzle. The guy can't help how he looks, but Christ, the Mummy of Rameses II has a less prominent schnoz. And probably has more charisma. The guy belongs on TV's Survivor, not a major flick, and even on Survivor he'd be voted out before episode seven. What was Jackson thinking?

I've talked about the weird lighting already- but you can't get away from it in CGI, but a critical level of realism is lost with it. Some of the CGI Skull island scenes were fun, but he had so damn many of them. Cut the whole giant insect attack and you've saved ten minutes, Peter. And were those were some of the dumbest Brontosauri ever or what? Stampeding like Lemmings? They looked like the Jurassic Park version of the Keystone Cops. Here's another criticism of the CGI team- making hugely massive creatures move and impact each other with the physics of small rodents. Nothing really fit, and the movie-goer can sense it on a visceral level. Also, in the stampede scene, it was easy to see the terrified people it in the foreground- obviously pasted over the CGI.

King Kong himself was OK. Nothing spectacular. I had read where grown men cried over him at the end of the movie. I dunno. Just can't buy the ape-babe connection. Some comments on the Darrow character- I had a hard time believing that a female slapstick vaudevillian who juggles and does funny dances would think twice over a burlesque role if she was starving. Plus, the vaudeville schtick Darrow did for Kong was lame.

Having the finale take place in winter was ridiculous. It detracted from the drama, and served no purpose other than to have Kong playfully slide around on the ice with Darrow- who forgot her overcoat in the frolic. Didn't seem to bother her, though. Every shot of the gorgeous Watts made me think "Christ, she's gotta be REAL cold!" Factor in the wind chill from being hundreds of feet up on top of a skyscraper- the girl in the sheer dress and high heels would have been frozen stiff in 90 minutes. By my reckoning, if the biplane fight occurred at dawn, and Kong found the babe late at night after her show, poor Naomi would have been exposed to the winter weather essentially naked for at least six hours.

I would recommend seeing this movie on the big scene just because of the finale and Watts, however. It was disappointing in that Jackson had complete creative control, but the movie had the look of a built-by-committee studio production- with very questionable casting decisions in two of the three lead parts to boot.

The Aviator (2004)

Great Special effects saves this one from a Razzie.

[4/10 · 24 March 2005]

If this movie would have stuck to the avionics and business/political intrigues of Howard Hughes, it would have been a smash. It's a fantastic movie cinematographically, and the special effects are unmatched. However, the director really fails in defining the Hughs character in a realistic way. Leo clearly doesn't have the depth or scope to portray this intriguing man. As an actor, it is a truism that you can't play a man more complicated and intelligent that you are. That holds true in this case and it might hold true for Scorsese as well- Martin didn't have the scope of vision broad enough to develop a convincing Howard Hughes.

Hughes was a man who grew up alone, fawned over by a couple of aunts. Then, almost overnight this lonely guy inherits a huge amount of money along with a cash cow business. Hughes leaves Houston never to return again. So now Hughes is in Hollywood and in his twenties, a good-looking, tall Texan with millions of dollars. He's making movies and bedding the most beautiful women of his time. Hey, I just don't see the joy and happiness there, and I've seen pictures of Hughes with babes during those times, and he was smiling. And not with the angst-ridden forced smile that Leo shows us. Hughes was happy, and he was enjoying himself. We never see that side of him in the movie.

On a similar note, the Hepburn-Hughes love affair was leaden and just didn't ring true. There was no on-screen chemistry. Blanchette had the accent down, but didn't remotely look like the WASPish Hepburn. Once again, the Scorsese ham-handed this aspect of Hughes' life and the movie suffers for it.

Martin's view that the OCP was the source for Hughes' inspired decisions in business and engineering was also off the mark. I have read that Hughes' problem was that he never could MAKE a decision- he would pester subordinates (who were brilliant) to come up with options and forced THEM to make the actual decision.

In fact, Hughes' downfall was precipitated by the crash of the test plane right after the war. Hughes lost his looks and a lot of his confidence. Plus, he suffered severe head injuries, and who knows how much that affected his persona and thought processes? With the Senate investigation and the actions of PAN AM, I have no doubt that Hughes' house was bugged, and spies were everywhere in his organization. Actress Jean Peters, his wife for a short time, even admitted that she worked for the CIA and reported on Hughes' activities to her superiors, so Hughes' paranoia was certainly justified. And the paranoia fed the OCP- a vicious cycle.

Edited down to two hours, eliminating the Hepburn angle, and drastically cutting down the "Hughes-as-a-nut case" scenes (overdone for that time of his life, and, besides, we GET IT, already) this movie would be light years better.

Gattaca (1997)

Sci Fi? SCI-FI?!!

[1/10 · 10 March 2005]

Don't think so. Not even close. No hardware. And it had an austerity and surrealistic feel that didn't serve to further the plot. You would think that Gore Vidal would have chipped in a little dough for a more realistic spaceship at least. I mean, like ANY spaceship. I think we deserve that for sitting through the movie. Hey, that's the only reason why I sat through it. I was thinking to myself, man, there's GOTTA be a kick-ass ship at the end of this turkey. But there was nothing. To add insult to injury, the damn astronaut wore a leisure suit on the ship. (Oops! Sorry if I SPOILED anything for you.)

OK, some scenes of suspense were done well, granted, but the plot was claustrophobic and unbelievable. And, speaking of Gore, I figured something weird was up when, in the first five minutes, not only were we introduced to the gay-famous Vidal as a main character, but a white-coated lab technician with a clipboard feels the need to comment at length on the "package" of astronaut Ethan Hawke. My suspicions were confirmed- the film maintained a vaguely homo-erotic tone throughout, and, guess who the hero turns out to be?

A waste.

Million Dollar Baby (2004)

Warning! Warning! See at your own risk, guys...

[31 January 2005]

It took me a while to figure out, plowing through the bloody macho fight stuff and all, but then it hit me. THIS IS ACTUALLY A CHICK FLICK!!! Brilliant move by Eastwood. Might win him an Oscar. Not that it didn't have it's good moments. It was most engrossing when Clint was teaching the babe the finer points of boxing. But it had a lot of plot holes and weaknesses in character development. One example of many: the babe is a gung ho boxer all of a sudden at 31. OK, so what the HELL was she doing for 16 years since she hit puberty? We have no clue. Not a bad movie, but had a "built by committee" feel to it and REALLY tries to squeeze out every tear it POSSIBLY can at the end.

The Assassination of Richard Nixon (2004)

All form, no coherence or believability

[3/10 · 22 January 2005]

A big disappointment. Penn is a poor imitation of De Niro in Taxi Driver, or Hoffman in any number of films. The over-the-top angst Penn shows soon becomes predictable and I got tired of closeups of Penn's facial contortions as he schleps his way through one personal disaster after another. It's an odd performance. Penn seemed to be acting in front of a mirror and not really connecting with the other actors. Plus, I just plain didn't buy the set-up. What made Penn's character so different from a hundred thousand other losers in 1974- a difference that made him nuts enough to plan assassinations where others didn't? The film didn't make this clear, and as a consequence the ending is unbelievable, almost ridiculous. There were smiles in the theater at the pointless conclusion, as people looked at each other and said "Wha the heck?!!" The movie would have been better if Penn's character had forgotten about Nixon and killed his boss, or his brother. But, you protest, this is based on a real story! OK then, show me the link. Having Nixon in the background on TV sets during any number of personal tragedies is not enough to make me think Penn's character would hijack a plane and try to kill the man. Hey, I remember those times, and Nixon actually came off pretty well on television. Obviously, there was a whole dimension to Penn's character the writers missed- maybe on purpose. There were dozens of left-leaning and anarchistic groups in the early seventies who were relentlessly crucifying Nixon with a manic and rabid intensity. Was Penn's character thick with any of them? Probably. And there's the link. He'll be a success to his new friends, and REALLY show his brother, if he knocks off Nixon. Maybe he wants to impress some revolutionary hippie-babe he's met. There were plenty around. I'd buy that. But the film only touches on this aspect. But even so, just having Penn's character drop in on a Black Panther office a couple times with a donation, a flaky idea and a speech is not enough, IMO, to justify the bloody and violent conclusion. A couple good performances, NOT Penn's, gives this movie a three out of ten.

Team America: World Police (2004)

A vile, loathsome creation...but hilarious!! (spoilers)

[23 October 2004]

I have never laughed so hard at a movie, but I can't recommend it. When I've been asked if I liked it, I reply "It's an ugly movie and I laughed all the way through it" and refuse to say anything more. This conundrum is caused by the brilliant use of 1960's style TV marionettes, ("Supercar","Thunderbirds", etc), to make scenes that would otherwise be revolting if played by humans, seem ridiculously funny. A good example is when the hero-actor, who, as events unfold, we grow to respect and have some measure of sympathy for, decides late in the movie to go down on his commander. WTF were the writers thinking? Why would they throw us a curve ball like that? Initially, there is disgust, but then you realize IT'S JUST A GODDAM STUPID PUPPET and you laugh at the absurdity of it all. So if you're into homosexuality, senseless violence (beheadings, eviscerations, etc), the hatred of well-meaning Hollywood actors, GI Joe Action figures, or have had a pre-frontal lobotomy, then this movie is for you, no question about it. All the rest of you who decide to see it, though, be prepared to laugh, and laugh hard, but you'll feel guilty afterwards. This movie is disturbing on many levels....

The Forgotten (2004)

Another movie by committee- spoilers

[2 October 2004]

Best part was Julianne Moore getting ready for the sack. No, nothing happened between her and the hockey player- though for a second you THINK there is. Pretty sly, eh? Actually, a couple of shocker scenes are well done, some good aerial shots, sporatically good cinematography despite the herky-jerky camera work that dominates the film. Like an early sixties episode of "Outer Limits", this movie takes a thread-bare premise and stretches it wayyyy out to fill up the ninety minutes or so running time. "Forgotten" hides a lack of coherency and hardware with boring and repetitive scenes to show how much Julianne loves her kid (who is a creepy as the kid-robot in "AI". And, yes, there are lots of car chases. The audience (in Dallas) actually laughed out loud at a couple scenes- one of the interrogation of the Federal agent, and when the police detective met her end. This is a bad movie. Wait for it on cable and save your dough.