dbuffalo Reviews

Apollo 18 (2011)

Apollo 18 Is An Abominal Waste of Time and Money. Seriously!

[1/10 · 2 September 2011]

I quit writing reviews on IMDb years ago, as I figured out, as many have since, that no one reads these things. However, I think it is my duty to tell all science fiction and horror film fans worldwide to avoid this horrible piece of dreck. The filming, quite frankly, is very innovative for a low budget film (particularly in the weightless sequences of space flight), but what is most horrible is the script. I wrote a very similar short story in the eighth grade about the first United States lunar landing that parallels this plot (though this one is a bit darker and far less logical). I think it is fairly obvious that no one would want to see a movie whose script were written by a 13-year-old.

The "found footage" movie concept may never recover from a film this inane. If you must watch it, rent it, but by all means do not fight commuter traffic to see this movie. You would have to have rocks in your head...oh my...I might have given away a spoiler. Save your money and avoid "Apollo 18".

Transformers (2007)

A mindless, out of scope, CGI orgy. Michael Bay I think is used to take the blame for the all-time King of Crap, Steven Spielberg

[1/10 · 3 July 2007]

Yes, I loved Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List, but Steven Spielberg is the executive producers of garbage flicks like War of the Worlds and AI, both testimonials to lavish over-budgeting and plot less rambling in scriptwriting. Well, I guess he put Michael Bay in front of this over-bloated silly mess, Transformers, so that he could be the crap shield.

This movie is the war sequence we wanted but were denied in War of the Worlds, played in over-sized, out-of-focus for the most part, and boringly-repeated fashion, between the "good" Autobots and the "evil" Decepticons who are after a source of unlimited power that landed on Earth thousands of years ago, and discovered by the grandfather of soon- to-be-metro-sexual-wimp Sam Witwicky, played by Shia LaBeouf. Apparently the map of the location of this "Allspark" is etched on his grandfather's glasses, which he possesses.

At any rate, through twist of fate, Sam obtains a car, which is an Autobot in disguise, and picks up a jock-chasing chick Mikaela Banes, played by Megan Fox. From that point on, the movie is a mindless array of action sequences as the Decepticons make their way to Earth and attempt to cripple all defense and communications prior to a battle with the Autobots.

My main problem with this film is that it spends virtually all its time in overblown (and out of screen scope) CGI action sequences that are either too close up to fully comprehend or almost too fast to make any sense of. John Voight is wasted in the role of the Secretary of Defense, choosing to take the paycheck and act like a slightly-intellectual hard-headed redneck bureaucrat instead of playing an interesting character.

The rest of the performances by cast are really unmemorable, and the action sequences are just a jumbled mess. The other annoying aspect of this film is that it is a virtual commercial for Chevrolet, Taco Bell, and every other kind of franchise item (candy, tools, and cars), and the actors use their names with great repetition. I have to assume that the executive producer of this film (no stranger of cliché ad usage, remember Reese's Pieces in E.T.?) was banking on merchandising revenues if the film failed at the box office.

In the end, it is another brainless, mindless thrill ride we expect from Spielberg. Thank God he has Michael Bay to point the finger of blame should this thing fail. This movie has the indelible mark of the ultimate King of Cinema Crap, Steven Spielberg, and has a similar feel of his "epic" action films.

I would not even bother renting this one. It really is not worth the viewers time.

Rocky Balboa (2006)

A-Rockalypto --- before one more cheesy worn-out movie series begins, another one must end (and thank God this one does I hope).

[3/10 · 20 December 2006]

I was a huge fan of the early Rocky films (Rocky, Rocky II, and Rocky III). I was completely burned out with the silly excesses of Rocky IV. I was incredibly disappointed with what I considered a reasonably well conceived but poorly written and produced Rocky V (which audiences avoided in 1990).

But like Rocky, I just kept coming back. Darn it, if I didn't get sucker-punched again.

The movie, written, directed, and produced by Sylvester Stallone, still has that homey and comfortable feel of the original film. Sly is still Rocko, that lovable unpretentious, honest loser we knew and loved from the first film. What is missing in this one is that there is no emotional tension or adversity the Rocky of old has to overcome. That element is what made those phony-over-the-top Rocky comebacks so fun to forget as being completely ridiculous and yet fun to remember as being somehow overwhelmingly appealing.

Who or what does Rocky have left to fight for? Adrian (its no secret, it's in the trailer) is dead. His son (played by Milo Ventimiglia) has turned out (as one might expect from the last two films) to be a self-absorbed metro-sexual-yuppie-geek who feels overshadowed by his has-been-turned-two-time-champion-turned-has-been dad. Rocky still pines for Adrian, the old days of fighting, and is just regretting his place in life (in his late fifties, though Sly in real-life is 61). And Pauly, well, what can we say? Burt Young still plays the overbearing amateur-alcoholic-and-meat-packing jerk that Pauly always was, with a little more gray hair. These two are really all that's left who could possibly be killed off to add some between-credits pathos over which Rocky could pump some testosterone before entering a ring to fight someone.

Alas, nothing really happens.

Even the champion (Mason 'The Line' Dixon, played by Antonio Tarver) is a likable guy, who is fighting Rocky because there is no one around who can give the champ a good fight. He's even pretty humble and loves his trainer and manager. He's no arch-villain or over-dog like Clubber Lange.

At any rate, the entire idea of a computer match-up between Rocky and Dixon sparks the usual over-the-top discussion of a real boxing match, and you know the rest. The champ's agents do dinner with Rocky. Rocky thinks about it for perhaps 45 seconds, and there you go. There is a fight, but this time, only for charity. Again, no real tension is building.

Does Rocky have a love interest in this picture? No. He has a "like"-interest in Marie (a former teenager he walked home years before to keep out of trouble), played by Geraldine Hughes, who weaves into the story as the maitre d' at Rocky's restaurant, Adrian's (Isn't that a touching name?). Even the new dog that Rocky and Marie's son Steps (played by James Francis Kelly III) picks out is a cheesy mutt with a really cheesy name (you won't like it, so I won't spoil it by telling you the name). A stuffed replica of Butkus could have been glued to a skateboard and pulled for better effect. Any animal (even an opossum) would have been a better choice.

There are some light-hearted and decently emotional moments in this film, but not a lot to really drive one to empathy. We have all been there before, and this time it just doesn't quite work. There are quite a few funny lines also, but not enough to keep you interested even in a film that runs only 102 minutes.

The amazing thing about this film, however, is that the fight sequences (which are shown in a manner of an HBO PPV special) might be the best of any of the Rocky movies. Even that, however, is damaged by the use of black and white overlays, and a complete erasure of the middle rounds of the fight. For an old guy, Sly is amazingly apt to the task, even in simulated fight conditions. He is in fabulous shape, and because he is not trying to over-emote in the ring, the jab and uppercut sequences are amazingly crisp for a staged fight.

The bottom line for Rocky Balboa is that it is a rather lame, staid trip down a memory lane that few will care about. In fact, no one in the film remembers because all of the characters save three who traveled down that road are deceased. The only thing that really dies in this film, despite the good production value, is the viewer's interest, assuming the viewer is like me.

This one is a renter, most certainly, and does not belong in your Rocky collection. It could easily been a made-for-TV special, but clearly, even the networks would not have produced this one.

I rate this one a barely a three. It scores one point for each of the first three 'good' Rocky films. Sadly though, this film is disqualified from the final ratings fight for lack of interest, and may subsequently be banned from the Boxing Film Commission (as if there were one).

Don't fight the rush hour traffic to see this one.

Flags of Our Fathers (2006)

Why Clint? I am not unbiased, so forgive me, but the 57 minutes I could bear of it. This is nothing but Anti-American revisionist tripe.

[1/10 · 20 October 2006]

I am quite fortunate to have known at least a dozen people, all dead now but two, who fought on both fronts in World War II, including my father, who was charged with preforming "meatball" surgery on the brave men who made it all the way to Iwo Jima. The reason he performed that surgery was the the Navy and Marines had run out of qualified surgeons, and since he was a Pharmacists' Mate First Class, he could be trained with regard to sanitary surgical procedures and be used in both military and humanitarian efforts. My father placed his hands in the real carnage that is only depicted in this film.

The opening lines of this movie talk about how the government had to create a "hero and a villain". What people today, most of them not even taught about the War with Japan or the universal evil of Anti-Semitism that lead to at least 6 million murders in Europe alone, is that Japan, regardless of our trade policies, sought ruthlessly to expand its dictatorial power in order to make wealth for itself. The "evil" American did not just create this war in order find a convenient means to end The Great Depression. We were attacked in one vicious moment that probably changed the course of human history.

This is simply not what is depicted in this film. The film maker wants you to believe that the war was simply a set-up, and that we used our ignorant young of the time to support the aggressive expansion or armaments.

I apologize for my feelings on this, but I could not stand for any more than about 57 minutes of this movie. Anyone still alive today who fought at Iwo Jima or who was a part of the re-con effort should probably think twice and perhaps rent this movie, making sure that you have ample protection provided to keep from destroying the DVD player or the big screen TV.

I am the son of a Navy veteran, and I almost feel that I have sinned against my own parents for being duped into entering the screening room.

I do not understand Eastwood's perspective here. I think it is naive and, quite frankly, stunningly ignorant. At some point, when I have calmed down a bit, I will likely rent the DVD and finish it. I currently, however, am not in the mood. The first portion of this movie greatly angered me.

I provide this incomplete commentary to provide what I think will be at least a significant plurality of opinion regarding this movie, though I could be terribly wrong.

The decision to see what is otherwise a technically brilliant film (at least the first 57 minutes) is up to you.

Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector (2006)

For Larry The Cable Guy Fans, you should see this before they take the Browns to the Super Bowl

[4/10 · 24 March 2006]

Unlike the very first reviewer, I confess that I never played college baseball with Larry the Cable Guy at Boston College or anywhere else. I did have a pretty tough week this week, and in celebration of the fact that I work some long and crazy hours I did my every other week Friday Matinée movie expecting some really crude, baseless, and thoroughly stupid humor.

I was not disappointed.

Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector is a reasonably competent movie vehicle for Dan "Larry the Cable Guy" Whitney, allowing for the fact that it is rife with all the flatulent, politically incorrect, crude, redneck, and every other kind of socially unredeeming humor we have come to know him for within his solo stand-up and "Blue Collar Comedy Tour" career.

The whole crux of this film revolves around Larry's job as a restaurant health department inspector who happens to be offending virtually every one in his path and screwing up at his job. To correct his ways or end his career, he is allied with a new partner, the virtually hermaphrodic Amy Butlin (played by suitably hermaphrodic nerd-turned-comedienne Iris Bahr). What ensues is a caper in which Larry finds a love interest, belittles his partner, laughs at his retarded neighbor, abuses a phony paraplegic, wrestles a uni-browed daughter of a crooked restaurateur, degrades all manner of human life, all while trying to solve the case of serial food poisoning. We are also treated to what Jerry Mathers looks like at the end of his career and to what became of Thomas F. Wilson (remember Biff Tannen?) as if he actually had a career as a quasi-straight (don't you think that's funny, I called Biff straight?) guy for Larry's gaffs.

Sound interesting? Of course not, but every crude one-liner in Larry's repertoire (new and old) is balanced against a sometimes funny sometimes lame plot. There is enough of "Cable Guy" humor and off-beat timing to laugh at, even some things the P.C. police would send you straight to Hell for. Ample fresh material exists to keep the not-so-funny lines from keeping the average Cable Guy fan from disliking this movie.

Anyone expecting any more or less of Health Inspector is probably not a Larry the Cable Guy fan, and certainly should not see this film. If you are, however, and you just want to see about 90 minutes of absolutely insolent yet funny bathroom-style garbage disguised as humor, then by all means "Git 'er DUN" and see this film. It could be worse, of course, but comeonn….it's Larry The Cable Guy, NOT Shakespeare.

4 out of 10 for a comedy like this means it is B-style humor worth seeing if you understand the brand of humor being presented. I did take a shower afterward though.

Capote (2005)

Hoffman makes the film worth seeing, even if the screenplay drags a little...

[6/10 · 10 February 2006]

Before I review this film, I have to say that I might have a unique perspective (or bias) on the subject of this film. Though I have never read "In Cold Blood", I have seen the movie and read portions of manuscripts by Capote relating to his research of the subject matter. I have also seen him interviewed at length during the latter portions of his life by numerous journalists and television hosts. Many people who see this film probably never saw Capote in life nor really knew anything about him other than what they might have learned in secondary school or college.

From this writer's perspective, Truman Capote was probably one of the most tortured and yet simultaneously brilliant writers who lived in the 20th century. His public and social arrogance was a shield for his insecurity and confusion (emotional, sexual, and otherwise) created by his pretty tough early upbringing in the South. Unlike many of the relatively cartoonish cinematic portrayal of historic figures we have seen in recent years, I believe that Philip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal of Truman Capote is every bit as good a portrayal of a historic figure that I have seen in quite a few years, given the limitations of the script with which he is presented.

I think the film, Capote, as directed by Bennett Miller, is best described as a vignette-style docudrama. It is designed to capture the intense intellectual probing, unscrupulous but effective manipulation of the criminals depicted in "In Cold Blood", and the ultimate inability of Mr. Capote to exculpate himself from the very manipulation of these convicts (particularly the Perry Smith character played by Clifton Collins) that he transforms into personal success through his ultimately best-selling novel. I believe Mr. Hoffman captured the essence of Capote's self-absorption both with his work and with his ego about as well as anyone is capable of doing. It is certainly an Oscar-worthy performance, whether he wins or not.

As for the rest of the film, unless one is truly interested in the characterizations of Capote, "To Kill a Mockingbird" author Harper Lee (Cathleen Keener) and partner Jack Dunphy (played by Bruce Greenwood), the film might drag for some not interested in the workings of the main character in this film. Chris Cooper (who has been busy this year in things like Syriana) is quite competent as KBI investigator Alvin Dewey. The rest of the cast certainly fit the historical period and the mood of the film. I tend to fall into the camp that believes Dan Futterman's screenplay does drag in the less intense sequences, but in the most important interactions between Capote, his close associates, and the convicts, this screenplay works very well.

Having seen this film, I now want to read both "In Cold Blood" and Gerald Clark's biography. If one understands that this film is not a doctrinaire commercial historical drama and that the film is designed specifically to highlight the perspectives, actions, and emotions of Truman Capote, then one should see this film. It is not a masterpiece by any means, but its lead actor is quite masterful in the lead role. I will give this film a 6 (which is quite generous for me).

War of the Worlds (2005)

Somewhat engaging but ultimately pointless remake with Evil E.T., P.C., and sci-fi horror for the modern dysfunctional family...

[3/10 · 1 July 2005]

Let's just break it down in simple terms. Steven Spielberg, with the rare exceptions of a few films like Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report, and even AI, makes ephemeral thrill-ride movies with reasonably happy endings.

War of the Worlds is no different. This film is a throwback to the early Spielberg of Jaws, Close Encounters, and E.T., which were marvelously filmed, vacuous, and quasi-plot less masterpieces that were at least tolerable enough to sit through with a bag of popcorn. Spielberg, like his contemporary George Lucas, has taken the Dino De Laurentis model and just animated it more with computers. They can't provide, process, or direct a script, but man can they throw up a busy screen full of non-stop action. Josh Friedman, the screenplay writer, does nothing to improve Spielberg's track record this time either.

I am not going to recount either the H.G. Wells book, the Byron Haskin 1953 movie adaptation, or the dumb late-1980s syndicated show. You know the drill. The retelling of this version, however, involves watching the invasion through the eyes of a dysfunctional working class father, played by Tom Cruise, his married-up-from-her-first mistake ex-wife, played by Miranda Otto, his teen-son-on-the-verge-of-recklessness, played by Justin Chatwin, and the precocious-but-claustrophobic younger sister, played by Dakota Fanning. We are immersed quickly into the problems and interplay of the children of divorce with their parents, and quite frankly, that is the only redeeming feature of this film. Sadly for the viewer, the aliens arrive to screw up the interplay, and we quickly are immersed in the "Aliens-vs.-Earthings" gig that we have all seen countless times (particularly if one is over 35). This film could have been about how a disinterested father gradually grows to understand and appreciate his kids under the heat of adversity, but Spielberg never quite takes us there. Instead, Spielberg tries to make subtle statements against war and even self-defense with Cruise and Chatwin, and again with Tim Robbins and Cruise when trapped underneath an alien lair. I won't give away what happens, but clearly Spielberg takes the pacifist view (and the anti-patriot view in this reviewer's opinion with the outcome, which angered me quite frankly). Whether this was Spielberg's cut against the Iraq War or militia movements or something else in some subtle way is debatable, but it isn't particularly subtle or interesting in its conclusion. Perhaps Jimmy Carter was an uncredited script editor (and don't his eyes look a little alien?).

What really ticked me off about this film is that we are led to a battlefield scene between the aliens and the good 'ol U.S. Army, but we never get to see it! I think this is a cruel commercial manipulation by Mr. Spielberg to release a director's cut DVD with all the scenes in it, assuming this film flops at the box office. What he does not realize, if this is the case is that true sci-fi special effects junkies WANT TO SEE THAT ON THE BIG SCREEN, and not on the LCD at home, even if it's a big screen. I am not certain that I would rent the DVD if those scenes are included for that reason alone. Why cheat us out of what most alien invasion movie aficionados really want; a kick-butt battle between the good guys and the bad guys?

The special effects are dazzling, no doubt, but the only redeeming feature of the plot which never quite satisfies us is the masterful acting of Dakota Fanning. She plays to the camera and to her co-stars with a subtle brilliance that reminds of both of the ingénue of Drew Barrymore in E.T. and the early works of Jodie Foster. Her portrayal of the claustrophobic daughter is very believable and unforced, even when the script seems to take her off course a bit. If she matures in much the way that Jodie Foster has, she will have one heck of an acting career ahead of her.

At any rate, unless you just want to burn two hours and ten bucks in a syrup-coated seat, this is not worth going to see. If Spielberg still wants to buy his forty-one-thousandth Lamborghini and he decides to put the directors cut ON THE SCREEN and WITH ALL THE BATTLE SCENES, then one might be persuaded to see it there. Otherwise, I am not even certain that I would rent this thing. However, if you are bored or if you have a naïve (or surreptitiously naïve) date who wants to grab hold of you during all the scary scenes, then rent the DVD. Those kinds of cheap thrills are the only ones worth sitting though the entire length of Spielberg's War of the Worlds to actually experience.

I give this 3 out of 10 stars, but just barely 3.

Cinderella Man (2005)

Rename this one "Schlocky I" Ron Howard once again makes us think we're eating prime rib when we're actually sucking on cardboard.

[4/10 · 4 June 2005]

Perhaps I had a bad day yesterday before I sat down to watch "Cinderella Man", but let me try to convince you why I did not really like this film a lot.

I wanted to love this film. I tried to really get into the Depression-era feel and the "feel-good-everyman" riches-to-rags to riches story of Jimmy Braddock, the underdog-cum-heavyweight-champion who outlasted a younger, more deadly Max Baer in 1935. This film is perhaps is the most historically realistic and visually stunning film that Ron Howard has ever directed. It may also be the most ambitious film that Brian Grazer and Penny Marshall have ever been involved in, including Marshall's "A League of Their Own"). "Cinderella Man" has every stylistic element in the book going for it. Production design, costuming, set design, general casting, art direction, and music was created by the likes of people who made "Chicago", "A Beautiful Mind" (which I call "A Beautiful Lie", and if I have time one day I will write about why I call it that)","Apollo 13","Do the Right Thing", and countless other great movies. This film has more heavyweight talent backing it up than Mohammed Ali every carried into a boxing ring during the height of his career. This film has the painted-portrait ambiance of Depression Era New York City.

What could possibly be wrong with "Cinderella Man"?

For me, the real problem is that I have seen this kind of movie too many times before. Remove Sylvester Stallone's self-effacing "bad-side-of-the-tracks" Italian untermensch and insert Russell Crowe with his well-practiced but overly-understated Jersey accent and you have "Rocky I". Replace Rene Zellweger's half-Betty-Boop, half-horrible-imitation-of-Cyndi-Lauper rendition of Braddock's wife, Mae with Talia Shire, and you have Rocky's wife Adrienne from that same film. Paul Giamatti, who plays Braddock's manager, must have imitated every bad 1930's and 1940's formula picture actor to smooth out the stilted and wisecracking dialog he is given in this film. Let's also just be frank. Brain Grazer was one of the people responsible for the remake of "Psycho" which should, by law, prevent him from ever making another film in his life, if justice were truly blind. This film, basically, was made by a group of recyclers. This film is the equivalent of an EPA "Super Fund" project for cinematographers.

In short, just about everything in "Cinderella Man" is too perfect. It is the same thing we get from Ron Howard every time (with the possible exception of "Apollo 13"). It's the same old substance-less sentimentality wrapped up in a lovely cinematic package that we got in Cocoon, Splash, Far and Away, Willow, and countless other Howard projects.

The real imperfections come from the extended length of the film, the predictable dialog, and the severe over-emoting of Renee Zellweger's Mae Braddock character at the end of the film. I am almost certain Ron Howard studied "Rocky II" a little too long when he copied the feel of the Stallone sequel for the last portion of this film. I also honestly believe the casting crew could have hired Cyndi Lauper for a lot less and gotten a better performance from her than they got from Ms. Zellweger in this movie. At least Ms. Lauper came from the same neighborhood upon which this film was based. She could even have been made up to look younger. Ms. Lauper also wouldn't have had to fake the Jersey smirk that Ms. Zellweger had to practice for months prior to doing this film.

I am also tired of seeing Clint Howard, who still looks too young for his age, in any movie, let alone trying to portray a character much older than his age. Perhaps, when Ron Howard dies and no one else will hire him to act, he can write that New York Times Best Seller "I Was Opie's Brother". Until then, we will have to continue to endure his presence. (If you want to see Clint Howard in something truly funny, watch "Evilspeak", which is perhaps one of the worst horror films ever made).

The politically correct will also likely be angry at the casting and make-up job of Craig Bierko as Max Baer, as well as his portrayal as a violent villain. This will be the second film in which Russell Crowe has been cast either as a character with supposed anti-Semitic views (John Nash) or opposing someone who supported Jewish causes like Baer (even though ethnically questionable to some). I have read that the Star of David was minimized on Baer's trunks to minimize any racial or religious association with Baer's trumped-up villainy in this film. Baer was more clown than villain in real life and was horribly shaken up by the deaths in the ring that he caused. And let's not forget, he was Jethro Bodine's (Max Baer, Junior's) dad. He could only be so mean, if you catch my drift.

In the final analysis, we get what we always get from Ron Howard. We get the feel of eating fine prime rib when in reality we are simply sucking on dry cardboard. He has built one more fantastic cacophony of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

This will be a wonderful film to rent at home, but I would save my money and not see this one in the theater. It will no doubt do well and I am certain the DVD will go into production very shortly after the film's theater run and will also be successful.

I just think there are better films out there somewhere worth dodging commuter traffic to see on the big screen.

And Justice for All (1979)

Disco Justice and perhaps one of the finest last 10 minutes of a film ever preserved on celluloid.

[5/10 · 12 March 2005]

Two guys who like to take cinematic chances, Norman Jewison and Al Pacino, came together to make a very engaging film, "And Justice for All". Jewison has been responsible for cinematic garbage (anyone remember Rollerball?) and complete masterworks (Fiddler on the Roof, Moonstruck, Agnes of God), but one thing is distinct about his film-making. Jewison seems to find scripts that aptly match the actors he casts and tries to get all he can out of them, even if the script is horribly flawed. And believe me; he has had some flawed scripts (does anyone remember F.I.S.T?) This movie that pits an average but hardworking defense attorney, Arthur Kirkland, played by Pacino, and the entire justice bureaucracy run by power-centered judges like Henry T. Fleming, played by John Forsythe. We get to see judicial largess and judicial activism work against innocent defendants (even though the circumstances upon which one of Kirkland's defendants is booked is not totally believable) and how Kirkland works around the system to find ways to free his clients, though his efforts are often futile.

The script is barely more than a made-for-TV effort, and the music sounds like rejected background tunes for "Charlie's Angels", but there are memorable acting performances in this film. I was surprised at how well John Forsythe played a thoroughly egocentric and conniving judge; Jack Warden as a suicidal adrenaline junkie cum judge creates one of his better characterization efforts on film.

The Piece De Resistance of this 119 minute gem is Kirkland's opening statement during Judge Fleming's rape trial. This might be the only truly well-written dialog in the film, and there is only one guy capable of delivering it in the most engaging and passionate means possible. That person is Al Pacino. Though Pacino has been known to do some pretty quirky and sometimes cartoonish character roles, those very quirky emotive properties make the last 10 minutes of this film one of the best scenes ever captured in American film. If there were an acting school out there that wanted to see a bit of method acting that challenges the best of what masters like Brando could do, that school should buy the rights to the last 10 minutes of "And Justice for All", burn it to a CD, and make it required study.

If they could just find a way to erase the disco music in this film, it would be even better, but that being said, I still think this film is worth a look. I would give it a 5 on a scale of 1 to 10 (it's probably 5.5, but I round down).

Million Dollar Baby (2004)

Aviator, Schmaviator....Go see what it takes to live life without a trailer, a deep fryer, and some Oreos.

[7/10 · 28 January 2005]

I swore I would not write another review, but here goes. Given my history, I will probably not write one again for another two years (my average). That should be a blessing to anyone reading my previous entries.

I am a sucker for good stories, particularly ones about ordinary people attempting extraordinary things. "Million Dollar Baby" is one of those films, and because Clint Eastwood knows how to cast, how to act, and how to get out of the way of the actors he uses, this film makes for a great story even if you don't like the conclusions ( and for ethical reasons, I didn't).

Anything I say about this film will spoil its impact but suffice it to say, Morgan Freeman, Hillary Swank, and Clint Eastwood do a great job telling a tale about how people work around their personal limitations to achieve their dreams and how to deal with the options when those dreams fall apart. The boxing business, particularly women's' boxing, is simply the canvas around which such issues are played out. Through this canvas, the characters figure out the meaning of love, loss, separation, and courage in a style that is truly enjoyable and memorable.

I am sure that this picture will not win Best Picture at the Oscars because those cinematic elitists will assume that it is a stylistic mimeograph (now you know how old I AM) of "The Shawshank Redemption". Morgan Freeman even narrates this film as he did that one. I promise you that this movie is not "Clone of Shawshank". Paul Haggis' screenplay is friendly, funny, and for the most part not ad-libbed. There is enough humor and realistic pathos to carry one though 137 minutes without being bored in the process. Hillary Swank puts in an admirable performance as a girl without a dime and with a dream. Eastwood and Freeman interact classically with one another as trainer and former boxer and confidant. Their banter and one-liners are both poignant and funny. Eastwood is also good (though kind of predictable as in previous offerings) as a trainer who has made many mistakes in life for which he seeks redemption and from which he can never fully recover. Freeman is as comfortable as an old shoe as the has-been heavyweight who still holds the heavyweight title in common sense, courage, and character.

I won't say anything more that this. I despised greatly the ending of this film. If you feel the same way I do about some fundamental issues, you will also despise it. That being said, the issues being presented might be one reason why one should SEE this film. It will certainly be a cause for frank discussion with your family, significant other, or friends. It ought to be. If it isn't a source of discussion, then one probably has no soul.

To cut this short, it ain't the Godfather I and II, but it's a damn nice film. One might well forget about this film in a few years (though I did not forget "The Shawshank Redemption"), but one won't forget the impact it has immediately after one leaves the theater.

Find out what it takes to avoid having to live life with a trailer, a deep fryer, and some Oreos. Go see Million Dollar Baby. On IMDb's scale, it ranks about a 7 with me.

The Aviator (2004)

Little more than riveting eye candy....but the ride is enjoyable

[5/10 · 22 January 2005]

Martin Scorcese delves into the mastery, ego, and madness of oil, tool, cinema, and aviation magnate Howard Hughes and comes away once again (without as much blood spattering and violence) with an unspectacular but pretty period piece, best described as riveting eye candy. "The Aviator" is every bit as visually stunning and devoid of substance as "Gangs of New York". The cast, however, tries really hard to capture the mood of the era and the persistent force that Howard Hughes became to a generation that just preceded and endured the Second World War.

I am no fan of Leonardo DiCaprio, but I must give him credit for trying hard to capture a personality in this film. He looks way too young to be Hughes (though his age at filming was similar to the age of the character he portrays) but he gives his all in his attempt (and it's a great try) to encapsulate the hardheaded ego of Hughes, a man who refused failure and closeness simultaneously during his troubled lifetime. Cate Blanchett (who should still be publicly flogged for filming "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou") perhaps does the best long-form impersonation of a famous public figure in the history of film, and I mean that sincerely. We will never know the full vim (and vinegar) of Katherine Hepburn's private life because we could never see it. We have seen her characterizations on film, however. Cate captures, in her performance, a stunning replica of Hepburn's on-screen persona in what could have been the real role of Hepburn's life had she been able do it ( that is, to portray herself in an autobiographical role).

The rest of the cast are dressed up for and act as period 1930s and 1940s personalities of the day. Even Alan Alda, who is not always much more than Hawkeye Pierce in any role he has ever done, is pretty convincing as the conniving Maine Senator Brewster.

I thought the Dicaprio scenes of madness were a bit overdone (we got the point early in the film) but the cinematography and general feel of the picture were fine other than that.

This is no Scorcese classic. However, the dude knows how to cash in on "nice" films. I am sure his more than ample retirement fund will be supplemented by the box office for this number.

If you want to laugh, cry (well not really), and kiss 10 bucks goodbye on a feel-good piece of post-art-deco-and-slightly-more-than-pap theater, then by all means, go see this. If "The Aviator" wins Best Picture, just realize that this has been very unspectacular year in cinema (unless of course you actually think anything by Michael Moore could be loosely considered cinema, then, of course, you need a red room just like Mr. Hughes).

For those of you who think all I do is hack bad films, you have been disappointed. Well not completely...

Here is the oddest sequence in this film. Leonard DiCaprio, a 31-year-old actor, looking younger than a 25-year-old Howard Hughes would have looked at the opening of his 1930 film "Hell's Angels" is arm-in-arm with 35-year-old (I have read she is actually 40) pseudo-teen-slut songstress Gwen Stefani attempting to portray a 19-YEAR-OLD Jean Harlow.

In 50 years, there will be a film on the life of Gwen Stefani called "Tragic Kingdom". In it, she will be found in a sealed room covered with red padded walls and rolling on the floor while listening to "I'm Just a Girl" or "Spiderwebs". The pounding of her fists on the floor will be peppered with her mumbling "Take a chance you stupid ho!; Take a chance you stupid ho!" The basic story of the movie will be how a troubled teen woman makes it from 16 to menopause without ever having lived a second of her life as a mature adult.

Note to Hollywood...don't take that chance, not even with another actress' "million-dollar contract". A 40-year-old playing a 19-year-old? 19-year-olds (other than Janis Joplin) never have facial lines. Come on now; you've got to be kidding me.

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)

The most perfect thing that Bill Murray has done on film in the last 10 years is NOT this film

[1/10 · 25 December 2004]

The most perfect thing Bill Murray has done on film in the last 10 years is hit a perfect drive on the flat fairway of some hole on a Japanese golf course in "Lost In Translation". Sadly, that's the only thing. I think Bill needs to tee them up and quit making films. His late career is an utter embarrassment to us all.

Remember my bias: I like Bill Murray the actor and comedian, but he in my opinion starred in the worst film ever made "Where The Buffalo Roam". This one, if not beautifully shot, would be right there with it in terms of its low standing.

Never have I seen a collection of overpaid actors whose careers are in steep decline as I have in this thing. Wes Anderson, who is the father of twisted psychological comedy dealing with either forbidden, hindered, or unwanted relationships (Rushmore for example), has cast Bill Murray in the goof ball protagonist role that Jason Schwartzman played as Max Fischer in Rushmore. If Bill had been 16 and precocious, he could have gotten away with the stupid humor in this film. But sadly, Bill is 55, overweight, seemingly uninterested in the role, and forcing the smart-alack bad boy image he could get away with two to three decades ago.

I am an old-school constitutional libertarian. I do not believe that anyone has the right NOT to be offended. The first amendment is the first amendment regardless of how my buddies on the left want to trash it (and our political freedoms). Regardless, Bill and Wes, through this script utterly trash in unfunny ways about every stereotypical underclass. If you are pregnant, gay, lesbian, a female in general, someone with money (and the good sense not to spend it on tripe which is how you ended up with it), or committed to a true cause (this film is practically a public urination on the reputation of Jacque Cousteau), your interest group is pretty much savaged. I love satire (and so should anyone else). This script is not satirical, however. It is angry,boringly repetitive (I lost count of the use of the term of term "bull dyke" early on in the film), unfunny, and forced.

This movie might even be a metaphor for the process Wes Anderson used to make the film. Wes schmoozes some bored, knuckle-headed old money people to bamboozle them into making a satire about ocean exploration. Somehow, through his goofy wit and charm, he convinces a few boobs to send some money his way so that he can create a visually beautiful dud which, if the sound were just turned down and the actors ignored, might make a wonderful 1960s-style travelogue.

Willem Dafoe is also utterly ridiculous in this film (not funny, professionally ridiculous in very bad sort of way). Angelica Houston attempts to be a true-life Morticia Adams and fails horribly (her hairdresser and make up artist should also be publicly flogged for their work). She doesn't work as a silly heiress either.

If you rent Rushmore, you will at least understand the interplay of characters in this film. Before you see this film, I think it best for you to rent Rushmore, a bizarre but at least mildly interesting film. If you hate Rushmore, by all means, don't waste any more money by seeing this one. If you rent it and like it, then if you feel charitable and want to see how similar concepts are utterly butchered by a writer/director and a cast of misfit overrated actors, then blow the other 10 dollars to see this.

I just hate for people to waste $10 on anything, so don't say I didn't warn you.

As far as Oscar nominations, I would like to find that brass-knuckled bouncer named Oscar and nominate him to visit the people who were stupid enough to make this film. If he is still interested after performing that hit, then go find some of the people who acted in it. Hint to Oscar...Bill is on the 7th tee (and he should be forced to stay there for the rest of his natural life).

What I wrote above, amateurish, unfunny, and generally in bad taste as it is, is funnier than anything in The Life Aquatic.

Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)

Perhaps the worst movie I have ever seen....

[1/10 · 27 July 2002]

This one has to go down as the worst movie I have seen since Bill Murray's "Where The Buffalo Roam". "Plan 9 From Outer Space" is like "Citizen Kane" compared to "Goldmember". I don't think even Ed Wood would have ever touched this project if something like it were ever offered to him during his career.

When producers and directors have to drag out actors (and morning TV hosts) whose careers are in utter decline as a draw for a picture, you know a film is in deep trouble. Eighth-grade humor is fine in proper context, but eighth-grade humor that has been tried, retread, and worn out is just plain abominable. This film is full of recycled tripe.

Watching this film is like watching a really bad Bob Hope Television Special with the added effects of bathroom humor and foul language. I was actually thinking the coming lines in my head before the actors said them. My thinking the lines is a sign that a film is embarrassing poorly written or that I have a great career ahead of me as a screenwriter. I sincerely doubt the latter of those two alternatives.

About the only redeeming slapstick element in this film is the "small" part of Mini-Me by Verne Troyer. If Troyer gets paid only scale (as he was in his first film appearance) and Myers gets paid 20 million, Congress should immediately launch an investigation. That pay plan would be a bigger crime than anything Ken Ley or Sen. Ted Kennedy were ever involved in. While Troyer may suffer the fate of all actors who serve bit parts in serial films, he can certainly perform first-class physical humor. He should try one of those groin punches in real time to Myers offstage if he gets stiffed in the wallet for his performance.

Myers is so incredibly predictable in this film, it is beyond description. His humor is both badly timed and gratingly repetitive. It amazes me how people see him as being humorous. Michael Caine should have his knighthood (and other things) removed from him for just showing up for the casting call.

Do yourself a special favor. Don't go see or rent this film. Save your money for a better time somewhere else....YEAH BABY!