Change Your Image
jjgoard
Reviews
Grind (2003)
Skaters apparently have nothing to look forward to...
Uh, people who gave this a ten: I get that you're into a hobby that only marginally interests most other people. So am I. (Don't ask.) But do you really think that a much better skating story couldn't easily be made? I would think, at least, it would really upset you that there was no attempt at all to blend the stunt double shots with the actor shots. Couldn't those actors even learn to do some basic tricks?
Almost no laughs. For lots of hot women, I can go online and see them wearing a lot less. For skating, I can see the real skaters doing it. This is as (1) as it gets, kids.
Helps me bring down my IMDb average, too.
Bowling for Columbine (2002)
Muddled, and often obnoxious
I'm probably taking on an impossible task here. I am generally in support of an armed citizenry, and I have never liked Michael Moore, yet I aim to criticize "Bowling for Columbine" apart from these general views, in the sense that it fails as a documentary by not encouraging much real curiosity or real reflective sympathy.
To begin with, his framing of the central questions is way off the mark, juxtaposing rare events involving children against an imposing number of American murders that reflects very different phenomena. Even at the number itself, bells should be ringing: he uses a raw count rather than a per capita figure, and all of the other countries he mentions have populations substantially lower than the U.S. Yes, the U.S. still has a substantially higher rate, but that doesn't justify using a totally irrational comparison in the service of rhetoric. But just as bad is the idea, implicit throughout the film, that gun deaths are spread more-or-less evenly throughout the U.S. population. The supposed contrasts with Canadians were a real jaw-dropper for me. Kids that play violent games and don't want to really hurt people? Folks leaving their doors unlocked *in the daytime*? Jeez, every place I have lived in the U.S. (except Washington, D.C.) I have known quite a few people to leave their doors unlocked *at night*! What kind of mental realm is Moore living in? The real fact is that, contrary to the stereotypes held by many Europeans, most people in the U.S., rich, middle class, and poor, are extremely safe. The problem we should really be addressing is not why "we" are so much more violent than "them", but why a few places in this country are nothing short of war zones. That goes to gangs, racial hatred, and inevitably to the disastrous War on Drugs. Moore barely touches on this. My point here is not to argue against him (which is precisely what I would want a documentary to inspire), but to illustrate the serious lack of thought that underlies this film.
The one person who comes off worse than Moore is Charlton Heston, who quite simply seems like a ghoul. Either Moore has done an utterly unethical hatchet-job of their discussion, or Heston is completely incompetent. I don't care if you're ambushed coming out of the shower at 5 am: if you're a freaking spokesman for the NRA, you should be prepared to argue that firearms ownership by law-abiding citizens saves lives and reduces crime, not just spout some God-given rights crap that evokes zero sympathy from most viewers. When Moore shows a picture of the little girl shot by her classmate, you should be able to show him the kids that don't have mothers because they were beaten to death by crazy ex-boyfriends, with no realistic means to defend themselves. Whether Moore or Heston has more to blame, very little of the substantive pro-gun view is raised in the film.
The people that come off extremely well are Trey Parker (or is is the other one?) and Marilyn Manson, both of whom show the kind of deep human sympathy that Moore fakes badly to cover his obnoxiously self-righteous viciousness. I personally wish, instead of using Columbine in rhetorical support of very muddled thinking on guns, that a film would have concentrated more on the mentality of the Columbine shooters and victims, reflecting the serious social problems in a typical high school experience, and the effects of alienation in general. But I know Michael Moore would have ruined that movie too.
Home Alone (1990)
Stands the test of time
I must confess: I really like "Home Alone". It's part of popular culture for good reason. I'm not going to try and defend Culkin's acting, except to say that worse child performances than his have been considered charming (as in the somewhat overrated "A Christmas Story"). This movie is charming, memorable, indeed touching, and perfectly paced so that the hilariously extreme violence that is its trademark (a really fresh perspective on slapstick, in my opinion) starts late and builds to an actual climax. By contrast, most of the movies in this genre drag on and on with no real development and little cohesion, and could end at almost any arbitrary moment, i.e. "Baby Geniuses", "Mouse Hunt", "Look Who's Talking Too". (Why did I ever watch those, anyway?) Anyway, very well made, good supporting performances, shouldn't be dissed.
Ricochet (1991)
Ugh.
I'm only reviewing this because I suspect it's the worst action-thriller I've ever seen. The plot is idiotic; Lithgow's villain uses tactics that could only work if he knows exactly how his target will react, and if the latter uses absolutely no strategic thought. As is typical of the genre, all of the hero's problems are instantly erased by a final battle. But this piece of junk goes one step further, having a reporter announce that obviously, the mere presence of the villain clears everything up. Puh-leeze.
Back to the Future (1985)
Just about a perfect film
I agree with thefield: "Back to the Future" is clearly one of the
greatest films of all time. One of those where not only can't you
imagine changing a single significant actor, but you can't imagine
changing a single scene or (almost) a line of dialogue. It also
provides a good lesson about what science fiction should and
shouldn't do, a lesson that its painful sequels fail. The original
was about the characters and the times. The (absurdist)
time-travel mechanism is a great frame, and it's inventiveness
certainly contributes to the films "masterpiece" status. But the
sci-fi takes a back seat to the things we really care about: Marty
adjusting to 1955, George's self esteem, Marty's relationship with
Doc. In the sequels, we get a whole lot of junk about the
metaphysics of time (which as a philospher I instinctively pick
apart), but all of the new characters feel like props, and I don't
really care what happens to anyone. This, far more than the
"Rocky" series, is an example of sequels profaning an original.
Airplane! (1980)
The Best
Man, if you don't understand why this is among the few greatest
comic works of all time, then I have serious doubts that you and I
can discuss anything of substance. "Airplane" is the progenitor of
a major subgenre of comedy, and still undoubtedly its best
representative. Every time a watch a 2-minute drawn-out gag in a
Mel Brooks or Monty Python film, I think of how "Airplane!" would
have gotten 10 smart jokes in there, and 5 adolescent but funny
ones, plus three more you'll miss until the third viewing. This
film's only competition comes not from films but from The
Simpsons and South Park at their best.
Dangerous Beauty (1998)
Humorously Lame
I couldn't tell whether the intended focus of "Dangerous Beauty" was on the romantic comedy or the social commentary, but in both respects it's so embarrassingly heavy-handed that you might have a great deal of fun laughing *at* it. The "wit"ty exchanges are Wildean in delivery but Hughesian in content. What could be better than an anachronistic paean to Hollywood values, complete with slow-clap? Oh, yes, the main character, in a moment of romantic crisis, crying, "Marco! Marco!", begging for the Rocky Horroresque crowd-pleaser "Polo!"
Ghost World (2001)
Consistently Enjoyable
It gets so old, doesn't it? A main character is so independent, so observant, so beautifully removed from all that is trite, obnoxious, grey. Of course, as observers of such a story, we never associate ourselves with its minor characters, do we? Meanwhile, that's exactly what we are to many of our friends, family, and acquaintances watching the same material... Yes, "Ghost World" is that sort of movie, but somehow I found it charming rather than infuriating. Birch's Enid is different in a suitably different way. Nuanced performances and fresh writing make this a film I'd watch quite a few times.
Frailty (2001)
Admirable, but imperfect
I really respect "Frailty" for the way it keeps undercutting our
expectations. For a psychological thriller, this is one of the best
concepts I've ever seen. This film could have been pretty close to
a masterpiece if it had taken a subtle approach to its "twist", in
particular getting rid of the flashback scenes for the family's
victims. The final scene was outstanding, and it really would have
caused that great shiver-down-the-spine if those flashbacks, and
some other aspects, hadn't already eliminated our doubts for us.
Ultimately, I felt that it tells where it should hint, and so only partly
fulfills a great, spooky, idea. The performances by the children are
outstanding. (7/10)
Airplane! (1980)
The Best
Man, if you don't understand why this is among the few greatest
comic works of all time, then I have serious doubts that you and I
can discuss anything of substance. "Airplane" is the progenitor of
a major subgenre of comedy, and still undoubtedly its best
representative. Every time a watch a 2-minute drawn-out gag in a
Mel Brooks or Monty Python film, I think of how "Airplane!" would
have gotten 10 smart jokes in there, and 5 adolescent but funny
ones, plus three more you'll miss until the third viewing. This
film's only competition comes not from films but from The
Simpsons and South Park at their best.
Das Experiment (2001)
decent thriller, awful "docudrama"
Well, it was an exciting movie. As far as "thrillers" go, where the
main objective is to keep the audience on the edge of their seats
with fear for the central character(s), I suppose "Das Experiment"
is about one step from the top echelon. (Condition orange?) But
as for teaching us important lessons about the dangerous
potential of the human psyche and the effect of social environment
on our choices, this movie doesn't. It's about as similar to the real
Stanford Prison Experiment as "Air Force One" was to a real
assassination attempt. But it's not taking liberties, per se, that
bothers me; if the dramatic liberty taken consisted simply of an
invented climax where something unexpected and terrible
happened, I think I would have respected that choice. But the
implausible mayhem of knives, guns, and heavy objects that
makes up the last quarter of the movie is characteristic of the
action-thriller genre for which many Europeans (justifiably) criticize
Hollywood. (6/10)
Der Himmel über Berlin (1987)
Challenging, scary, and lovely...just like Earth.
"Wings of Desire" is a strong candidate for my favorite film of all
time. I'm not terribly surprised by the number of negative reviews,
and not even because I think hoi polloi are utterly devoid of taste.
In fact, a person with a good deal of sense could find this film (at
least the first part) trite and overly pretentious, if they were to
interpret the angels' dialogues and the people's thoughts as bits
of Wenders' philosophy that he wants to impart to us. In my view,
they're almost the opposite: an attempt to make present to our
immediate senses the nature of real people and society. Yes, I'm
claiming that for the most part, our mental activity is triteness
posing as profound. Haven't you ever eavesdropped on lovers'
banter, or on a job interview? Wenders has to take us to the place
where the ordinariness is almost crushing, before we can really
feel the weight of Damiel's choice.
What really makes this film stick with me, though, are two
startling scenes near the end that implant doubt in the feelings
you're otherwise predisposed to accept. Pay attention to Marion's
words to Damiel in the bar, keeping in mind the kind of reasons he
based his decision on. And especially, realize the significance of
the scene with Falk and Cassiel. When I realized it, I shivered.
Back to the Future (1985)
Just about a perfect film
I agree with thefield: "Back to the Future" is clearly one of the
greatest films of all time. One of those where not only can't you
imagine changing a single significant actor, but you can't imagine
changing a single scene or (almost) a line of dialogue. It also
provides a good lesson about what science fiction should and
shouldn't do, a lesson that its painful sequels fail. The original
was about the characters and the times. The (absurdist)
time-travel mechanism is a great frame, and it's inventiveness
certainly contributes to the films "masterpiece" status. But the
sci-fi takes a back seat to the things we really care about: Marty
adjusting to 1955, George's self esteem, Marty's relationship with
Doc. In the sequels, we get a whole lot of junk about the
metaphysics of time (which as a philospher I instinctively pick
apart), but all of the new characters feel like props, and I don't
really care what happens to anyone. This, far more than the
"Rocky" series, is an example of sequels profaning an original.
25th Hour (2002)
Stunning
This film affected me strongly. It's still with me more than a month later. I'm a huge fan of Norton, and I found the rest of the casting perfect, but it was the overall feel of the film -- the beautiful, thoughtful pace -- that made me so ready for the powerful next-to-last and then the even more powerful last scene. 10/10.
Pay It Forward (2000)
manipulative, uncreative
"Pay it Forward" was painful for me. I have a great deal of sympathy for the premise, and I haven't read the book so I can't comment on the adaptation aspect. 1) This film's ending is as unnecessary and manipulative as other people are saying. You might very well cry, but if you have any self-respect you'll feel dirty while you're doing it. After all, it has all the subtlety of porn. 2) Anybody who was shocked by the big personal revelation of the Spacey character should not be allowed to vote. 3) Even the paying forward concept is handled in a very uncreative way.
Lola rennt (1998)
Great in philosophy and style
LOTS OF SPOILERS!!! If you haven't seen 'Lola Rennt' yet, drop everything and go do it now. The (English) dubbed version I came across was terrible. Please see this movie in its original language.
'Lola Rennt' is one of the most significant films I have seen. I can (and often do) analyze and praise it for hours on end, but rather than repeat a lot of the good comments made by others, I'll just bring up a few things many seem to have missed.
The single most important point is that the old "butterfly effect" theme isn't simply being picked up and used, but rather subjected to an interesting and novel analysis. Lola learns in subtle ways from one timeline to the next; thus, the timelines are inherently ordered, and not, as some have suggested, just three options that the viewer gets to choose between. For example, in the first timeline Lola doesn't know how to take the gun's safety off, but in the second timeline, when her father says, "You don't know how to use that thing," she coolly shows that she does.
We see that Lola has a special relationship to chance, not only through this strange process of learning from "previous" (ponder that one!) timelines, but also through her screams, which she uses to gain control over a situation spiraling away from her. In the third timeline, of course, it even directs the course of the roulette ball. Something else, rarely mentioned, is that she seems able to make the guard's heart stop with her focussed anger (an "evil-eye", if you will.) In the ambulance, she shows the opposite power as well.
The overall impression is that she is a contemporary kind of "witch", living in the world of chaos through a kind of mystical energy. I'm reminded of the ever-increasing set of stupid dance movies, whose climaxes turn on the energy of the dance breaking down personal and cultural barriers, and I'm thinking that Tykwer put his finger on this weird (religious?) hope that many of us are prone to, that will and control can manifest themselves if we just "run" hard enough.
There are so many interesting questions to be mined. The bedroom scenes, for example. Obviously, Lola is the one concerned about mortality, transience, and insignificance in the timeline following her death, and Manni in the one following his.
My question is: are these timeline-specific flashbacks, such that each of them foretold their own death, or are they something else, like biased memories, or what they wished they had said?
What's even more amazing is that all of the topics I've mentioned are integrated so well from a stylistic standpoint. The music, the running, the use of split screens, the effect of the screams to slow things stylistically, the "breather" effect of the bedroom scenes, contribute to a movie that stands apart from other much-discussed treatments of chance and complicated causal chains, like the forgettable 'Sliding Doors', or the very moving 'Amores Perros' and '13 Conversations about One Thing', which present chance as a force independent of us, along which we are carried.
The Thin Red Line (1998)
Beautiful but pretentious
The ponderous nature of this film -- the drawn out post-battle scenes, the sporadic shots of trees and birds and leaves uncurling, above all the trite philosophizing -- made this, for me, one of the least moving films to address the nature of war. This is an artist's perspective, which isn't in itself bad, but in that respect the originality of its interpretation falls far short of classics like "Apocalypse Now" and "Slaughterhouse Five". "Saving Private Ryan" paints its characters broadly, but makes no attempt to hide it; it knows its power comes from the amazingly visceral battle scenes. The characters in "The Thin Red Line" are painted just as broadly, only the filmmakers don't seem to know it.