Change Your Image
goddardr
Reviews
Forks Over Knives (2011)
It changed my diet
There is no quibbling about it; this movie does have a certain agenda that some people will find objectionable. Okay. But, there is enough supportive information to at least consider altering our heavy meat and dairy eating habits.
As a middle aged male with questionable eating habits, I have been concerned about my blood pressure, cholesterol, general overweight condition, and the numerous medicines that were necessary to keep them in check. When I watched this documentary, I went to check out some of the information presented. While there are some distortions, the bulk of the facts did vet out. Shortly after scrutinizing the documentary's information, I made the decision to try a plant-based diet, excluding all the meat and dairy that I never thought twice about eating for three months. The end of the three month "test" was to include a medical exam and corresponding blood work. Why not? What is there to lose?
I did decide to include a couple of servings of fish a week in my "vegan" diet. This was a tip of the hat to the Norwegian study that saw a dramatic drop in cardiovascular related deaths when meat and dairy were restricted sharply during WWII. What they specifically left out of the film was the fact that the Norwegians stepped up their fish eating greatly during that time. Other than the inclusion of fish, I went with a plant based diet.
In a nutshell, the blood work and physical changes after three months did see significantly better results. My weight was down. The cholesterol was down 25%. My HDL and LDL ratio improved. Blood pressure still remains an issue and, sorry to say, it didn't help with male performance, but the other results were impressive. When I told my doctor to look at the last year results against this year's, he took a double-take and asked, "What's going on?" He okay'd a cutting of my cholesterol and one of my blood pressure meds. A checkup on the changes are due soon.
While there is plenty to criticize about the film's bias, there is room for all of us to take stock and ask, why not take a step toward improving our eating habits? Is there anyone that really believes eating animal based foods is good for you in large quantities? Yes, probably a hamburger now and then isn't going to kill you, but eating a larger portion of fruits and vegetables is a better step for us in the long run. I'm at about the six-month mark now. I can't see going back to a diet similar to what I had before. I like the way I feel now and I like the numbers on my blood report. It is enough to keep me on a vegan diet.
Chef (2014)
Good decent fun
For those with a cynical outlook on life, this movie isn't for you. If you are looking for angst and conflict, these ingredients are missing as well. If you are interested more in a human interest story and how one can find their way out of a setback from an unexpected direction, this is worth taking a chance.
As you probably know, the main story line involves a chef, once one of the up and comers many years ago, now runs a kitchen in a well established successful restaurant. The restaurant is successful with dishes he created many moons before, but now he wants to freshen up the fare, especially when a noted food critic is scheduled to rate the restaurant again after many years. As you can guess, events happen to cause a total upheaval for the chef.
The complicated part involves his son from a failed marriage. He spends time with him and gets along well with the ex, but he doesn't really "know" his ten year old boy. Now, with encouragement of his ex-wife, he and his son have an opportunity to spend time together while the chef puts together a new strategy.
First off, if you are a food junkie, there are a lot of nice moments involving the preparation of food. It isn't just a plot mechanism; it is a full feature of the whole story.
Second, the chef is struggling with what he wants to do and what he has to do. During his journey, he discovers why he became a chef and why his previous experience was lacking. Who can't identify with this dynamic.
Third, I really enjoyed seeing the change as he goes from a chef in a successful restaurant to a chef that finds what it takes to get himself re-invented and re-energized into his true passion.
This movie does lack the bumps and challenges of many similarly themed plots. Plus, it isn't a doubling-over-with-laughter type of movie. It has fun moments, touching moments, poignant moments, and a few outrageous moments, all of which are executed well. So, since when does this make for a bad movie? Do we need to see recovery from galactic suffering in order to call it a "good" movie? I don't think so.
For the most part, movie goers want to go and have a good time once in a while without the extra baggage of human discontent. There is enough strife to give the story a base to advance the idea that, when pushed, we can change and come out stronger. It is just that this particular journey is a little more enjoyable earlier in the movie than most.
12 Years a Slave (2013)
Painful viewing for no reward
At this point, I'm tired of movies getting a break because the subject matter is "important" and "socially relevant". I'll concede this is a high quality movie crafted by professionals to produce a haunting effect on those that watch it. I just tire of watching the debasing of people from a horrible period time and time again. I tire of us giving awards to these films because it is a socially correct action.
I compare this to "The Color Purple", another fine movie I refuse to ever watch again. The searing pain of watching people abused washes out any kind of positive movie experience possible. Yes, events like this happened and I can't help the world solve every de-humanizing act or give proper retribution to those that suffered. And I know for a fact that watching it displayed in gripping horror on a large screen is not going to help my coming to terms that I had white ancestors abuse other humans.
It seems the success and recognition of these films is just going propagate similar films until we bleed from watching them. How about a film of nothing but beatings? Throw in a little story, but make sure there are copious amounts of footage showing people getting shredded like cooked meat. Will that be enough? Will it ever be enough? No, I don't think so.
If you want to watch this kind of movie knowing full well what you will be facing because, let's face it - there are no surprises here, then by all means, watch it. Award it. Keep producing more and more filmography offspring. Because, evidently, there are plenty of people that want to continue wallowing in it. I have no appetite for it any longer.
Blue Jasmine (2013)
Comedy? No, a Tragedy
I'm a longtime Woody Allen fan, though it's been a spotty relationship. I didn't go see it at a theater despite the generally positive reviews. It's appearance at a local Redbox was enough to trigger a need to view it.
It is a respectful work with all the principle actors doing a fine job, especially the searing performance of Blanchett as a woman on the edge. Blanchett's character, Jasmine, is a New York socialite, or at least she was before upscale lifestyle came crashing to a halt, that is now forced to move in with her sister living in a modest San Francisco neighborhood. Though they are sisters, both have had much differing paths and see life through very different lenses. Her sister tries to help Jasmine get on her feet, without bringing up the past indignations, while she manages a job, a boyfriend, and two kids. Jasmine has basic issues dealing with coping in a world without seven-figure indulgences. As she attempts to fit herself into the new reality, we see flashbacks that weave her relationship with her sister and other members of the family in context with her new path.
Woody's films are always about relationships and this one has some of the most complicated and contested relationships than the last two or three features combined. It almost feels like these were spread a little thin, but it doesn't bog down the feature because the focus is on Jasmine and the path of destruction she imparts. It is painful to watch Jasmine who has few positive personal characteristics that are suited for her new world. The many flashbacks, which take up a good third of the movie, shows how she isn't able to move on from a person used to being provided the best of everything. Most the reviewers compare this movie to "A Streetcar Named Desire" and I'll have to take their word for it because I never read or saw it. Maybe that was a blessing.
The dialog rich movie is nearly extinct, but Woody keeps the flame burning for the fans of Ingmar Bergman and Fellini films. This one doesn't have the crispness of some previous works, especially the recent Midnight In Paris that I really adored, but who are we to complain when movie producers give us product where dialog is an afterthought. You may not come away fully fulfilled, but it will make you think about what truly makes a rich life.
Django Unchained (2012)
Am I missing something???
The popularity of the movie and seemingly high regard by critics have me wondering why I did not enjoy this movie to the extent I had anticipated. There are so many strange elements, character non sequiturs and inappropriate dialogs that take away from what is a good story and fine set of actors.
Here is the short list of issues I have. The music would have been perfect for "Blazing Saddles". The hokey lettering for times and places (especially the elongated "Mississippi"). Some of the scenes purported to be in the deep South obviously came from dry rocky areas of California. The overuse of the sudden zoom shot (like the early scene with DiCaprio). The stupid hooded mask scene before they raid Dr. Schultz' wagon. What it does to the film is to make it look disjointed and out of context a good portion of the time. Plus, plot contrivances appear to make the story end properly. I can't buy the whole Django escape from the crew taking him to the mine.
This film is long, and by that I mean long in a way that is not good. I kept wondering when it was going to end. The movie is by no means a good follow up to "Inglorious Basterds" which was a fine film. The gratuitous violence and gore isn't what hurts the film as much as how the tone is mangled at various points along the way. If you like films, you'll probably want to see it. But don't be surprised if at the end it doesn't satisfy.
Sleepwalk with Me (2012)
Brilliant! It's about relationships, not comedy
The first mistake is to think this is a comedy.
Mike Birbiglia plays comedian Matt Pandabiglio (boy, he disguised that well, didn't he??) who is still struggling with material, delivery, gigs, and, by the way, his long-time girl friend Abby, played by Lauren Ambrose. It is clear by those around him, they are the ideal couple that will get married and have a family. If fact, they are wondering what is taking so long. So we get to see Matt do a few minutes on stage while working his regular bar-tending job, but obviously he is a work in progress.
But Matt has another problem that is troubling to Abby and his parents - he is experiencing sleepwalking with such intensity, he starts acting out his dreams with whatever is around him. Much of this has to do with his evolving comedic life and the long term live-in situation with his girlfriend.
I watched this movie with the same expectation of others that I'm sure thought it was going to be exclusively a comedy. There are some of Mike's classic comedy routines with his terrific understated sense of humor, but it really is window dressing for how his relationship, sort of stuck in neutral, begins to affect them both after so many years of no commitment. Just like life, there are some good times, bad times, and all of those times in between. I'm trying to remember the last good relationship movie I saw that so cleanly portrayed the love of two people that were really not made for each other and didn't know it until so many years had passed.
I am stuck wondering how much of this is autobiographical and how much was fiction. There are some definite parallels between Mike B.'s actual life and Matt P. in the movie. All I can say is, if it wasn't all biographical, then Mike did a fabulous job of making a complete and honest storyline that has people asking questions of their own behavior and relationships. Give the people in the film credit for doing a wonderful job of acting. My had is off to Birbiglia for piecing together a terrific movie.
Amour (2012)
Well made, but not my cup of tea
Once in a while, a well-crafted movie comes along but it fails miserably to resonate to the viewer. This is a good example of it.
I found many reasons to not like the film. This movie clearly has too much space; the film pacing is sometimes excruciatingly slow. The subject matter, how one aging married person cares for his fast declining spouse, is squeamishly dark and bitter. There are some symbolic messages left to your imagination. And the final scene left a foul taste that poisoned the whole experience. In our small art picture theater, the final cut produced a collective gasp of displeasure.
Looking at the face of it, however, it is clearly a well-made film on a difficult subject. The acting is superb and there is no doubt this film was artfully constructed. But, the viewer deserves to know this movie is not a touchy-feely type of experience despite the title and picture of a smiling elderly woman. It is very difficult to see the beauty behind the grisly realities.
Good movie productions do not always lead to enjoyable experiences. You have been warned.
Moneyball (2011)
More than baseball
Moneyball examines a deeper premise than how the 2002 Oakland A's managed to form a contending baseball team with a small payroll. While there is a lot of baseball in the story, it is not the whole story.
Brad Pitt plays Billy Beane, the GM of the Oakland A's (still is) during a time when it appeared baseball was ruled by large payrolls. Right away, you are shown how the Oakland team loses three big talents to the more well-healed baseball teams (Yankees, Red Soxs) and now they need to find players to stand a chance to compete but at one of the lowest payroll levels in Major League Baseball. Billy discovers Grant (Jonah Hill) who uses a different, more calculated approach to evaluating talent than the old tried and true method of subjective evaluation by long-time scouts.
The story is crisp, the movie cleanly presented, and well-acted by the two principle actors. Aaron Sorkin's writing fingerprints are all over it. It is fine movie making.
But the story isn't just about baseball, it is about how objective tools are used to decide how the talent is acquired and used. We are seeing more and more of this in our daily lives. If you work for an employer, there is a strong probability that how your efforts are graded are done using a scale that is cold, hard, and unmoving. What was once a series of perceptions and opinions by your boss are now hard straight facts. It is because the humans that manage other humans have a series of preconceived notions of how well you do your job. Humans are fallible, so our evaluations are flawed too.
I once created a computer program to play the board game Monopoly with me. I figured that I should be able to beat it more than it beats me because I wouldn't be able to construct a rich set of logic rules that would beat my cognitive abilities. After playing against it many times, I was surprised to find that it could beat me six out of ten games. Reason? I was subject to making decisions based on gut feel instead of cold hard logic and I made faulty decisions. The computer didn't, so it won more times than not.
Moneyball is the same thing. A roomful of scouts deciding on which players they should go after is flawed and will ignore those that deserve consideration while accepting those that don't. This is expanding to our workplaces as well and we will be accepted or rejected based on firm data than someone's opinion. As a teacher in a high school, that is exactly what testing has done for schools. It is probably coming soon to a workplace near you.
Young Adult (2011)
Not worth a rental
It didn't help I was expecting this to be a comedy (thanks, Redbox for that wayward clue), but I didn't even make it to the end.
This one can't be blamed on the acting; as a whole, they did the best with what they had to work with. It was the story and storytelling that failed.
The Girl-Who-Made-It (Theron) comes home to small town Minnesota and tries to make it with her high school beau (Wilson) though he is married, adores his wife and child, enjoys his simple life and has no big wants or desires. And that is the big problem for this movie - you must believe her attempts at baiting her old boyfriend away from his happy life isn't met with some kind of discussion point. The ex-boyfriend and his wife seem to not even notice or comment on her come-ons, instigations, and manipulations as she tries to change her past.
The whole tone of the movie is depressing. There is an awful amount of drinking, even for the well-adjusted. Why are these people so miserable? If you have a couple of mindless hours to kill and you've seen everything else out there, it may be worth seeing just for the performances. Theron is powerful as the depressed returnee, Wilson is quite capable, and I like Oswalt (friend) and Reaser (wife). But, you might as well have a lot of beer ready so you can drink along with them into a mindless stupor.
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)
Subtleties Lost in the Confusion
I love this type of genre where the story, plot, and acting is valued greater than action. If you've read the book or seen the TV mini-series, you'll probably like this at about an 8 level. If you haven't been exposed to the story, it will be a confusing and boring experience.
Like the TV series, the emphasis is on limited dialog, plain locations and spaces, and acting space. Some would call it dry, but there is power in the silence as the characters share meaningful looks and furtive glances. If the TV series dialog was measured, the movie dialog was more rationed. I think there were a solid five minutes George Smiley (played by Oldman) said a word after his first screen exposure.
The general plot is not that hard to follow, but this is a story based in subtleties. Nuances are difficult to interpret if you don't know where the story is going. Suffice it to say, everything you see is important and sometimes you don't realize the importance until later. Following the high level agents takes attentiveness not usually needed in a wide-release film.
Still, I like the style and substance of the movie, even if it is difficult to catch all the meanings of each plot step. Several people nearby me mentioned that while they liked the movie, they were confused about certain events. One told her spouse they needed to pick a simpler movie to watch next time it hurt their brain.
Temple Grandin (2010)
Get out your Kleenex...
I mean that as a compliment. This is an outstanding story about an accomplished woman and how a few thoughtful people were able to help her through the difficulties faced by autistic people. If you are worried about watching another movie about a person overcoming great barriers, don't be for this one. It is magical how the writers, directors, and actors, especially the spot-on performance of Claire Danes, were able to keep the story true without overwrought dramatics and sugary sweet sentimentality. It is a joy to watch.
Temple Grandin, born with autistic behavior, has difficulty in learning academically and socially except for her mother and a few teachers that recognized how different her world is. Her life is documented from early years to later academic and personal growth, but it is not presented chronologically. Since the central topic of the story includes her relationship with cows, the story begins at her first exposure to cows at her relations ranch.
It is best not to know in advance how Temple becomes enamored by cows and her following success with them, but let us just say it does involve how cows are slaughtered for human consumption. If this bothers you or if you do not agree that meat processing is okay, then this movie is not going to be for you no matter what. One reviewer listed below was revolted by how the movie seems to, at least in his eyes, glamorize or justify beef processing. It is just part of Temple Grandin's story, not some kind of beef producers attempt to quell those that believe meat consumption is wrong.
Likewise, if you have had the challenge of raising autistic children, Temple Grandin's story may seem to trivialize those challenges. My understanding of autism (and it is incomplete at best) has been that autism has some common characteristics, but they manifest in many different ways.
There is no doubt this is one of the most beautiful human interest movies made. As a high school teacher, I showed my engineering class this movie over two days for two reasons. First, she shows a remarkable talent of analyzing problems and develop solutions. Second, and this was the main reason, the story of "being different, not less" is an important one of tolerance. One of my students was a highly functional autistic girl that was viewed as strange by fellow students on a regular basis. This brought the point home in how important it is to recognize we are all not the same and that is okay. By the way, the students were engaged through the whole movie (it's easy to tell; they didn't try to sneak phone texts during the movie and didn't fall asleep).
Savor this one. They just don't come along very frequently
Avatar (2009)
Amazing eye-candy
I can't add much to the story line others have posted regarding the journey of a paraplegic marine to the world of Pandora, but I would like to add to some of the commentary.
Nobody is going to watch this movie for the story and acting, both of which were decent, but not ground-breaking. But the visual mastery of James Cameron's work is just so beyond the current level that cinema has been able to produce, it will benchmark a new era achievement much like Star Wars did over 30 years ago. Because you are seeing a story unfold with the full force of state of the art CGI, it makes the story and characters come alive with faultless realism. Creating a race of humanoids such as the Na'vi with amazing consistency, and yet individualistically, it captures the mind, heart, and soul of the viewer as they are enveloped in this strange new world.
I saw this at an IMAX theater in 3D and if there was one complaint, I think the 3D system incorporated lacked a little bit of clarity that viewing without glasses would have provided. Is the 3D effect benefits outweigh the detraction in less clarity? This is something worth investigating. I am certainly willing to see the movie again in 2D just because the experience is worth repeating. It is also clear that when the DVD version comes out around May or so if they stick to the release schedule typical of these movies, I'll buy one on the first day and play it on my home theater.
Frost/Nixon (2008)
Spectacularly done - with a caveat
Mesmerizing film on the Frost/Nixon interviews that electrified the public after several torturous years with Watergate news articles, hearings, and eventual first resignation of an American president. This movie is a documentary style work involving how the interviews came about and the people involved on the two teams; Frost and his producer, researchers, and girlfriend on one side with Nixon, his staff, and family on the other. It succeeds brilliantly in staying away from mimicry of the two personalities that would otherwise be impossible to convincingly duplicate with impersonation. The viewer is soon pulled away from the sense that actors Sheen (playing Frost) and Langella (playing Nixon) are not the people portrayed, but are intensely credible likenesses.
The film starts with a small amount of actual footage running up to the Nixon resignation and then starts to blend in the produced film sequences. The look of the film color is intentionally off-color to give it a mid-70's period film quality (overly bright and warm with some haze). Frost finds out that getting air time (re: financing) for an unpopular ex-president interview is not fruitful. But he boldly continues to stretch for that bit of fame that will take him back in the TV mainstream. Remember, this was a time that TV executives were abhorrent to the notion of paying for interviews. On the other side, Nixon was looking for a way to make a buck, so a good sized check for doing interviews by a lightweight entertainment interviewer was an attractive proposition.
The acting and dialog steal the show. Comparing favorably with "Milk", this film bubbles with timely dialog between the two lead actors. Of course, they had to be spot on in order to make it convincing and emotionally satisfying. The only part of the film I question is one of the moments leading up to the all-important Watergate interview session between Nixon and Frost when Frost is in his hotel suite. I don't want to give this pivotal moment away except that I found out later that this didn't happen. It is a riveting piece of film, but the fact that it was a fictionalized segment hurts the credibility of the film and I feel as if I was managed by the film makers. I think anyone going to see a movie based on fact should have the option of knowing if they can take the information at face value. For instance, almost all movie goers know "The Da Vinci Code" isn't a credible source of religious teachings, but it is still a fun movie to see as long as one doesn't use it as a basis for fact. Here, it appears almost all of the events are pretty accurate except for this one moment. For this, and this alone, I can only give it an 8 out of 10 versus a 10/10 it would otherwise deserve.
"Frost/Nixon" deserves viewing for those who lived the Watergate era and those who didn't. The performances and production are a tremendous plus and the story is particularly pertinent as we are now faced with another questionable presidency for the past eight years showing how a president can choose to impart his will beyond his constitutional powers for the things he believes is right. History repeats itself again.
Stealth (2005)
Use this to show your kids what a bad movie is all about
My kids watched this - they'll watch anything. And then we talked about the movie and what sets a good movie from a bad movie. It was easy to show the difference between this and, say, The Freedom Writers or any other movie with a sensible plot, point of view, character engagement, and heart. Hopefully, this will lead them to more discerning choices in the future.
The movie is virtually unwatchable. This goes to the class of movies that have so little inherent value that you can't even watch it to see how bad it is. Not that it doesn't have any merit at all, it does have the standard special effects, dramatic music, zooming sound bites and fast editing to keep the audience from falling asleep, but behind the techniques, there is no substance at all. There may be another choice worse than this, but I can't think of it right now.
Just My Luck (2006)
If you liked "Freaky Friday" odds are you will like this
My pre-teen daughter and I decided to watch this movie - okay, she decided and I went along with it - which turned out to be an okay flick for me and a delight for her. This wasn't too surprising considering how this movie was signed, sealed, and packaged directly to your favorite stadium theater. Lindsey Lohan plays Ashley, a young energetic New York promotional agency gofer who we quickly finds out has a knack for being lucky. On the other end of the scale is Jake (Chris Pine) who does odd jobs at a bowling alley while trying to promote a local band for a recording contract, but just can't seem to catch a break because he is the antithesis of being lucky. Now, you know at some point Ms. Lucky has to meet Mr. Un-lucky and then the fun begins.
The charm of the movie rests mostly on the two main actors, Lohan and Pine. Lohan, who showed she could do comedy in the movie "Freaky Friday" is at least as good in this movie with Pine being equal to the task. The movie depends on a fair amount of slapstick because unlucky people have a lot of odd things happen to them, so be forewarned if you don't find this kind of comedy enjoyable. The problem with slapstick is that it is often overplayed, losing the story and the characters in the process. Fortunately, the director, Donald Petrie, who has extensive comedy experience from "Grumpy Old Men" to "Miss Congeniality", knows how to set the tone so the visual comedy doesn't bruise the story or characters in the process.
For sophisticated movie goers, this probably shouldn't be their first choice, but for my daughter and I, it was the perfect movie. She squealed with delight at many times and I found it amusing and sweet for the most part. There weren't any portions I found inappropriate for my daughter on this PG-13 movie. It doesn't break any fresh ground, but sometimes you need to take a break from action-packed or serious flicks and have a few light-hearted moments. If this is what you need to take your mind off of your hectic life, this will fit the bill.
Just Friends (2005)
Passable entertainment
The other reviewers have summarized this amply - no need to rehash it because it isn't very deep. This is one of those class of movies that can be quite enjoyable when done well or make you feel uncomfortable if not. An example of one I enjoyed was "Jersey Girl" because it combined the funny and touching moments expertly while still feeling like you were watching the same movie. I couldn't tell if this was a romance comedy, slapstick comedy, or parody - and the scenes didn't interchange smoothly.
There was a non-essential scene in the movie where Chris plays a hockey game with a bunch of kids in order to impress Jamie. During the scene, he is having trouble with his skates even though he has played a good deal of hockey before and he is determined to show his stuff. He plays poorly and the kids tease him which in turn goads him to play harder and more intensely. First you have to believe a near expert level skater turns into a rank beginner because of a skate change. Next you have to believe the kids become vicious sadists. Then believe he becomes Mr. Macho Competitor against pint-sized kids. More preposterous action follows. At this point of the movie, I was kind of numb and was just waiting it to end. If my wife hadn't of been sleeping (her silent comment of the movie) on me, I would have gotten up and left.
This really couldn't be faulted to the actors, I think they all tried to do the best given the material. Ryan Reynolds has possibilities if given another chance and Anna Faris who plays the wacko singer was fun to watch. The raspberry goes to Roger Kumble who made the movie a schizoid mess and probably one of the clumsiest endings I can recall in a movie.
If you're looking for a good chick flick, there is better stuff out there. Pass on this unless you're desperate.
Skinwalkers (2002)
Ignore the nitpickers - just enjoy the movie
My comments may be a little late to the party, but this was the first one I've seen adapting one of Tony Hillerman's Navajo mystery novels to the screen. After seeing the movie and reading some of the comments, it is evident there are too many reviewers getting caught up in the location and tribal origin of the actors chosen, thus, obscuring the fact that this is a decent, enjoyable, and satisfying movie. If it compels a few people who haven't had the opportunity to pick up any of Hillerman's work and start enjoying the unique mixture of Navajo Indian culture and old-fashioned who-dun-it, then it did its job.
Though I haven't read all of the series, including the book this movie was based upon, the movie was a respectable representation of a typical Hillerman novel. I think one reviewer was right on the nose when they mentioned that both Leaphorn's and Chee's character, the two principle individuals in a good number of the novel series, were not entirely faithful to the book. That may have been necessary because in the books, both of them don't say anymore than necessary and there are a lot of character thoughts expressed to the reader, something that can't be done as easily through a movie unless the director uses a voice-over approach to express the thoughts. It wouldn't have worked, so I'm glad it wasn't done. Still, as an avid reader, Joe was overly stoic and Chee had a little too much gee-whiz kind of look. Believe me, these are small quibbles for what is otherwise an admirable job to play these two decidedly different men.
What is over-emphasized is the repeated complaint of those who say the characters didn't look Navajo-like or that the locations didn't represent the Navajo nation in general. As far as them not looking Navajo enough, I'd be willing to bet most of them didn't get that while watching the movie, they probably learned that little tidbit of information through the movie sites with extensive biographical info on the actors. So, exactly how many people who watch the movie who aren't from the immediate area are going to give a cactus prick about the actors not matching the tribal features of most Navajos? Precisely zip. Were these people also ones to object to Graham Greene playing the part of a Sioux native American in Dances With Wolves, considering he is a Oneidan native from Canada??? I doubt it. I'll watch Graham Greene playing anything, whether the part calls for native North American or not. Busting the chops of those who put together this movie because the wrong ancestry of the actors who were put in just should nitpick more important things like bills from Congress. The location complaint is just as bogus, it may have been too flat but it doesn't detract from the essence of film.
It isn't a perfect film, but it was well worth the time spent and I'll be looking out for more of these adaptations. It is a tribute to Hillerman's work that his would be the first mystery series based on an American novel to be produced through Mystery, who has provided such a terrific portfolio of British based mysteries for a long time.
The Whole Nine Yards (2000)
Good actors wasted
The movie was not a good comedy, but not because of the actors who did the best they could given what they had to work with. Most of the comments below focus on lousy acting, particularly a poor French-Canadian accent by Rosanna Arquette. I find these responses harsh because I doubt if anyone could bring life into this script. It is a comedy almost on a subliminal level and too many scenes are played straight as an arrow. There are some love interests to help distract the fact there isn't much to laugh at, and they didn't work for the most part either. Some of those scenes contained very cliched lines, I felt bad the actors had to say them! On the good side, it was a treat to see a movie set in Montreal and Amanda Peet is marvelous to look at. If that is enough for you, check it out.
About Schmidt (2002)
Hard to sit through the whole thing
Occasionally, a movie comes along where one or more of the main characters is flawed and so strikingly formed by the acting and writing, that it is difficult to watch these people. Jack Nicholson as Schmidt is such a character. To endure this man's post retirement life and the unsubstantial persona developed through his work and family life is a challenge. On one hand, you have to applaud the work of director Payne and Nicholson to paint a vivid portrait of this woeful character, but be prepared to squirm a little when situations arise you know he isn't prepared to gracefully manage. The strength of this ability is that Schmidt has phenomenally true characteristics imbued in people we know and meet everyday. It is too scary to contemplate. And that is why, as a movie watcher, we want to look away at times because he is an embarrassment, someone we don't want to be in whole or part. If you've seen Scorsese's movie "The King of Comedy", De Niro's Pupkin was flawed as well, different flaws than Schmidt, but still making you sweat by watching him because they are so truly lifelike. What I don't buy in this movie is the whole "Meaning of Life" theme and Schmidt's resolution in the end to this theme. Depending on your view of life, the ending will support whatever philosophy you may have in this regard. Frankly, it can be done more simply and definitively with a glass of water filled up halfway. By the way, you don't see many movies based out of Omaha, its worth seeing if you've ever lived in or around there. One of the other reviewers took exception to casting Midwesterners as collectively troubled and narrow-minded, similar to those who felt "Field of Dreams" made Iowans look like country bumpkins. Hey, it's the movie business, folks. This may be in part due to Nicholson doing a bang-up job of portraying Schmidt, but the rest of the cast, especially the more screwball parts, don't ring true (except for Schmidt's wife - I wanted to hug her).