halincoh Reviews

Borat (2006)

Perhaps once you stop laughing, this "offensive" film may make you think.

[10/10 · 3 November 2006]

If there is such a genre as offensive comedy, this immediately becomes one of the all time best. This does not only turn Americana on it's ear, it shoves it up it's own ass. The hell with "Passion of the Christ," this is the film that Mel Gibson had wish he made.

Is it extremely offensive to Jews? Well, I'm Jewish and I'm certainly not offended. Is it offensive to all the other ethnic groups it supposedly offends? I guess it depends on one's individual perspective. However, when a stereotype is twisted and pushed until it is a distorted, funhouse mirror of reality it no longer reflects the object of ridicule, but those who hold those beliefs.

Borat is the most offensive and the most brilliant film I have seen since Monty Python's "Meaning of Life" and "Life of Brian"

I give it a big ... "high five!" Great success.

Death of a President (2006)

This is What IF history at it's most mediocre.

[5/10 · 1 November 2006]

"What IF" history is an intriguing way of looking at history. Fiction novelists use this tool as an entertaining genre. Historians also used in just as effectively; they change a variable and follow it through to demonstrate how subsequent events might have become significantly different. Again, it's a wonderful way to argue historical turning points.

This film utilizes the death of President Bush as a means to rehash old arguments and nothing more. It felt more like a Michael Moore documentary than a new vision, a new approach. No insight is gained. No dramatic narrative follows that leads to a surprising future. The sole purpose of having Bush die is to sensationalize the film, to sell tickets.

Personally, I feel that Bush is the VERY worst president that these United States have ever had - at least certainly in MY lifetime. But that does not excuse these filmmakers for pretending that his death in their film is nothing more than marketing. Every revelation is an argument simply restated. Just as a Michael Moore movie only converts the already converted, this film simply is a celluloid rant against the path on which Bush has taken this country.

If the film wanted to cause us to think, then take the point to an extreme. Be creative. Use the "WHAT IF" genre more effectively, to a more dramatic and NOVEL conclusion. And if they didn't want to want to make us think, at least better entertain us. I don't think it did either well. The premise was an interesting one. But all they did was restate the past, not examine the future.

Snakes on a Plane (2006)

Review on a Computer

[6/10 · 24 August 2006]

Poprocks on film: sudden novelty, a bit bubbly, a touch tangy, and when finished with them you throw the bag away and forget you ever ate them.

I had to see the film because of the hype and generally good reviews. What I liked most was that though the premise and plot is completely ridiculous, the actors play it for real. The dichotomy of trash with class is what makes this fun to watch ... but forgettable.

However, for all those who rated this a ten (and yes I know that most of you who rated this a ten are simply and satirically continuing this internet phenomenon ) have you ever seen a real movie???

Or ... as least ... have you seen Tremors? It could easily be re-named WORMS in the DESERT. It has the same ridiculous sort of plot, but it's actually more fun to watch. And nobody's penis had to get bitten to get a laugh. Imagine that. :)

Nacho Libre (2006)

Slapstick south of the border ... in tights

[8/10 · 16 June 2006]

Much to my surprise, as I begrudgingly went to the movies with my 12 yr old son, I LOVED this film. I expected nothing, yet in return, I received a wonderful 1 hour and 40 minute respite from the real world, filled with slapstick humor and total silliness. Slapstick humor always walks a tightrope between bad taste and belly laughs. The Three Stooges are mind-numbingly inane: most laugh intensely and some never get the joke. Laurel and Hardy isn't for everyone either. Nacho Libre is not filled with Woody Allen irony, it doesn't have Christopher Guest's drollness, and it's not James Brook slick. It's not sophisticated humor! How can any film featuring Jack Black as a Mexican friar/fryer/wrestler/wannabe wooer ... all for the "good of the orphans" be taken seriously? It's simply for the 12 year old boy in all of us who laughs when Moe hits Curly and laughs when fat guys, even with over the top Mexican accents, are paired with skinny guys ... in a wrestling ring ... with stretchy pants.

I originally wrote this as a reply to a poster who asked if the mean IQ of people who liked this was 93, but the post was subsequently deleted. But to him I say, "By the way, I'm a physician and my IQ is a tad over 93. But even if I had no job at all and even if my IQ was 93 ... who cares ... I laughed, with my son, eating popcorn, in the dark. And that's the joy of sharing a movie like this." No es?

United 93 (2006)

You must be ready to see this ... or don't see it at all.

[5/10 · 30 April 2006]

I chose to see this mostly because it seemed that the families, from what I've read, gave it their approval; so , in that spirit, I felt I was showing support for them though I have no idea if they get any of the profits from this film. I wish I hadn't seen it. I simply wasn't ready. I developed a huge headache and generally felt real distress as I watched. I'm not a headache person. I'm not a queasy person. I simply wasn't ready.

Is this a good film? That question is a very difficult one for me to answer. It feels like a hybrid: part documentary and part traditional film. As you all know by now real people played themselves, especially in the traffic control scenes, which, in conjunction with stripped down official sounding jargon and straightforward camera work, gave it the documentary feel. On the plane, it became a traditional film. But is it good? This merges with the question, "was it exploitive?" The filmmakers took liberties with character development. There was no traditional character development at all. Glimpes, but nothing more than that. They properly assumed that we knew the character and story lines of the most prominent passengers as portrayed by the media previously. Allowing for that assumption, the filmmakers essentially placed us amongst the passengers during the last 40 minutes of the film and let us directly observe their fear, their anger, their discovery, and their response. It was visceral, but, in my opinion, it wasn't because of craft, it was because of the painful memory of the actual event.

I think a good film , even if it feels dated when seen years later, is still felt by that latter-day audience on many levels, allowing for that film to be still recognized as a good film. I think that 20 years from now this film will be felt as if it were the equivalent of a TV movie of the week. Without the shared experienced that is present amongst today's audience, it won't have any emotional weight on it's own.

But for right now, this is deeply disturbing film that for some might be cathartic, for others might be interesting for the behind the scenes observation, and for other's might function as a satisfactory action/thriller film. But for me, it was simply too soon.

I so hope the families of these brave men and women have found some peace. I truly do.

Spanglish (2004)

delightful

[7/10 · 21 December 2004]

Adam Sandler's character says this brief, yet essential line to Paz Vega's character: " you are so beautiful they should name a gender after you. " It refers not just to her breathtaking, doe-eyed yet sensual, physical presence, but to her inner beauty as well. She is a woman driven by the need to overcome whatever hurdles, be it poverty or ostentatiousness, to allow her daughter the best chance in this world to succeed. This is a simple film about a few of those hurdles, the beautiful woman who captains the journey, the people she meets along the way at one specific and significant juncture, and the gratitude and pride expressed by the woman's daughter at the journey's end. This is not rocket science. It's a small film for adults, told from an adult perspective, with contrasting performances by Leoni, Sandler, Leachman, and Vega. Children will most likely not enjoy this ... but parents with children will - especially women with daughters. It's delightful.

The Sweetest Thing (2002)

a disaster

[2/10 · 21 December 2004]

So ... I'm up late one night ... flicking through channels ... and this movie pops up on the Comedy Channel - The Sweetest Thing starring Cameron Diaz and Christine Applegate. "Hmmm," I thought, "I don't remember that one." "It'll be silly fluff," I thought, but I watched anyway. When one sees brilliance, it is sometimes an additional thrill to read the opinions of others, for it only reinforces and enriches your own assessments and opinions. This ain't the reason why I came to IMDb THIS time. Every see a traffic accident? Bloodless, but so unusual that it compelled you to stop and watch? You know ... something like an eighteen wheeler falling vertically and downward off an overpass smashing into a Dakota pick up truck carrying a small payload of head-only cadavers en route to an anatomy lab, literally causing every one of the heads to roll. You stop and watch until every last cranium ceases to move even though you know you should have averted your eyes long before. I came here today to see if other's had the same reaction. You didn't let me down. Well ... now you know what I felt about this movie, except ... it wasn't as entertaining as the described crash. But after watching, mouth agape, staring in disbelief, at this utterly incompetent and truly unfunny film until the very end ... I certainly hope some studio executive's head rolled too.

The Incredibles (2004)

transforms animation into the future

[10/10 · 5 November 2004]

One of the best action films I've seen in a long time. I've read many suggestions that it is borrows from Spy Kids, James Bond, and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Yes. Yes. And yes. But personally, I thought differently. Remarkably, I had the same response to this film as I had when I first saw Star Wars. For those of you who have seen this movie, your response to that statement might be, "huh?" Let me explain. When I originally saw Star Wars, several things happened: first , I was absorbed into a world so different than my own, but when all was said and done , it became as real as anything I've ever experienced. Secondly, we all knew then and there that this was the future of special effects. Thirdly, be it ultra cool Han Solo; wanna be hero Luke; or uber-female Princess Leia, many people could identify with the characters. This film transforms animation, like Star Wars did for it's genre, from the present into the future. It does so because everyone involved aspires to excellence. They succeed by creating animated landscapes incredibly rich in detail, by developing movement and action that is, at times, simply exhilarating, and by brilliant "acting" so rich with nuance, humor, and emotion that voice and drawing merges into a full fledged human. In fact, when I think about it, other than Harrison Ford, the one lingering difference between Star Wars and this film , other than the obvious - plot, was that the acting was better in this film. If you saw Star Wars ... and you did ... you saw the future of science fiction. If you see this film, you will see the future of animation. And the force is with them both.

Sideways (2004)

Delightful

[9/10 · 31 October 2004]

Movie after movie, Paul Giamatti continues to excel. He represents every man who is underestimated because of stature or looks. One can empathize with his characters much more readily than one can with most male actors. No matter how much make up or how bad the hair cut, Brad Pitt does not inspire empathy in another heterosexual male - even if that male is tall and good looking himself. Paul Giamatti does ... because through nuance and expression, you also see inside the man. In this film, you feel his frustration with life, you sense his fear, his trepidation - his desire that things be different. Yet, as depressing as this SHOULD be - it's not. Instead, it's truly delightful. Much to their credit and the director's credit, every actor in this film feels real and every situation seems non contrived. Giamatti portrays a man who when he pokes his head out on a sunny day, instead of being inspired by the day's potential, thinks " well ... somebody's gonna get some melanoma today!" We discover , however, that he does appreciate beauty - the beauty of wine. He breathes it into his lungs, and in turn, it breathes hope into his soul. Can he find such hope and beauty in life beyond this glass? Because of Giamatti, we hope so.

Cellular (2004)

Fun

[7/10 · 12 September 2004]

I went to this film because I was trying to kill time after dinner, away from home, before heading back to the hotel. I either had no interest or had seen the other films at this multiplex. Needless to say, my expectations were zilch. Seeing this movie will not leave you with an everlasting meaning; this will not make you think; this may not even stay with you for very long. But it was FUN! To discuss plot is not needed for a review of this film. But what's a review without one? So here goes: good, bright, family woman is kidnapped and transfered to an attic - no way out - time running out for her and her family - bad cops - good cops - broken phone in attic - irresponsible twenty something with a cell phone - ring ring - zoom zoom - crash bang. But it works. You occasionally laugh, you always smile, and you have fun. So should you ever find yourself alone, in a city not your own, belly full, with time to kill before heading back to your hotel or out for the night, take a chance and choose this to see. It's not a wrong number.

Open Water (2003)

Disappointing, but memorable.

[6/10 · 22 August 2004]

I was very eager to see this. I understood ahead of time, as did everyone, that it was a stripped down, minimalist, and primal film. But I was disappointed. It could have been better. It should have been better. The scenes in the water had poor pacing and poor editing. Not only did the cinematographer underutilize the panorama of the ocean setting and endless horizon, but the jumpy, cinema ve'rite' style distracted from viewing. Did the director ever see a Hitchcock film. How ' bout an IMAX? There was no building of suspense. The documentary style should not have been used or ,at the very least, more creatively edited. Also, it would have better served the film to make it longer. Not much ... but the husband and wife needed to be better explored in order for us to feel empathy. The relationship between the husband and wife was portrayed in an almost comic book simplicity. No depth. It reminded me of the Expedia commercial: a busy couple needing an escape, trying to find a getaway that would please them both. These people are defined by cell phones, compromises, and later, in the water, by superficial anger or caring. If they developed the man, the woman, the relationship, one could care MUCH more about their plight. Instead, the emotion we feel while watching is of the "what if" variety: "What if this were me!" Curiously, while the film did not effect me while I watched it, later that night, it did indeed haunt me. A lot. I wanted to like it more while watching, but I will indeed always remember this film.

Stripped down? Yes. Too much so. Minimalist? Yes. At the sacrifice of what could have been a richer, more suspenseful, perhaps a classic film. Primal. Oh yes. As primal as the ocean itself. Hauntingly so.

Diner (1982)

One of the best "buddy" films of it's generation.

[9/10 · 25 May 2004]

An intelligent, thoughtful, funny film about men, their friendships , and their priorities in that in between time of life: after school , but before the creation of their new families. One of the best " buddy " films of it's generation. Perhaps the most memorable aspect of this film is simply the relationships between the characters themselves. The actors that pulled off this wonderful feat are at the initial cusp of their careers. However, the array of male talent almost seems a bizarre combination when looked at in present times. This was Mickey Rourke at his alpha male best ...before his "psychosis" set in. This was Kevin Bacon, so good in this film, that it wasn't until afterward that you realized he wasn't a real life functioning alcoholic. This was Steven Guttenberg and Paul Reiser in roles that best featured their comedic/actor talents. Daniel Stern plays a more mature and more intelligent version of the character he played in "Breaking Away." But not much more. Thrown in Tim Daly AND Ellen Barkin and that's a cast that never could make this simple movie now. But back in 1982 ... they made a memory.