Change Your Image
john-1361
Reviews
Napoleon Dynamite (2004)
Funny Movie - Funnier Comments
I just saw this film on Cinemax, I resisted renting it or actually going to see it at the theater because of the awful word of mouth it received in certain circles. While I found the movie to be delightful, very funny and sadly poignant, I had a better time reading the comments of the people who hated it, and there are quite a few.
Suffice to say my British parents were right when they warned me that Americans just don't get satire. Most of the extremely negative comments focused on the lead characters deadpan, mumbling delivery. That of course was one of the key elements of the film's comedy. The folks who absolutely despised it and called into question the intelligence of the producers did not even for a moment glimpse the fact that they were in large part the very people the film was satirizing, the ones who only wish to see lovely, pretty, well spoken people in their cinema, the ones who probably ridiculed and tortured their classmates who were judged to be odd.
The young lead actor, John Heder, was brilliant throughout. He turned the character of Napolean into a very real teenager, someone almost everyone can identify with, in one way or another. I have never before seen the anguish of an outcast, gawky, un-loved and desperately lonely child so effectively played, and with a comic edge and loving manner that eventually redeemed him.
Bravo to the filmmakers, may you all have long and lovely careers and may you all continue making such worthwhile films!
Alone in the Dark (2005)
Mind Blowingly BAD Movie
Having actually paid a couple of dollars to rent this piece of crap, I was determined NOT to turn it off. I have never turned off a DVD or video, or even walked out of a movie in a theater. I take it as a point of pride that I can honestly say that I have seen the entire film, no matter how bad, so I can discuss it fairly. An hour into this laughably awful rotten-joke of a movie, I had to turn it off. The 1-dimensional wooden characters, the over used "ancient wise civilization" premise, the god-awful, just plain hideous directing and dialog, and the embarrassed look plain on the faces of all of the actors, combine to make this "film," one of the worst I have ever seen. Even 50 year old no-budget shockers usually had some endearing qualities, this turkey has none, it is insult to the movie going public. Christian Slater needs to buy every copy of this mess and burn them, quickly, before anybody else witnesses his latest step in his apparent self-destructive slide into b-movie boy, has-been, used-to-be big-time, failure. Whoever is in charge of making VIDEO GAMES into MOVIES should be fired at once, maybe even replaced by someone who can find an ORIGINAL script, or god-forbid, an excellent book.
Lord of the Flies (1963)
Incredible Movie - A Forgotten Gem
Director Peter Brook delivered a very powerful and artfully done film based upon the classic book by William Golding. To those who have commented here about the differences between the book and this film: these are two very different mediums. Brook did not attempt a straight adaptation, he presented Golding's story through his own vision and emotional lens.
The use of non-professional children is one of the things that make this a brilliant film, and vastly superior to the obnoxious 1990's version. If you pay attention to the opening minutes of Brook's film, you will notice that the world presented is nice, normal, clean, and functional. The boys deliver their lines well and the story flows smoothly. Once the boys are on the island, the scenes aren't nearly so smooth in transition, the speech becomes very awkward and the boys interaction with each other is stilted and unnatural.
That is the point! These children know the direction they are going is wrong, to a boy they know this. Yet as individuals they are helpless to stand up to the group. Their awkwardness flows from their fear of being cast out, while yearning to be rescued and return to their homes. The nightmarish quality of the situation is well reflected in the hesitant speech and graceless movements. The uneasy stringing together of scenes makes the viewer squirm, hopefully making the connection to how ill at ease and unnatural the boys themselves must feel.
I'm sure most of you have been around boys of this age at some point in your life. They are prone to being tongue-tied, have few social graces and lack physical co-ordination. That's what makes this film so utterly believable, the boys are real boys, not pimped-out Hollywood trick ponies, delivering their lines in perfect Shakespearean English, while nimbly doing complicated dance moves and mugging their perfect little faces square at the camera.
Golding's book is a masterpiece that can be taken on several levels. Brook's film offers no fewer interpretations of the deeper meaning while presenting a realistic and horrific vision of the basic story. I know most people simply will not get this film. That's too bad because it is a classic.
Secondhand Lions (2003)
Second Hand Plot Gets Old Quick
Haley Joel Osment cast as a smart, shy, abused, and precocious kid, now that's original. Michael Caine and Robert Duvall cast as eccentric old wheeze bags, better but still too predictable. There are some real problems with plot development in this film, which doesn't seem to matter to the director or producers, as long as they can milk every maudlin emotion out of the viewer as they possibly can.
As for Jasmine, the lion, she should have eaten all the kid's relatives before she blasted off in her intergalactic space-pod.
Icky sweet film, reminds me of the sort of thing Disney used to crank out by the car-load. Kids under 10 should love it, leave the older ones alone and let 'em watch something with some style.