jackster12 Reviews

Whatever Works (2009)

Totally agree... vintage Woody Allen

[8/10 · 24 October 2009]

First, just so you know, I'm writing this review from France... but I'm from the U.S. That, so you don't disregard this as yet another Franco-Allen fan (they've exchanged their Jerry Lewis passion for Woody over here, and sanction everything he does).

Also, disclaimer: I really like and respect Woody Allen's work and I'm also an ex New Yorker. With a Jewish wife, no less. So no, okay, I'm not unbiased.

All that said... I fully agree with "boyden" in that this movie is far better than the reviews it gets from critics. On rottentomatoes.com, for instance, this garnered a 45% rating. That's on par with non-hits like "Gigli" etc.

Yet, the dialogue was great... Larry David was as close to a Woody Allen substitute as anyone has come in a long time (Allen always casts people he can direct to sound like him, it seems)... and it made me crave that old New York, before the money of the recent pre-bust boom turned it into a homogenized has-been of a city.

Evan Rachel Wood, by the way, was overwhelmingly charming. And I thought all the other acting was excellent too, in the way people act in Woody Allen movies... which is ALWAYS different from what it is in other films (you occasionally get those moments where the lines are crafted or improvised rather than somewhere in the middle).

At any rate, it's amazing the size of the disconnect between fan response and the response of the critics... who, in my opinion, should go watch Annie Hall and Sleeper and the like so they can remember again.

Home on the Range (2004)

well...

[2/10 · 31 August 2008]

I'm typing this as the movie is playing on DVD. And the kids seem to like watching it. But then, they're young and animation appeals in general.

Still, we try to watch with them... and I happen to love animation myself, having some background in cartoon-drawing. Everything Pixar? Fantastic. Old Disney? Sure, serve it up. Along with the Looney Tunes, old Tom & Jerry, etc.

This, though, is a sleepwalk of a feature in so many ways. Not in the animation, which isn't bad (though not much special, in context of what's out there). Nor in the music, which is decent enough.

The writing, however, is horrible. I can't imagine anyone characterizing this dialogue as "funny"... it's an endless stream of clichés. And the story line, while thin at the core, is unnecessarily complicated at the fringes. The twists don't feel like twists. They feel like fumbling shortcuts used to navigate a nest of tangled details.

I find myself astounded at how (a) such a venerable studio as Disney gets behind this kind of project (b) how they manage to attract so much high-profile voice talent and (c) how those actors stomach saying these lines, given that every one of them has acted in much better stuff than this pap. I guess a paycheck helps.

But still, ultimately this is a movie that shouldn't have been made.

P.S. One other thing... one can't help but feel like this is one of those animation movies meant to appeal to a demographic. Like, say, the vast swath of middle America that loves country music. It's worth noting that the other failed animated movies of recent years have all attempted to do the same kind of feel-good, blatant targeting.

Brother Bear... Fox and the Hound 2... there are others I can't think of at the moment. Why does it fail? First, because the movies by nature end up offering stereotypes of the demographic they're targeting. Second, because they end up being style over substance. The plot is just a vehicle to deliver the caricature. And last, because it's ridiculous to assume that great story lines don't transcend the cultural distinctions.

Do the studio marketers really think, for instance, that the Nascar set and Manhattan kids alike can't "get" Monsters Inc or Toy Story on a shared level? The only movie of recent years that seemed to beat that rap was "Cars." And that was because it was a good story, not stuck in being pedantic or playing to any one crowd.

Vanity Fair (2004)

okay, okay...

[8/10 · 10 July 2005]

So i'ts not a perfect reproduction of the book... has any movie ever been?

The story and dialogue are still strong in this film. And the look is, while being believably period, refreshingly different from all those other films that try to be English and 19th century. And just because Reese Witherspoon is Hollywood -- and American -- she did, in my opinion, a very respectable job in the role.

What's more, Thackery himself had Indian roots (he was born there), so surely he would have approved of the bit of Far Eastern spice the director added to the film.

Purists, give it a rest. Snobs, put a sock in it.

This film is worth seeing even if you HAVE read the book. If you don't go in demanding it to be a note for note reproduction, you'll enjoy it just fine.

Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (1974)

good but not great

[10 July 2005]

It was a good movie, yes. But worthy of an Oscar for Burstyn and awards for writing? In 1974, we were at or approaching the height of brilliant screen writing (in my opinion). I'm not so sure this one was worthy. And while I think Ellen Burnstyn is a terrific actress, her singing was terrible in this film. Which is definitely a drag on the portrayal of the character.

Also, the Harvey Keitel character was SO menacing one almost expected him to appear later in the film. Especially since he made that scorpion comment.

One more thing -- while Kris K. was good in many ways, his character has a scene where he's pretty much had it with Tommy. Granted, Tommy is a very 12-year-old in many annoying ways. And in need of more parental control, which is part of the story. But K., in one scene, smashes Tommy's record against a corner wall and then whaps the kid and knocks him down, straight through a table.

Any opinions on corporal punishment for kids aside, he's the mother's boyfriend -- and a new one at that. It's not his kid. And even if it were, knocking a 12-year old through a piece of furniture isn't good parenting. It made me disappointed, later, to see K. come back into the picture in a positive light.

Big Eden (2000)

You must be kidding...

[1/10 · 8 July 2005]

I appreciate that some might think I haven't a right to review this film. I appreciate that there are things in it that I just don't understand, not being a gay viewer. But really... strictly from a film-making perspective (spoken as a lifelong devotee of movies, art films as well as Hollywood blockbusters)... and from the perspective of dialogue (spoken as an employed writer who studied screen writing at NYU).... this movie is a piece of crap.

It does a disservice to the gay community when there are so many other films in the genre that are much better written, filmed, and acted. The only character in this movie that's not a cartoon, and that has real depth, is the lake. Other than that, the only thing that we found remotely interesting about the evolving relationship was knowing what the shop-owner character would cook next.

We bought this movie by mistake. After viewing it, I was shocked to discover it came with a "bonus DVD" of extras. I can't imagine what, of merit, it could possibly contain. But I can't bear to watch it to find out.