Change Your Image
almostgone-1
Reviews
Bernard and Doris (2006)
Bad lives, good movie
The film is more than watchable- it's very, very good. Just don't confuse it with biography. Nothing that we know about the reality of either person is admirable. If you forget about the "real" Doris Duke, whoever she "really" was, you can enjoy the performances for what they are- excellent, engaging, even charming, and certainly proficient. Neither actor is ever less than excellent, even when performing poor material, and this material isn't bad. Realistic- well, maybe not so much. The Doris of "Bernard and Doris" was a monster, warped almost beyond human recognition by unimaginable wealth - it's a terrific portrayal of a person who lacks intellect and real education almost entirely but who has unlimited resources for self indulgence - a sort of a rock star cubed. Bernard admired and wanted to BE that monster, as the last scene reveals. Rather instructive, really.
A Muppets Christmas: Letters to Santa (2008)
No wit, no edge, no reason to watch this loser
The script was DREADFUL, the "star-studded" cast was jaw-droppingly lame, the music limp and meaningless, the child actress too, too precious and affected... can't think of anything that was good about it. (Okay, the costumes were alright- Uma Thurman got the best ones.) It's just too bad, really, but apparently no one involved with the creative part of Muppets productions has any memory of what made them so special, so charming and funny and INTELLIGENT in the first place. Was it all because of Jum Henson? Because the productions, including Sesame Street, have gone straight to smirky, smarmy, dopey, predictable, kids'll-watch-anything so it doesn't matter Hollywood h*ll since he died.
Charlie Wilson's War (2007)
A note to those who consider this movie to be satire
Charlie Wilson's War is an almost perfect movie. There are not five wasted minutes in the film; it's as tight as Julia Roberts' little bum. And consider, if you will, the difficulties of telling this story in 90 tight minutes, and telling it with intelligence and wit - not easy. The flaws have to do with casting Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts, probably in the hope that the film might make some money. And they were GOOD, credible and workmanlike and professional. But the actors' persona were too visible; I might rather have seen good character actors in the parts, though it probably would have doomed the movie to obscurity. And Charlie Wilson's War, by the way, is in no sense satire. The characters and situations portrayed are dead on, and if you don't believe it, you ought to spend a little time among Texas politicians and those who fund them.
Tin Man (2007)
No excuse for this
I love science fiction and fantasy, but it's like Ted Sturgeon said (edited slightly for bad language)- ninety-nine percent of everything, including F/SF, is crap.I hate to give this one even 5 out of 10, but the design and costuming,the mat boards and the digital effects are probably worth that much. The rest of it, however, just stinks, starting with the script. It's dull, limp and boring and predictable. (Yeah! Let's update OZ by making it - Steam Punk!) If you're on the edge of your seat wondering what'll come next, I have to assume you've never watched a movie before, because there has not been one single original plot device so far- and that's after watching 4 hours. The pacing is glacial and the dialog is idiotic; it's just about on par with an old Lassie episode, except that Lassie delivered her lines more convincingly. (The scarecrow isn't the only one who sounds brain damaged.) To those who compare this effort favorably with the Garland/Wizard, I'll remind you that the first film was for children, but was so charming and original in its execution that many generations of adults remember it fondly, and even though tastes in kids' entertainment have changed, it keeps its place. This one is destined, if not for oblivion, for years of crappy holiday-week programming, when the broadcasters repeat, and repeat, anything they can cheaply market as 'family fare'. Ugh.
Apocalypto (2006)
Expensively made, cheap script
Just saw Apocalypto, which I'd really been looking forward to. In spite of negative comments by friends & family, I thought the visuals would be worth the time & money. Well, maybe they are, if you're not too picky. It was a stunning-looking movie- for awhile. The plot - One Heroic Common Man Battles To Save His Family - was predictable, a Mel Gibson standard. The effects wore thin pretty quickly, I thought, through repetition. They could have called it "Run Through the Jungle". And were the bad guys supposed to be Mayans, or Aztecs? I've seen references to both in the studio flak, and the details of the sets and costuming mostly might have been either, though none too accurately portrayed for either. If I were Indian, I'd be po'd - there really is no generic before-Cortez Indian civilization. In fact, the research generally was poor. The Mayans and Aztecs knew how to predict eclipses for hundreds of years before the Spaniards arrived, but the plot-hinging eclipse seemed to have been a surprise. And poison frogs are smaller than a thumbnail and the poison requires preparation- you can't just jab a thorn into a frog and poke an enemy and watch him keel over. Apocalypto isn't even a real word- at least I can't find it in my dictionaries. But the actors were good, believable, and they deserve recognition for that.