"Rice" is an immersive story told in an almost magical way. It starts out with a soldier in the Falkland Islands War performing a merciful act, and the resulting punishment he receives. He meets a young woman who starts to help him heal from the wounds that he suffered.
You will not see a movie like this anytime soon. Writer-Director Alex Vargas has crafted a movie so visually distinct and exact, that watching it is fascinating even if it didn't have a story. As the movie progresses, both lead characters move toward their ultimate conclusion, with a resolution that is as real and grounded as the imagery is poetic. This is an art film that really earns the term art.
Reviews
14 Reviews
Unthinkable
(2019)
Thriller that is Real
19 October 2018
This movie was screened at the Kansas International Film Festival (KIFF-2018). It is the story of a young medical student that is assigned to care for the Syrian ambassador who was badly beaten while on assignment. There is a mystery as to why the ambassador starts refusing treatment. As the student tries to help motivate the ambassador to accept treatment, he starts finding questionable details with all that are involved.
This is a very good mystery-thriller. All of the actors are cast perfectly for their roles. While Vivica A. Fox is probably the best known of the cast, Missi Pyle and Natalia Nogulich both show why they keep showing up in movies and television. While all three are pitch perfect, Nogulich has one of the best roles that she delivers on. Writer-Director George Loomis (Jones) has written a movie that presents "professional people being professional," which gives a realism to the situation that is believable and only aids the story. These are the people that you see in real hospitals, in a story that makes sense.
NINA
(2018)
A Surprising Thriller
19 October 2018
This played at the Kansas International Film Festival (KIFF-2018). While on the surface it looks like "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" series, it is completely separate. The story involves a young woman who starts seeking answers from the partner of he cop father, who was killed years ago. As she seeks answers, they both start bringing out emotions about the crime in each other.
This movie looks good and the characters are believable and not a cliche or stereotype. What happens always makes sense, without telegraphing the next scene. It is well acted and equally well written.
Nocturne
(I) (2014)
Great closing movie for the 2014 Kansas International Film Festival
18 October 2014
I saw this movie on the closing night of the Kansas International Film Festival. Having seen the trailer, I was intrigued by the imagery of what I saw and expected. I was not disappointed.
The basic premise is a mousy woman is working for a computer firm that monitors e-mails. One day she sketches a flower, and sees a co-worker make a paper flower very similar. She is intrigued, but every time she tries to talk to her co-worker, she is ignored.
As she watches his actions, she becomes curious to has actions and activities.
Thus begins an intriguing movie that held me through to the conclusion. The characters are real, even though they are in larger-that-life situations. The lead actress is great. The lead actor has a very difficult job, but is very believable.
The movie itself is quite creative. There are great moments where sound is key. Also, there are some very creative photography that is cleverly done.
The music is also of note. There are standout parts, but never did the music feel self-conscious or out of place.
I fully recommend this movie. It is probably going to be on the festival circuit for a while. If you have the opportunity to see it, you will have a great experience watching a movie about regular people in unusual situations.
The basic premise is a mousy woman is working for a computer firm that monitors e-mails. One day she sketches a flower, and sees a co-worker make a paper flower very similar. She is intrigued, but every time she tries to talk to her co-worker, she is ignored.
As she watches his actions, she becomes curious to has actions and activities.
Thus begins an intriguing movie that held me through to the conclusion. The characters are real, even though they are in larger-that-life situations. The lead actress is great. The lead actor has a very difficult job, but is very believable.
The movie itself is quite creative. There are great moments where sound is key. Also, there are some very creative photography that is cleverly done.
The music is also of note. There are standout parts, but never did the music feel self-conscious or out of place.
I fully recommend this movie. It is probably going to be on the festival circuit for a while. If you have the opportunity to see it, you will have a great experience watching a movie about regular people in unusual situations.
Earth II
(1971 TV Movie)
Now on DVD
17 January 2010
I saw this TV-movie when it aired in 1971. I liked it then and saw it a few times in syndication. Now I own it on DVD.
The premise is that an orbiting space station is created by the United States and then is set up as an independent nation named Earth II. This nation is completely democratic, with a council that executes policies for the station. If someone disagree, they can challenge that decision and all the citizens can vote.
A situation occurs where the "no weapons" policy is challenged. A nuclear bomb is orbit around Earth, and passes close to the station on every orbit. The citizens have to make a choice whether to interfere with the bomb, in order to protect themselves and Earth.
The movie stars Gary Lockwood of "2001: A Space Odyssey" fame, Hari Rhodes and Scott Hylands. In a supporting role is Gary Merrill. Since this was probably a pilot, the guest cast included Tony Franciosa and Mariette Hartley.
While the film is dated and some of the science not so accurate, it is still very well done and for science fiction fans, should be seen.
One complaint is that there are two excellent actors playing Chinese representatives. These are Soon-Tek Oh and James Hong. They are uncredited, which is unfortunate.
The premise is that an orbiting space station is created by the United States and then is set up as an independent nation named Earth II. This nation is completely democratic, with a council that executes policies for the station. If someone disagree, they can challenge that decision and all the citizens can vote.
A situation occurs where the "no weapons" policy is challenged. A nuclear bomb is orbit around Earth, and passes close to the station on every orbit. The citizens have to make a choice whether to interfere with the bomb, in order to protect themselves and Earth.
The movie stars Gary Lockwood of "2001: A Space Odyssey" fame, Hari Rhodes and Scott Hylands. In a supporting role is Gary Merrill. Since this was probably a pilot, the guest cast included Tony Franciosa and Mariette Hartley.
While the film is dated and some of the science not so accurate, it is still very well done and for science fiction fans, should be seen.
One complaint is that there are two excellent actors playing Chinese representatives. These are Soon-Tek Oh and James Hong. They are uncredited, which is unfortunate.
Middle Ages
(1992)
Good show that was never watched
11 August 2005
I found this show after hearing about it from Michael O'Keefe during an interview. It had a name that most people probably avoided, since they might have thought that it was some European import.
In fact, this show was about people reaching middle age, and the realization that they are no longer kids, and that their dreams might not get fulfilled. Of course, the fact that the series didn't last long is more an example of what the series was about: People maturing. In the youth obsessed media, people are becoming "undesirable" earlier and earlier. Where our role-models were in their thirties and forties, now when we hit middle age, all of the "stars" are youthful twenty year olds. We are has-beens before we were ever-was. That is what this show was about. And, it was slyly humorous about the situation.
One of the memorable writing involved the episode "Pig in a Python." Two of the characters are discussing how the baby-boomer generation changed American society. You could witness it like seeing a snake eat a mouse. You no longer saw the mouse, but you could see the effect moving down the body of the snake. "But, with us, it is more like a pig in a python." I hope that someday this reaches DVD.
In fact, this show was about people reaching middle age, and the realization that they are no longer kids, and that their dreams might not get fulfilled. Of course, the fact that the series didn't last long is more an example of what the series was about: People maturing. In the youth obsessed media, people are becoming "undesirable" earlier and earlier. Where our role-models were in their thirties and forties, now when we hit middle age, all of the "stars" are youthful twenty year olds. We are has-beens before we were ever-was. That is what this show was about. And, it was slyly humorous about the situation.
One of the memorable writing involved the episode "Pig in a Python." Two of the characters are discussing how the baby-boomer generation changed American society. You could witness it like seeing a snake eat a mouse. You no longer saw the mouse, but you could see the effect moving down the body of the snake. "But, with us, it is more like a pig in a python." I hope that someday this reaches DVD.
Grapevine
(1992)
Interesting show
11 August 2005
I stumbled onto this show one Monday, and I was fascinated. The style was that of a mini-documentary. It gave credence to the little things in relationships which are the things that make or break them.
I liked the style, which was more of an anthology, not centering around a particular cast, but using a larger cast in a more general way. Instead of watching particular characters, we get others describing what transcribed with those characters, giving various point of view. The humor came when the comments broke along gender lines.
The cast was almost generic, but that is not a complaint. It was more like the types of friends and acquaintances that everyone has.
I do hope that this show reaches DVD sometime. I would like to have a set with both this and the 2000 return.
I liked the style, which was more of an anthology, not centering around a particular cast, but using a larger cast in a more general way. Instead of watching particular characters, we get others describing what transcribed with those characters, giving various point of view. The humor came when the comments broke along gender lines.
The cast was almost generic, but that is not a complaint. It was more like the types of friends and acquaintances that everyone has.
I do hope that this show reaches DVD sometime. I would like to have a set with both this and the 2000 return.
Grapevine
(2000)
I was thrilled at its return
11 August 2005
I really liked this show. It was very interesting in style, like a mini-documentary of ordinary people and their relationships. There was so much that rang true, attitudes and reactions, that this show should have been given a longer try.
The fast cuts between the comments of one person and the successive comments was hilarious. This show was not better than "Friends," but it seemed to be truer in a general sense. It was almost like an anthology.
I hope that some of these unique little shows survive into the DVD realm. While there are only a handful of episodes, combining the two version (1992 and 2000) would make a nice little set.
The fast cuts between the comments of one person and the successive comments was hilarious. This show was not better than "Friends," but it seemed to be truer in a general sense. It was almost like an anthology.
I hope that some of these unique little shows survive into the DVD realm. While there are only a handful of episodes, combining the two version (1992 and 2000) would make a nice little set.
33 1/3 Revolutions Per Monkee
(1969 TV Movie)
What might have been
15 May 2005
The sole musical special by The Monkees was shot right after their movie "Head." This special was a very strange effort. The producer, Jack Good, was known in Britain for his musical programs.
However, it is unclear as to his familiarity with The Monkees, or American audiences. This special had a script, and it was used to deconstruct The Monkees as television superstars, and present them as musical superstars.
It begins with Brian Auger, of The Trinity, portraying a Wizard who will take four young men "off the street" and make them superstars through brainwashing. Then, he will use them to brainwash the world.
With the aid of special effect, Micky Dolenz, Peter Tork, Michael Nesmith, and Davy Jones appear. Then, they are encased in tubes and the brainwashing begins. To escape this, each "floats away" to their own personal world.
Micky Dolenz performs a blues version of "I'm a Believer" in a duet with Julie Driscoll. Peter Tork sings "Prithee" in a blissful, gauzy setting. Michael Nesmith performs "Naked Persimmon" in a duet with himself, and Davy Jones performs "Goldilocks Sometimes" in a dance number on an over-sized stage representing the room of a child.
Next, The Monkees perform "Wind Up Man" dressed as toy soldiers complete with key. Next, the Monkees are dressed as apes in performance of "I Go Ape."
Once the group has been brainwashed, they are introduced as 1950s rockers and perform with the likes of Fats Domino, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, The Buddy Miles Express, and The Clara Ward Singers.
Finally, Brian Auger stops the whole affair, introduces himself and Julie Driscoll, and then plot ends.
Davy performs "String for my Kite." Peter performs a piece on keyboards. Micky and Mike join them and begin performing "Listen to the Band." Then, all the guests join them in a jam, with dancers added to the mix.
Throughout the show, there are other performances. The Trinity performs "Come on Up." Paul Arnold and The Moon Express perform a dance number depicting evolution. There is one great scene with Brian Auger playing a small piano on top of a baby grand that Jerry Lee Lewis is playing, which is on top of a grand piano being play by Little Richard, which is all on top of another grand being played by Fats Domino.
One of the biggest problems is that the music was recorded, but the vocals presented "live." Therefor, many of the vocals are lost. Another disappointment is that the numbers have a live performance feel, but are not allowed to resolve. The plot gets in the way of the music.
There are a lot of visual effects, and to move the action along, the plot, though overly ambitious, is interesting for a musical special to skip a more traditional presentation.
Like so many things in the history of The Monkees, this was a great "could have been, should have been." here, for the first time they are regarded as musical performers, in company with greats and cutting edge current stars. Plus, there were problems with the production that forced changes in the recording (shot on videotape) venue.
But, again with The Monkees, it is a testament to their creativity of the moment. Many have regarded the series and the movie "Head" as a statement of the times when they were made. More than just pop-culture, but statements on society. "33 1/3 Monkees per Revolution" does the same thing with emphasis on music. While the classic rock and roll performers survived the changes in the 1960s, their popularity did wane. And Brian Auger, Julie Driscoll and The Trinity never achieved the popularity having national exposure might have helped. But, The Monkees welcomed them in this special as equals, and the courtesy seemed to be reciprocated. But, over the thirty-five years, it still seems that The Monkees is the group that people remember the most. And, like their albums, it is the music that supports the special. Too bad there was never an album made of these performances.
Ironic that the special culminates with "Listen to the Band." This performance is unique for several reasons. One being that it is for the special that is centered around music, something that The Monkees were criticized for in their career. Second, it is the last time that all four members of the group played together as an original band.
This is a unique experience. It is worthy of viewing, if nothing more than the nostalgia. It is unlike anything I have ever seen before or since. Too bad that producers haven't tried grand experiments like this since.
However, it is unclear as to his familiarity with The Monkees, or American audiences. This special had a script, and it was used to deconstruct The Monkees as television superstars, and present them as musical superstars.
It begins with Brian Auger, of The Trinity, portraying a Wizard who will take four young men "off the street" and make them superstars through brainwashing. Then, he will use them to brainwash the world.
With the aid of special effect, Micky Dolenz, Peter Tork, Michael Nesmith, and Davy Jones appear. Then, they are encased in tubes and the brainwashing begins. To escape this, each "floats away" to their own personal world.
Micky Dolenz performs a blues version of "I'm a Believer" in a duet with Julie Driscoll. Peter Tork sings "Prithee" in a blissful, gauzy setting. Michael Nesmith performs "Naked Persimmon" in a duet with himself, and Davy Jones performs "Goldilocks Sometimes" in a dance number on an over-sized stage representing the room of a child.
Next, The Monkees perform "Wind Up Man" dressed as toy soldiers complete with key. Next, the Monkees are dressed as apes in performance of "I Go Ape."
Once the group has been brainwashed, they are introduced as 1950s rockers and perform with the likes of Fats Domino, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, The Buddy Miles Express, and The Clara Ward Singers.
Finally, Brian Auger stops the whole affair, introduces himself and Julie Driscoll, and then plot ends.
Davy performs "String for my Kite." Peter performs a piece on keyboards. Micky and Mike join them and begin performing "Listen to the Band." Then, all the guests join them in a jam, with dancers added to the mix.
Throughout the show, there are other performances. The Trinity performs "Come on Up." Paul Arnold and The Moon Express perform a dance number depicting evolution. There is one great scene with Brian Auger playing a small piano on top of a baby grand that Jerry Lee Lewis is playing, which is on top of a grand piano being play by Little Richard, which is all on top of another grand being played by Fats Domino.
One of the biggest problems is that the music was recorded, but the vocals presented "live." Therefor, many of the vocals are lost. Another disappointment is that the numbers have a live performance feel, but are not allowed to resolve. The plot gets in the way of the music.
There are a lot of visual effects, and to move the action along, the plot, though overly ambitious, is interesting for a musical special to skip a more traditional presentation.
Like so many things in the history of The Monkees, this was a great "could have been, should have been." here, for the first time they are regarded as musical performers, in company with greats and cutting edge current stars. Plus, there were problems with the production that forced changes in the recording (shot on videotape) venue.
But, again with The Monkees, it is a testament to their creativity of the moment. Many have regarded the series and the movie "Head" as a statement of the times when they were made. More than just pop-culture, but statements on society. "33 1/3 Monkees per Revolution" does the same thing with emphasis on music. While the classic rock and roll performers survived the changes in the 1960s, their popularity did wane. And Brian Auger, Julie Driscoll and The Trinity never achieved the popularity having national exposure might have helped. But, The Monkees welcomed them in this special as equals, and the courtesy seemed to be reciprocated. But, over the thirty-five years, it still seems that The Monkees is the group that people remember the most. And, like their albums, it is the music that supports the special. Too bad there was never an album made of these performances.
Ironic that the special culminates with "Listen to the Band." This performance is unique for several reasons. One being that it is for the special that is centered around music, something that The Monkees were criticized for in their career. Second, it is the last time that all four members of the group played together as an original band.
This is a unique experience. It is worthy of viewing, if nothing more than the nostalgia. It is unlike anything I have ever seen before or since. Too bad that producers haven't tried grand experiments like this since.
Get the BBC series, save your money
30 April 2005
Having been a fan of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" trilogy for a quarter of a century, I had hoped for the best for this movie. This is NOT the book, BBC series, radio series, or video game.
The movie starts somewhat in the middle. Those familiar with the book will understand the reference to dolphins. Unfortunately, the title sequence is one big inside joke. Those knowing the story will enjoy it for what it is. Newcomers will be totally lost.
And, the book itself is introduced almost as an afterthought. What few references used from the book are humorous, it is not a big part of the tale. Stephen Fry does a fine job as the voice of the book, but too little time is spent.
Arthur Dent is played as a lovesick man, not the confused and befuddled Brit from the book. His biggest problem is not that the Earth has been destroyed, but that he lost the girl.
That girl is Patricia McMillan, or Trillion. She is played by Zooey Deschanel. But, unlike all that we know, she has no reason to be here. We know nothing about her, except that she is the object of Arthur's affection.
So, how do Arthur and Trillian meet? Ford Prefect, a friend of Arthur's, rescues him by using a ring device that signals space craft of a hopeful hitchhiker. So, just in the nick of time. Unfortunately, the movie doesn't explain why they get picked up only to get tossed off.
And, like in the book, they get picked up the second time by President of the Galaxy, Zaphod Beeblebrox. Why is he President of the Galaxy? The film only says because he won an election. What does the President to? According to the movie, sign his name to things.
Zaphod is played by Sam Rockwell. And, Zaphod does have two heads, well faces would be a better term. This makes the interaction of the two heads impossible. The three arms does work like we would expect.
And, the story is now completely different. Fans are going to miss some of the best lines. No mention of bricks. No mention of being drunk. And, the biggest waste of time is the towel. It is never explained for its importance (a book reference would be great) and it is far more prominent than it should be.
There are some humorous gags with the Heart of Gold spaceship, but it is nothing like described. Marvin the robot, is odd looking, without the overwhelming limitations that is Marvin's life.
So, what is the plot? None that I can see. Just a lot of stuff happens. But, unlike what fans know, there is a forced plot line with Trillian being captured by the Vogons just so she can be rescued.
What a waste that this movie is. Arthur Dent is not overwhelmed. Ford is not the happy-co-lucky researcher. Zaphod is obnoxious as opposed to adventurous. And Trillian is boring.
Save your money. If you liked the books, you will hate this movie. Buy the DVD set of the original BBC series. If you haven't read the book, get a copy and read it. If you like it, get the DVD set.
The movie starts somewhat in the middle. Those familiar with the book will understand the reference to dolphins. Unfortunately, the title sequence is one big inside joke. Those knowing the story will enjoy it for what it is. Newcomers will be totally lost.
And, the book itself is introduced almost as an afterthought. What few references used from the book are humorous, it is not a big part of the tale. Stephen Fry does a fine job as the voice of the book, but too little time is spent.
Arthur Dent is played as a lovesick man, not the confused and befuddled Brit from the book. His biggest problem is not that the Earth has been destroyed, but that he lost the girl.
That girl is Patricia McMillan, or Trillion. She is played by Zooey Deschanel. But, unlike all that we know, she has no reason to be here. We know nothing about her, except that she is the object of Arthur's affection.
So, how do Arthur and Trillian meet? Ford Prefect, a friend of Arthur's, rescues him by using a ring device that signals space craft of a hopeful hitchhiker. So, just in the nick of time. Unfortunately, the movie doesn't explain why they get picked up only to get tossed off.
And, like in the book, they get picked up the second time by President of the Galaxy, Zaphod Beeblebrox. Why is he President of the Galaxy? The film only says because he won an election. What does the President to? According to the movie, sign his name to things.
Zaphod is played by Sam Rockwell. And, Zaphod does have two heads, well faces would be a better term. This makes the interaction of the two heads impossible. The three arms does work like we would expect.
And, the story is now completely different. Fans are going to miss some of the best lines. No mention of bricks. No mention of being drunk. And, the biggest waste of time is the towel. It is never explained for its importance (a book reference would be great) and it is far more prominent than it should be.
There are some humorous gags with the Heart of Gold spaceship, but it is nothing like described. Marvin the robot, is odd looking, without the overwhelming limitations that is Marvin's life.
So, what is the plot? None that I can see. Just a lot of stuff happens. But, unlike what fans know, there is a forced plot line with Trillian being captured by the Vogons just so she can be rescued.
What a waste that this movie is. Arthur Dent is not overwhelmed. Ford is not the happy-co-lucky researcher. Zaphod is obnoxious as opposed to adventurous. And Trillian is boring.
Save your money. If you liked the books, you will hate this movie. Buy the DVD set of the original BBC series. If you haven't read the book, get a copy and read it. If you like it, get the DVD set.
Vakvagany
(2002)
There but for the grace of God
30 September 2003
This is a fantastic piece of filmmaking. Benjamin Meade has taken something as mundane as the home movie and created a stunning work. What is fascinating is that there is so much in this quasi- documentary that is shown. We follow a family, but like all families they have their history and live in a world that has history. They are their own world, and part of the world around them.
The narration- comments that occur durring the film remind us of that. The family has their life, but part of that life is in the world in which they live.
Then, we seek the family today. We wonder what happened to that family that we watched and became interested. This is where we literally jump into the screen. The director meets the son depicted in the home movies. We see what has happened to the son, raising questions about the rest of the family. We seek the daughter. This is where the director Meade shows what kind of film this is. Instead of being a dispassioned reporter, he has involved himself in this family. When there are questions about the wellbeing of the sister, the director involves himself, and the audience via the camera, in finding the answer.
Does he take things too far? That is what each of us have to answer of ourselves. I guess it all depends on whether you can be compassionate with a camera in your hands. But, the audience should be greatful that they were taken on the journey.
It also raises another interesting question. While much of the film takes place in Hungary, there is nothing that says that it could not happen in New York, or California, or Kansas. What do our home movies tell about us. What have we done since we were children? Are there hints in anyone's childhood that says where they are going?
See the film, make your own judgements.
The narration- comments that occur durring the film remind us of that. The family has their life, but part of that life is in the world in which they live.
Then, we seek the family today. We wonder what happened to that family that we watched and became interested. This is where we literally jump into the screen. The director meets the son depicted in the home movies. We see what has happened to the son, raising questions about the rest of the family. We seek the daughter. This is where the director Meade shows what kind of film this is. Instead of being a dispassioned reporter, he has involved himself in this family. When there are questions about the wellbeing of the sister, the director involves himself, and the audience via the camera, in finding the answer.
Does he take things too far? That is what each of us have to answer of ourselves. I guess it all depends on whether you can be compassionate with a camera in your hands. But, the audience should be greatful that they were taken on the journey.
It also raises another interesting question. While much of the film takes place in Hungary, there is nothing that says that it could not happen in New York, or California, or Kansas. What do our home movies tell about us. What have we done since we were children? Are there hints in anyone's childhood that says where they are going?
See the film, make your own judgements.
Message from Moonbase Alpha
(1999)
Last chapter of Space: 1999
29 December 2002
This is a pleasant little surprise that accompanied the Space: 1999 megaset. As part of that set's bonus disc supplement, this short was unknown to me.
In this short, Sandra Benes (Zienia Merton, reprising her role) is sending a message from Moonbase Alpha. Her message tells that the life support systems are failing, and that a decision to evacuate Alpha has been made. Her message mentions those that have not survived their collective experiences, and those that they have encountered along the way. She speaks to the good of humanity, the best that Moonbase Alpha had to offer.
This short is a treat for those who were fans of Space: 1999. Zienia Merton maintains the tone of her character and the series in this short, a monolog for her. While there is only part of a set for her, she brings the emotion one would imagine to relating the final message.
Couple this with some small scenes from Space: 1999, it adds to the legacy of the series. If there is no return to Moonbase Alpha in the form of a motion picture, then this is a fine conclusion to the series. If there is a movie, then this is a bit of history that could be incorporated into the canon.
In this short, Sandra Benes (Zienia Merton, reprising her role) is sending a message from Moonbase Alpha. Her message tells that the life support systems are failing, and that a decision to evacuate Alpha has been made. Her message mentions those that have not survived their collective experiences, and those that they have encountered along the way. She speaks to the good of humanity, the best that Moonbase Alpha had to offer.
This short is a treat for those who were fans of Space: 1999. Zienia Merton maintains the tone of her character and the series in this short, a monolog for her. While there is only part of a set for her, she brings the emotion one would imagine to relating the final message.
Couple this with some small scenes from Space: 1999, it adds to the legacy of the series. If there is no return to Moonbase Alpha in the form of a motion picture, then this is a fine conclusion to the series. If there is a movie, then this is a bit of history that could be incorporated into the canon.
Manna from Heaven
(2002)
Charming and disarming movie
18 August 2002
This movie is a delight. It starts off with an acknowledgement that not everyone that you might call family is related, and that not all of your family is always liked.
After that, the movie sets up the story: A large portion of money is blown out of a van, and a group of friends and family finds it. Thirty years later, guilt drives one family member to convince the rest that it is time to return the money. A plan is devised, and we are off.
What is so nice is that the characters are intelligent, and quirky. There are no stereotypes, even though the plot could quickly dive into a clash of characters. Instead, the story presents people with slightly different takes on things, and like a good parable, let's us travel through their experiences.
I recommend seeing this movie. There is a lot of sly humor. And, there is some cute word play, which many might really miss. Take a friend or relative, especially one that you don't care much for, and treat them and yourself to this little wonder.
Guys, it might appear as a chick-flick, but it is really a story of adults, not kids like mist movies. Everyone is going to be there. Everyone is part of a family. And this movie knows it.
Everyone is fine in the roles, however, Faye Grant, playing Rita, just looks too young, which is a compliment to her appearance. Some of the supporting actresses (Louise Fletcher and Shelley Duvall) have not much more than a cameo. With that as my only complaint, you can see that I really enjoyed this film.
If you are tired of one-dimensional characters this Summer, doing unimportant things, then take a chance and look for this film.
After that, the movie sets up the story: A large portion of money is blown out of a van, and a group of friends and family finds it. Thirty years later, guilt drives one family member to convince the rest that it is time to return the money. A plan is devised, and we are off.
What is so nice is that the characters are intelligent, and quirky. There are no stereotypes, even though the plot could quickly dive into a clash of characters. Instead, the story presents people with slightly different takes on things, and like a good parable, let's us travel through their experiences.
I recommend seeing this movie. There is a lot of sly humor. And, there is some cute word play, which many might really miss. Take a friend or relative, especially one that you don't care much for, and treat them and yourself to this little wonder.
Guys, it might appear as a chick-flick, but it is really a story of adults, not kids like mist movies. Everyone is going to be there. Everyone is part of a family. And this movie knows it.
Everyone is fine in the roles, however, Faye Grant, playing Rita, just looks too young, which is a compliment to her appearance. Some of the supporting actresses (Louise Fletcher and Shelley Duvall) have not much more than a cameo. With that as my only complaint, you can see that I really enjoyed this film.
If you are tired of one-dimensional characters this Summer, doing unimportant things, then take a chance and look for this film.
The Time Machine
(2002)
This review is in two parts. No real spoilers.
7 March 2002
Warning: Spoilers
This review is in two parts. Since this movie is a remake of, in my opinion, a classic, it will be compared to the original. However, it should be reviewed on its own merits, as well.
This movie stars Guy Pearce a professor named Alexander Hartdegen apparently living in 1899. He is somewhat excentric, but does have a friend named David Filby, played by Mark Addy. The interaction of Pearce and his home characters (he has a housekeeper named Mrs. Whatchit, played by Phyllidia Law) tries to give him personality but seems forced. He also has a girlfriend. When an incident changes his hope for the future with his girlfriend, Pearce becomes obsessed with changing the past.
Unfortunately for Pearce's character, incidents force him to travel into the future. There he finds an Earth of 2030. His brief exploration of this time introduces him to a "holographic" interactive database named Vox (played by Orlando Jones). Not finding his answers, Pearce travels to the far future. Once there, he is found by what appear to be humans who now live on cliffs overlooking a river. As he finds more about these people's lives, he is exposed to a terrible fact. There is a predatory life-form that endangers these people.
Unfortunately, this film has many problems. First, while boasting that it is directed by the grandson of H. G. Wells (the author of the original short story) there is very little of that story here. But, the biggest problem is Pearce. We never care about him, so we never care about his journey. The film tries to make him a maverick in the opening few minutes, but we don't believe it, or care what he has to say. His interaction with Filby and Watchit are too fleeting to really develop any sense of who these people are to him.
Pearce's girlfriend, played by Sienna Guillory, is good, but their moments together seem out of place. And, the reason for time traveling is diminished, since we have no real sense of time (the director compresses four years of time) during the set-up.
Once we get to the future, the "native" are not interesting, but they are supposed to be "mystical." And, there is the dreaded "cute kid," the ploy of desperation. Plus, the beasts that terrorize the "native" are typical to many "monsters" that show up in modern movies like "The Mummy."
Now, when compared to George Pal's 1960 version, the brilliance of Pal's creativity shines. Where Pearce travels to the future because of a personal incident, the time traveler George (played by Rod Taylor) has a sense of exploration. We are excited by George's adventure. With the Pearce character, we are dragged along, hoping for an adventure. The natives in the new movie know too much, yet are unable to Pearce. Pal's version of the Eloi is of innocent and unaware children, but the new natives just don't work. We liked George, saw him have dinner with friends, and care about what he did. Pearce never gave us that in his character.
Bottom line, avoid this version, see the original George Pal version, starring Rod Taylor, Yvette Mimieux, and Alan Young (who makes a cameo in the new movie).
This movie stars Guy Pearce a professor named Alexander Hartdegen apparently living in 1899. He is somewhat excentric, but does have a friend named David Filby, played by Mark Addy. The interaction of Pearce and his home characters (he has a housekeeper named Mrs. Whatchit, played by Phyllidia Law) tries to give him personality but seems forced. He also has a girlfriend. When an incident changes his hope for the future with his girlfriend, Pearce becomes obsessed with changing the past.
Unfortunately for Pearce's character, incidents force him to travel into the future. There he finds an Earth of 2030. His brief exploration of this time introduces him to a "holographic" interactive database named Vox (played by Orlando Jones). Not finding his answers, Pearce travels to the far future. Once there, he is found by what appear to be humans who now live on cliffs overlooking a river. As he finds more about these people's lives, he is exposed to a terrible fact. There is a predatory life-form that endangers these people.
Unfortunately, this film has many problems. First, while boasting that it is directed by the grandson of H. G. Wells (the author of the original short story) there is very little of that story here. But, the biggest problem is Pearce. We never care about him, so we never care about his journey. The film tries to make him a maverick in the opening few minutes, but we don't believe it, or care what he has to say. His interaction with Filby and Watchit are too fleeting to really develop any sense of who these people are to him.
Pearce's girlfriend, played by Sienna Guillory, is good, but their moments together seem out of place. And, the reason for time traveling is diminished, since we have no real sense of time (the director compresses four years of time) during the set-up.
Once we get to the future, the "native" are not interesting, but they are supposed to be "mystical." And, there is the dreaded "cute kid," the ploy of desperation. Plus, the beasts that terrorize the "native" are typical to many "monsters" that show up in modern movies like "The Mummy."
Now, when compared to George Pal's 1960 version, the brilliance of Pal's creativity shines. Where Pearce travels to the future because of a personal incident, the time traveler George (played by Rod Taylor) has a sense of exploration. We are excited by George's adventure. With the Pearce character, we are dragged along, hoping for an adventure. The natives in the new movie know too much, yet are unable to Pearce. Pal's version of the Eloi is of innocent and unaware children, but the new natives just don't work. We liked George, saw him have dinner with friends, and care about what he did. Pearce never gave us that in his character.
Bottom line, avoid this version, see the original George Pal version, starring Rod Taylor, Yvette Mimieux, and Alan Young (who makes a cameo in the new movie).
Tell Your Friends