Change Your Image
gbabbitt30
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008)
Just The Facts, Ma'am (Even if you have to make them up)
At the beginning of 'Fargo', the filmmakers include an advisory that the movie is based on a true story and that only the names have been changed 'at the request of the survivors'. As it is now known, that advisory was just part of the entertainment. 'Expelled' might as well open up with the same warning to its viewers, because the information presented is just about as fictional as the made-up story in 'Fargo'. In 'Fargo', the Coen brothers did it for a laugh; in 'Expelled', Stein does it to make his viewers assume everything is true without need to research any of the 'facts' presented. Instead of making factual arguments for why science might be wrong, the film links science with Nazi atrocities and thereby condemns all science and especially evolutionary theory. 'Expelled' does nothing to substantiate true discrimination against those who profess Intelligent Design, nor does it substantiate Intelligent Design itself, and most importantly for a documentary film, it does not provide any counter view or opposing argument. Where are any interviews of men and women of the scientific community who could rebut the claims of the Intelligent Designers? The Creationist community are always quick to point out that 'real' science won't give Creationists the time of day when it comes to debating theories, but then the makers of 'Expelled' appear to have done exactly the same thing they accuse Evolutionists of doing: Suppressing alternative views. I give the film a '2' only because it was technically reasonably well done.
Revenge (2011)
Ponderous, Over-Acted Soap Opera
The story line of Revenge might have been interesting at one time, but because the plot has lived about as long as a Galapagos Tortoise and actually moves slightly slower, the story has turned about to be about as much fun as watching one of those hulking creatures crawl by. Worse than the plot however is the never-ending parade of pure soap opera characters who can be divided neatly into two camps: The bad guys, who are identified by the same smarmy smirk that accompanies every other spoken line, and the good guys (if you can ever really figure out who they are), who are identified by the constant statements of resolve that 'we're just about to reach our goal', if you can ever really figure out what THAT is. The one member of the cast I actually felt sorry for was Henry Czerny as 'Conrad Grayson'. Czerny--a very fine actor--has been given nothing but pithy, insulting lines that no human being would ever actually utter, all the while doing his best to stay in the Bad Camp by delivering each line with dripping nastiness. Czerny is too good to be wasted here. But even as Czerny was doing his best, it got old watching him slime by. And lest we forget. . .Lucretia McEvil, aka Victoria Grayson, has more sneers per episode than Bette Davis ever delivered in her entire career. I feel bad for Madeline Stowe, another fine performer who may never be able to play the part of a trustworthy woman again. All in all, this show truly belongs on daytime TV where people watch unbearable plots drag out over seasons and years. The only difference between those shows and 'Revenge' is that we get our Revenge story in 60 minute episodes. Plenty of time for the aristocrats of The Hamptons to smarm and sneer and smirk their way to a cliff-hanging ending every single week as we try to figure out one more way for the rich to avoid getting theirs in the end--if we can ever really figure out when THAT will be.
Scandal (2012)
Subtle Political Message That Isn't So Subtle
When television networks create shows, they rarely do it for artistic value or for great plot, acting, or writing, the staples that once upon a time were highly-prized. Television now--and particularly network television--are desperate to come up with shows that will appeal to either a very broad audience or to capture a defined segment of viewers that they believe will be large enough to make the show successful. Throw in some plot trickery and some fast-paced direction that leaves the viewer believing the story is intricate when in fact it is only convoluted, and you're halfway there. The other half will be to change the stereotypes of past TV series, and in 'Scandal', Rhimes has delivered a non-stereotype show where all the strong characters are either African-American, or they want to be like one of the African-Americans, or they want to sleep with one of the African-Americans. No criticism here of the idea of having good, strong, African-American roles, but to do so did not necessarily require having all the white characters as weak, conniving, gay, psychopathic or hyper-self-serving. It appears that Rhimes felt the need to amplify her central African-American characters by surrounding them with spineless white characters. Even Rowan Pope, who is cast as a seriously bad character, is still portrayed as well above the intelligence and cunning level of all the other white characters, the President included. Just to top off the need to turn Washington power upside-down from what it really is, the agenda of the show is decidedly leftist, with a plethora of gay characters, with a conservative white president pushing gun control, and with an undertone of conspiracies and power struggles that are meant to convince a large segment of viewers that, "Yep, Washington really does run this way with powerful people shafting the rest of us so they can get ahead or get laid." I find the show to be technically fairly well made, but I find it a message about as subtle in its point of view as Al Sharpton.
Les Misérables (2012)
Excellent Adaptation That's Not For Everybody
As a precursor to this review, it should be noted that for me, seeing a movie made from a stage play is quite like seeing a movie made from a book--if you loved the original, you will nitpick the movie to death because it doesn't hold to your images and love for the original. That said, 'Les Miserables' as musical movie is pretty darned good. The visual effects of Parisian poverty and the 'miserable' life of many of the characters does in fact add an element of reality to the movie that the theater can't give us, and Tom Hooper certainly did his best to convey the image of a time and place where life truly didn't seem worth living to the masses of destitute French citizenry. For my own taste, some of the scenes were a bit too stylized, and Fantine's time among the working girls seemed more art than drama, but on the other hand, the scenes of the students and the barricade were truly magnificent, as were the sewer moments. It was great to see Colm Wilkinson in the role of the Bishop after having seen him as Valjean in London. Magnificent performer! As for the acting and singing. . .I did not expect much from Hugh Jackman but will readily admit: Boy, was I was wrong on that one. Jackman may not have the vocal range of Wilkinson or Alfie Boe, but I certainly came away believing he WAS Jean Valjean. Splendid performance that really carried the character and the story throughout. Eddie Redmayne was an excellent Marius, and Samantha Barks gave a good rendition of Eponine. After that, the rest of cast--Ann Hathaway included--were admirable, but not outstanding. I can only believe Hathaway won her Academy Award on the basis of cutting her hair and looking extraordinarily pitiful in one song. Baron-Cohen as Thenardier was a huge miscast. Steve Martin could have done better. As a visual experience, Les Miz The Movie was quite a treat. I have to wonder though. . .if you had not seen the stage play and were not already familiar with the story, how in the world would you be able to follow what was going on? It's terribly difficult to identify what is happening with all the characters when all dialog is sung, and it's hard to match operatic vocals with the tremendous visual impact on the screen in front of you. Be that as it may, this was a superb movie, and well worth anybody's time.
All the King's Men (1949)
As a story - Terrific. As a movie - fading into obscurity
I've watched this movie many times over the past forty years and with changing opinion each time. There are some wonderful scenes that are tightly written, well-staged, and wonderfully acted, and they add tremendous color and life to the cinematization of a Great American Novel, but as years go by, my respect for the movie as art has diminished. Perhaps in its day, ATKM was a spectacular accomplishment, but I find it nowadays stiff and somewhat disjointed. The problem with trying to make a great book into a movie is that just cobbling the great parts out of the book together doesn't make the movie great. The Robert Penn Warren novel was extraordinarily complex and carefully paced to followed a dumb hick from the cotton fields to the pinnacle (and abuse) of power, but the movie tries to cram the entire story into the standard Hollywood two hours, and to do that, it has to lurch from high point to high point, like climbing all the Colorado Rocky Mountains by trying to hop from one fourteener to another. It just doesn't work. It's tough making a movie from a great book because lovers of the book like me will criticize it because it doesn't meet our expectations of the novel. "All The King's Men" as a book has aged like oak-casked whiskey; as a movie, the cork has leaked.
Side Effects (2013)
Good suspense but a slow ride
'Side Effects' is a complex story, and like most movies with a complex plot, has to provide several elements in the first act which will set up the plot turns that develop in the second act. These required elements in Side Effects unfortunately make the story drag early on, but once they are out of the way, the rest of the story moves along reasonably well. I found a few holes in the plot, or scenes that were either not fully developed or--in my opinion--not necessary at all, and these scenes added to some confusion that may or may not have been intended by the Director. Jude Law provides an excellent portrayal of a doctor who spends much of his professional career dealing with people either mentally unstable or downright dangerous. He does this with great effect and provides a believable character, but once he begins the turn of the plot, I found his newfound cleverness and cunning to be out of character and not quite believable. Law still plays very well the twisting of a man being slowly destroyed, but the redemption is too formulaic. While watching 'Side Effects' and Law's Dr. Banks, I was reminded of Michael Douglas' character in 'Disclosure', and by the end of the movie, the parallels between the two movies were substantial. Overall, this was an enjoyable thriller with some great performances from Rooney Mara and Catherine Zeta-Jones. Not sure why Channing Tatum had such high billing, as his performance was little more than a small adjective on the overall story. The movie also had a Hitchcockian feel to it, though the master would have done it so much better.