Change Your Image
bobgreenwade
Reviews
The Oxford Murders (2008)
A-plus murder mystery, D-minus story
As murder mysteries go, "This Oxford Murders" is one of the most intriguing I've ever seen. The solution is so full of twists and surprises that I could never have seen it coming. This aspect of the movie is quite simply brilliant.
Unfortunately nearly everything else in this movie tanks. The dialogue is frequently stilted, and stalls out unless Elijah Wood and John Hurt are the only ones in the scene (and even then it falls down at times). The only other performer who rises above this awful script is Jim Carter as Inspector Peterson, the man in charge of the investigation. Even Burn Gorman, who shone in TV's "Torchwood," isn't up to this.
There's also bits of nudity, a couple of sex scenes, and other bits that seem designed to titillate more than enrapture. They're completely unnecessary to the story, serving only to distract and confuse the viewer. Several actions of the characters, some of them vital to the story and others just thrown in for no good reason, are incomprehensible and left unexplained.
The train wreck becomes complete when we meet Dr. Seldom's friend, who has not only a degenerative bone disease but also a serious mental illness that led him to attempt a self-lobotomy with a nail gun. Presently I felt like following suit. This man has a part to play in the story, but it's not big enough to warrant such an extreme backstory.
The only reasons I watched until the end were because of the compelling mystery, and the fact that I'd paid $3 to rent it. The movie, however, is barely worth $3 even as an intellectual property, let alone worth that much to rent.
Dark Corners (2006)
Two hours I'll never have back again.
The acting in this film, particularly that from the always-pleasing Christien Anholt, is above average. The art direction and cinematography, though nowhere near Oscar-worthy, are quite good too. But those are the only things that keep this film from going directly into the toilet.
Odd characters abound in here, along with many strange occurrences, without explanation. The viewer is left guessing as to what's actually going on, which is actually a good thing in the middle of the movie -- but when the film ends that way, not so much.
And this one does. Just as the story is coming to an end, we're thrown a series of curve-balls and then thrown back to the middle with such a vague explanation (if it can even be called that) for the weird events in the body of the movie that we're left wondering if it's actually over. It's a relief to have it done with, but the story doesn't actually end so much as just come to a stop.
What's really horrible about that is that a clear ending was well within reach. We do learn the identity of the Night Stalker serial killer. Who were Karen's fellow bus riders, appearing from nowhere at such unusual moments? What was the deal with the police detective, behaving like Longstreet in one scene and like Columbo in another? Why did the elderly male corpse get up and try to talk to Karen? And who, really, was the main perspective character -- or characters? Was there any real significance to the number 618? Granted, this has all the earmarks of a strongly "theme-oriented" story, so a strong plot, clear-cut setting, and compelling characters would have been just distracting. It's just too bad the theme couldn't have been made a bit clearer.
My recommendation: unless you enjoy watching people being tortured to death with no logical explanation, only to see them suddenly come back to life to start the process all over again, skip this movie.
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007)
A surprisingly good adventure-fest
When I saw that this movie first, was inspired by a computer "role-playing" game, and, second, included Burt Reynolds as a supporting actor, I went in with low expectations. Those expectations were unfounded, and those two factors were both deceptive: the plot and characters were surprisingly well-crafted, and Reynolds put in what may be the performance of his career. (That may not be saying much, I'll admit, but it's something.) The acting all around is quite good, particularly at spots (most of them Ray Liotta's) where the action lent itself to over-the-top bravura but the performers opted for a more subtle approach. Some of the plot twists you can see a mile away, and others come out of nowhere, so while you know things are going to work out in the end the viewer can't be quite sure how it's going to get there. The only part I didn't care for, and that not by much, was seeing, without comment or explanation, two black men in charge of the army in what is clearly a society based on medieval Europe -- Brian J. White and Ron Selmour are both fantastic and deserving actors, but as out of place logistically speaking as the equally distracting lin-kuei (Chinese ninjas) who also serve in the King's army. Despite dead-on performances from both Reynolds and Leelee Sobieski, the film isn't going to win any Oscars, except maybe for the completely natural-looking visual effects or the dead-on costuming (lin-kuei notwithstanding), but it's definitely worth going to see.
Who Wants to Be a Superhero? (2006)
The reality-competition show for people who hate reality-competition shows
If you're turned off by the backbiting and Macchiavellian manipulation on such shows as Survivor or Big Brother, but the idea of a group of people competing for a big prize appeals to you, then you really should try this program. Hosted by comic book legend Stan Lee, this show challenges people to behave like superheroes.
Of course, there's much more to "behaving like superheroes" than dressing up in a colorful spandex costume and going into death-defying missions to save the day. That part just makes the contest fun. The tasks presented actually challenge the contestants, and in turn us in the audience, to be better people: courageous, kind, honest, helpful, attentive, friendly, cooperative, decisive, and willing to face our fears and become community leaders. Contestants actually score points (so to speak) for helping each other to perform better! Nearly every episode I've seen thus far has had some little lesson I could apply in my own life to make myself a better person.
Whatever "cheese" the show has, whether you consider it fun or not, that is what good drama, whether scripted or true-life, really should be about.
Inspector Gadget 2 (2003)
Surprisingly good, and in many ways better than the first
I just saw this movie on DVD. Having previously seen the original, and been a fan of the original cartoon series, I was itching to see what was done.
Only one cast member from the first movie returned for this one: D. L. Hughly as the voice for the Gadgetmobile. French Stewart takes the title role from Matthew Broderick, and while Matthew's performance was one of the few weak performances of his career French nails the character dead-on. Tony Martin similarly nails The Claw over Rupert Everett's less-than-menacing performance. As for Caitlin Wachs versus Michelle Trachtenberg as Penny, I think the two are closely matched.
And in nearly every way, Elaine Hendrix is unbeatable in the role of G2.
Director Alex Zamm sought to bring the sequel closer in feel to the original series, and he achieves this with aplomb. The Inspector's enthusiastic idiocy, with Penny tagging along to bail him out, is the theme in what turns into a smörgåsbord of slapstick, visual puns, and other goodness.
Personally, I would have preferred to keep the "real name" of John Brown used in the first film (for scenes where using the name would have been logical, including the deleted "Penny at school" scene), but that's the only substantial change I would have suggested.
Not that the film is without weaknesses. Some "bits," such as the unfortunate toilet-cleaning scene, could have been substantially shortened, and a couple of the deleted scenes (seen on the DVD) would have helped the movie flow a little better. But on the whole it's a fun romp fit for the whole family.
George of the Jungle 2 (2003)
It could have been a decent sequel... but...
There are just so many things wrong with this movie.
To begin with, the first twenty minutes of the film could have been compressed into just five or maybe ten. The overall movie is (mercifully) short already, but this could have been made up for by giving a little more attention to the Mean Lion (how did the miss a reference to "The Wiz" on that one?) and working his subplot a little more closely into the main plot. In short, the script had the seed of a good idea, but needed quite a bit of reworking.
Second, it could have done without the crude humor. The original also had some that it could have done without, but at least there it was almost an afterthought -- here, flatulence and urination abound.
Third, the show is a little too self-aware. The original series had that well enough, as did the first movie, but here it's just way, way too much. The Brendan Fraser in-jokes were just a bit over the top (and why no mention of the "new Ursula"?). Other gags with the Narrator, especially a couple of interactions near the end, also exceed good sense.
Fourth, a bit more attention could have been given to the CGI work. In the first it was hard to tell that Shemp wasn't a real elephant (except by behavior, of course), but here the CGI stands out like a sore thumb. Ideally special effects should merely tell the story whether they're good or bad, and they at least do succeed on that count, so it's a relatively small problem, but it's still there.
All that said, Christopher Showerman's performance as George is decent enough. It lacks Brendan Fraser's charm, but Christopher only really fails in that specific comparison -- he even managed to give George a bit of personal depth, which should have been a major foul in a Jay Ward-inspired movie but wasn't here. Julie Benz as the new Ursula surprised me as being even better than Leslie Mann in the original.
Most other performances were pretty standard, not standing out in my mind as either good or bad.
Love's Labour's Lost (2000)
An experiment that works... mostly.
The general commentary on this movie is that Kenneth tried something experimental with Shakespeare -- that is, transforming it into a true musical, punctuating or replacing various scenes with classic prewar songs by Berlin, Gershwin, Porter, and others -- and that, for the most part, the experiment worked.
Some of the changes were very welcome. Timothy Spall's rendering of "I Get a Kick Out Of You" is brilliant, with bits that put me in mind of "Bullshot Crummond." The masked ball scene (avilable on the DVD as a "deleted scene" -- and believe me, it deserved to be deleted) was replaced with a wonderfully-performed tango, "Let's Face the Music and Dance." The effects in "Cheek to Cheek" took me completely by surprise.
Of the deleted scenes on the DVD, only two -- a hilarious, if brief, bit of physical comedy with the stuffed bear in the library, and the original Pageant of the Nine Worthies -- truly deserved to be left in. The latter was replaced by Nathan Lane and the cast of that play-within-a-play performing "There's No Business Like Show Business," and while this was a very good piece (and, unfortunately, Nathan's only song) I would have rather seen the Nine Worthies in full production. Kenneth directed it with a warmth and good humor not often seen in this part of the play, an atmosphere providing for a beautiful segue with the sad news leading to the show's end. And the end, which I've normally seen with only sadness and loss, is given a bittersweet warmth that blends wonderfully with Branaugh's "postwar" coda.
In conclusion, while it's not a top-notch piece of work -- too much to ask, I think, for such a daring and experimental project -- it has many brilliant touches and will probably affect how many directors approach Shakespearean comedies for years to come.
Between this and "Hamlet," I hope Kenneth will see his way clear to direct "The Merry Wives of Windsor" before long.
Fahrenhype 9/11 (2004)
A fair, if incomplete, rebuttal
I just recently saw this for the first time. It's now well after the election, and about a month before the fourth anniversary of 9/11.
Then, just before writing this review, I took a look at a few of the negative comments here. It's interesting to see how few of them actually paid attention to what was being said and done in this film -- of those I saw (and I didn't look at all of them), only one wrote as though he'd really paid attention.
Criticisms on this movie not being a point-by-point rebuttal of Moore's film are understandable, but while Silver's film is intended as a general rebuttal of Moore's, it also needs to stand on its own. I haven't yet seen Moore's film, and I won't comment on it directly until I have; I can say that Silver's does stand on its own.
Interviews include people who were used in Moore's film -- and, judging from the palpable anger and sense of violation in their voice, "used" is a well-chosen word here -- along with New York and other government officials, writers who have rebutted Moore's work, and a group of US military recruiters fresh from seeing "Farenheit 9/11" (the marquee is clearly visible behind them). Several of Moore's more outrageous and widespread assertions -- such as weapons of mass destruction being the sole reason and justification for the Iraqi invasion, President Bush sitting fully inactive for seven minutes after being told about the attack (out of the five minutes he was in the room), and Federal funding to the Oregon State Police leaving the Oregon Coast undefended, and more -- are completely blown out of the water.
Granted, the film could have been better. Some of the direct criticisms of Moore and his behavior were over the top, most of the name-calling was uncalled for, some of the rebuttal could have been better organized, and a more thorough analysis of why Moore manipulates the truth (as is shown in this film) would have been welcome. But overall it's a very strong counter-portrayal of America as a land of proud, generous people, as opposed to Moore's apparent view of us all as greedy, bloodthirsty cretins.
Lord of the Dance (1997)
Awesome show, horrendous video
As other reviewers have pointed out, the camera angles change every two or three seconds, whether the troupe is dancing or the audience is applauding. By the end of the second number I was dizzy and almost nauseous, and was almost completely unable to appreciate the excellence of the dance. What I did see made me wish I could have seen the show in person; the story, performance, staging, and everything else involved in the theater audience's experience was brilliantly done (at least, as far as I could tell). It's a pity the film directing and editing couldn't have been done by someone who knows a thing or two about filming dance -- that completely spoiled the show for me.
The Lost Empire (2001)
Enjoyable despite numerous weaknesses
Yes, the weaknesses of this movie are numerous. The acting is, for the most part, horribly wooden, particularly with the lesser supporting characters. The real-world history is way off (among other flaws already pointed out in other reviews, "Journey to the West" is, according to what I've read at least, closer to 400 years old than 500, and the official objection to the manuscript was its nontraditional form rather than its content). Some of the characters, particularly four of the Five Traditional Masters, are way underdeveloped. Portraying Confucius as a self-serving sycophant is just *wrong.*
If you're already familiar with the original story of "Journey to the West" and can't bear to see it butchered -- which is exactly what happens here -- then follow the one-star ratings given here and avoid this movie like the plague.
For anyone else, this is a fun piece of work. It was hardly Emmy-worthy in any category (with the possible exception of Bai Ling's impassioned performance as the Goddess of Mercy) and has numerous plot holes not worthy of David Huang, but the story travels on well with only a couple of relatively minor diversions (well, I guess NBC wanted to make sure they had a good two-part miniseries), one can really care about those characters that do receive proper development, and can wonder and worry about the story's outcome.