Plot Kicks In

2007-12-19T20:42:00.000-05:00

I gave Character a zero because even though I am not normally one to care much about characters, I didn't feel that there was even one character that was remotely worth rooting for or caring about.

Remy was not really a very nice person, stabbing Linguini in the back at the first sign of trouble. Linguini is a dope who deserved to neither win Colette's heart nor the ownership of the restaurant. Colette is, at first, presented as a strong woman battling to make it to the top in a male-dominated field and then is relegated to the status of "girlfriend."

2007-12-16T14:24:00.000-05:00

Plot/3 Characters/2 Visuals/3
Total/8

I will admit this was not one of my most favorite Pixar films ever, okay, Debbie? (Cars has that distinction still.) But I am not so down on this as you are by far!

Firstly, I don't believe the plotlines were stolen from different films like you do. I think it was a daring an unusual choice of plotline to have the main character interested in gourmet cooking of all things! I can't think of a single animated movie having to do with a love of cooking before! Was it a bit too esoteric for kids at times when Remy waxed raphsodical about good food or the ghost of the chef went on about how a kitchen worked? Maybe. But I don't think that kids minded that much and maybe a few budding chefs were inspired even! And the mantra oft repeated throughout "Anyone can cook" can be expanded to other activities kids might want to try, a message of trying new things and being optimistic about being able to learn new things.

I don't think there were too many plot points either. Disney movies always have to have a romance side plot (if not having that be the main plot like in The Little Mermaid, etc.) so that's nothing unusual. The background about Remy's family not being supportive of his interest in cooking is important to show how much he has to struggle against to achieve his dream.

The only plot point that they possibly could have dropped was about Linguini being the son of Gusteau. However, it would've been harder to engineer the plot to the point where Linguini could take over the restaraunt don't you think? And that was a pivotal point to the whole story!

2007-11-28T13:35:00.000-05:00

Ratatouille
Plot/2 Characters/0 Visuals/3
Total/5

Ratatouille is a movie with far too many plotlines. It starts off American Tail-ish when a young rat named Remy (Patton Oswalt) loses his family when they're forced out of their home. But this plotline is dropped in favor of Remy's following his dream to work as a chef in Gusteau's restaurant.

Next there's the plotlines of young Alfredo Linguini (Lou Romano) trying to make his way in said restaurant, all the while avoiding the ire of his conniving boss, Skinner (Ian Holm) and co-worker Colette (Janeane Garofalo).

There's are subplots involving an heir to the late Gusteau's estate, a romance, friendship, family . . . holy cow, what is there not a subplot about?

In the end, this movie is about too many things, none of which are explored in any meaningful way, particularly since even though it runs fairly long for a kids' movie, much of it is tedious, didactic exposition while another good chunk of it, thankfully, is hilarious physical comedy.

A good drinking game would be to take a drink every time you spot a plot point cribbed from another, better movie. You will definitely be drunk by the time the movie's over.

I do recommend the adorable UFO short on the DVD. It may only be about ten minutes long, but it proves that brevity is the soul of wit.

2007-09-03T21:50:00.000-04:00

I have to say there were some very strange camera angles in this film sometimes! I am not one to notice such things generally having never taken any film classes but even I noticed Scorcese sometimes panned the camera around in very strange ways. I don't think it detracted from the movie but I'm not sure if it really enhanced it either. As for Debbie's complaint about not seeing Boston, well there were so many Boston accents around---more than any other movie I've ever seen--that I didn't ever forget we were in Boston. It would have been interesting to see more of the city though since it is one I don't think we often see in films. (NY and LA have been done to death on the other hand!)

All in all, it was an engaging film but I'm not sure at all it was deserving of the Oscar. I really was left with the feeling it was a consolation prize for all the years Scorcese had been a "bridesmaid and never a bride" I am no expert on his films but I bet there are other films of his that were better that should have won Oscars that didn't and the Academy felt bad. That's just my theory of course.

2007-08-17T17:12:00.000-04:00

The directing was interesting in spots and the cinematography gave us a greenish-tinted gritty world, but what bothered me about this movie was the fact that even though it was set in Boston, we never really saw much of it. To me the movie looked like it could have been set in any major city and it wouldn't have made much of a difference, and that's unfortunate because part of the point of the movie is that it's about an Irish Boston gang, not just any old gang of any random ethnicity.
*
I just saw Infernal Affairs, the Hong Kong movie that the Departed was based on. IA was mostly better. It was less violent and shorter, but had more tension, better acting and better writing. The only negatives were the (again) idiotic women characters (why couldn't Departed writer William Monahan improve on that?) and an awful, derivative soundtrack.

2007-08-14T17:24:00.000-04:00

In this movie we actually agree on more than one thing! Shocking! Not only did we both dislike the psychiatrist character we also both enjoyed the character of Digman. I also felt he was hamming up the part a lot at times but found it great fun to watch him and see what outrageous thing he'd say or do next. (Small spoiler: Liking him makes the grand finale of the movie much more satisfying indeed!) I also like Martin Sheen's character though, I really did feel for him. Of course I have a fondness for Sheen ever since he played Pres. Bartlett on West Wing for years so wonderfully so I am automatically inclined to like him when he's playing another fatherly, good guy like here.

I don't think it was necessary to have more background on Billy actually. Scorcese did such a great job of making me feel the constant danger and pressure he was constantly surrounded by day in, day out so much that I was rooting for him to get out of Dodge long before things really did blow up. My point is I didn't need to know what made him tick to feel for him because the horror of the situation he was stuck in made me pity him plenty. Dicaprio conveyed Billy's repulsion and disgust with what he had to be party to very effectively and thus I felt assured he was truly a decent guy who had tried to do a service to his country and gotten screwed in the process. That's a classic kind of American hero in movies I think, there's a long tradition in movies of this sort (though usually they're Vietnam vets, I think).

What was even more interesting was how Scorcese got us to feel for Damon's mole too, even though he was working for Costigan and hunting down Billy. He allowed us to see him sweat, be confused and vulnerable. He was not just a generic bad guy chuckling evilly as he caused mayhem. I even thought at one point that he was almost on the verge of changing his ways he seemed so conflicted. (I was wrong about that of course) Nicholson's Costello, on the other hand WAS just your generic, sleazy bad guy. No depth there.

2007-08-13T19:51:00.001-04:00

Havivah seems to have stolen one of my major gripes about the characters -- I also hated the woman psychiatrist (Madolyn Madden, played by Vera Farmiga). To add an odd complaint: toward the end of the movie they had her wearing the same suit she wore earlier on. I don't know why, but that really irked me.

My other problem with character was that Billy Costigan was not well developed. We see him briefly in a couple of scenes before he embarks on his career as a lowlife. We never get to find out that he's somebody worth rooting for. Overall, I didn't really care one wit about the characters.

Except one. Sean Dignam, played by Mark Wahlberg, was just fun to watch. Wahlberg was hamming things up a bit but he seemed like he was the only person who wasn't thinking as they shot their scenes: "Look at me, I'm in a Scorsese film, so I'd better pile on the gravitas."

2007-08-06T21:13:00.000-04:00

Plot/3 Characters/2 Visuals/2
Total/7

Well I knew what the plot was about before I watched it unlike Debbie and thought it was a good basic idea for a plot. And when it stayed focused on the actual tension between the two moles I found the movie to be at its best and most interesting. Problem is, I don't think the movie kept its focus on this enough and meandered off to side plots that I didn't find so interesting such as the mob boss Costello's homelife or pleasures. The whole issue of the female psychiatrist was a total waste of time and detracted from the flow of the plot altogether. It's as if Scorcese got the idea at the last minute that "Wait! I don't have any major female parts in this film or someone for the leads to ogle so I better stick someone in." And then on top of the that he got the even worse idea to engineer (very poorly) the contrived situation of both of the leads falling for her!

Never mind the character was unlikeable and it was never clear why either of the leads should have been so crazy about her, let alone one. The one time we saw her in her job as a psychiatrist she was very unproffessional and ineffective and she was pretty flat in her affect thereafter. But more on character in the next post...

2007-08-05T15:40:00.000-04:00

The Departed
Plot/3 Characters/2 Visuals/2
Total/7

Despite all the hype and awards, I actually had no idea what movie was about until I saw it. So to enlighten anyone else who might be in the same boat, the Departed is the story of two Massachusetts State Troopers. One, Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) who becomes a detective but is secretly a mole for mob boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson), while Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) goes undercover in Costello's gang in order to gather evidence on some high-end heists. The movie mostly revolves around Sullivan's and Costigan's attempt to root each other out. Oh, and they date the same police psychiatrist Madolyn Madden (Vera Farmiga).

It's a pretty interesting movie, though it's full of plot holes and is not particularly original. At least one scene was ripped off from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. However, I gave it 3 on Plot because the ending was so completely unexpected. I'm not sure it was satisfying, but it was different, at least. Probably because it was a remake of the Asian movie Infernal Affairs; I doubt any Hollywood writer would have come up with that ending on his own.

2007-07-15T22:46:00.001-04:00

I just watched Munich. It was too boring and poorly written for me to get annoyed with its moral relativism. Anyway, how can you hate a movie that contains the line "Don't f**k with the Jews," said with great relish by a criminally underused Daniel Craig?

Sorry for the lack of updates. Maybe there will be some soon, who knows.

2006-11-11T20:38:00.000-05:00

Yeah, a bad movie. My first line in my first post was "It was a awesome movie; it was an awful movie."

Technically speaking the movie was bad, just bad. But I really liked it, mostly because of V, so I gave it a good grade.

I suppose Stephen Rae was good; I got no quarrel with him, but for me it was all about V.

Visually, it was pretty decent except when they gave us cool-looking scenes that were also nonsensical. What sticks out in my mind is when V knocks over a bazillion dominoes set up to looking like his V logo. I mean, understand it's supposed to be symbolic, but to me it came across as being very childish. I know V does silly things sometimes, but come on, get a grip. He's supposed to be planning a revolution; how exactly does he have time to sit around and play with dominoes?

2006-11-08T19:16:00.000-05:00

Uh hello? Bad movie? You gave it a 10 as I recall! So how bad is it really then to you? But clearly we will remain at odds about the two main characters. Let me just put in a very good word for the inspector who I really enjoyed. He was a wonderful salt of the earth, dour English detective! He radiated solid decency and I thought he was perfectly cast. Hurray for Stephen Rae! Can we agree on him, Debbie?

2006-11-05T19:30:00.000-05:00

Remember, remember the fifth of November,
the gunpowder treason and plot.
I know of know reason why the gunpowder treason
should ever be forgot.

2006-10-28T23:58:00.000-04:00

You are 100% correct. Evey is pretty much taken advantage of by V. And the reason is because she is meant to symbolize the downtrodden English public and was not created as a decent character in and of herself. More evidence of how this is such a bad movie. Frankly, I never quite understood why there needed to be an Evey character to begin with.

(Though I'm not a fan of graphic novels, I read this one. While I may not have really liked it, at least I was able to appreciate that it gave a much better explanation for why Evey was in the story.)

You know what I didn't like about Evey other than her personality (or lackthereof)? Her wardrobe. When all the other clothing in the movie was either slick and smooth or rumpled to fit perfectly with the character, her wardrobe looked like it was designed for some other movie, possibly involving freaks and geeks or Napoleon Dynamite.

2006-10-18T11:18:00.000-04:00

Okay, I can agree that Hugo Weaving pulls off a pretty tough job, conveying all kinds of emotion through an entire movie while always stuck behind a mask. I wonder if he had a moments pause or two when offered the role and he first understood he'd be masked the ENTIRE time? However, I completely disagree with your statement about poor Evey. It is completely V's fault that she ends up in trouble with the government to begin with if you recall. If he had simply escorted her home safely after saving her that first fateful night (or simply parted ways with her) instead of encouraging her to come stand with him and view his first terrorist act she'd never have been photographed and pursued by the police and ended up on the run. He creates her horrible situation for her. HE decides to make her his personal pet project, she never asked him to. She even tries to get away from him when he first asks her to help him in one of his asassination attempts. His paternalism and condescension is deeply disturbing, particularily when he kidnaps her and "reprograms" her (read "tortures her"). Clearly, I am NOT a big fan of V and my sympathies are with Evey.

2006-10-17T09:18:00.000-04:00

I meant to elaborate on my previous post but just didn't have the time. So I will now.

V is sexy, yes, sexy. I dunno, there's just something about his voice, his clothing, the way he moves, and even the mask that just makes him irresistable. Hugo Weaving does an incredible acting job. Even though he's wearing a mask, we can still feel V's emotions coming through clearly.

The fact that he duels with empty suits of armor and wears a woman's apron while cooking with absolutely no self-consciousness only adds to it. So he tortured Evey, big deal. She deserved it. Well, she didn't deserve it but she was kind of boring so I wasn't bothered by it. Or, to put it another way -- V can torture me any day. *insert salacious thoughts here*

2006-10-05T09:28:00.000-04:00

Huh!? Sexy!? Well, if you find off balance men who enjoy torturing the object of their affection for what they feel is the lady's own good maybe. Clearly, I don't share Debbie's sentiment about V.

2006-10-04T19:33:00.000-04:00

V is dead sexy.

That's all that needs to be said about character in this movie.

Just kidding. More later.

2006-10-03T09:02:00.000-04:00

Plot/2 Character/3 Visuals/3
Total/8

I had a very strange beginning to my relationship with this movie. At first when I saw the previews I thought it looked like a good 1984-ish movie with the twist of a hero who would turn things around in an uplifting finale. Then I read some reviews that disturbed me having mainly to do with the issue of terrorism in the movie and I then steered clear of it. Then my curiosity got the better of me and I decided to see for myself what was what.

Well, now that I've seen it I can certainly see the critics' concern and I also see it isn't quite what I originally expected it to be either. In terms of it being like 1984 I was correct: England lives under a police state that has eyes and ears everywhere so no one can really speak their mind safely, news is heavily censored and full of propaganda, curfews are in effect, etc. However, in terms of giving us a hero to rescue England from it all V is not really what I had in mind. He even admits as much himself at one point when Evey confronts him about some of his behaviors, allowing for the possibility that he might be mad or erring in his approach. His approach is to first blow up the Bailey and then to announce in one years time he would blow up Parliament as well. His justification to Evey is that sometimes the blowing up of a symbol is more powerful than the symbol itself or something to that effect and he implies it is a positive thing to do therefore.

The reviews I read noted that in light of Sept. 11 events it was a dangerous thing to have a movie that seemed to glorify the destuction of symbolic buildings to make a point. I must note that there are huge differences between his brand of terrorism though and Sept. 11: he blows them up at night when one would imagine almost no one is there and with the Parliament they have a years notice to clear the area so at least he is not interested in the killings of innocents, only targeted killings of very guilty parties.

I still am not so on board with blowing up buildings to make a point however. Yet all of his other machinations and plotting make for a very interesting plot so I was hooked throughout. I particularily liked the use of Guy Fawkes Day as a plot keystone, namely because it was something I only knew vaguely about all these years and the movie forced me to do some research on it finally and a movie that makes one want to go learn more about history always gets points in my book.

Here's one thing I learned though: the opening sequence about Fawkes makes it seem like he was the only one involved, but in truth he was one of 13 conspirators and he was just the unlucky sap who got caught first because he was guarding the explosive stash that night. Of course, I do understand it's more dramatic if they just focus on him as a solo operative like V is.

2006-09-25T14:06:00.000-04:00

V for Vendetta
Plot/3 Characters/3 Visuals/4
Total/10

It was an awesome movie; it was an awful movie.

V for Vendetta is about V (Hugo Weaving) a masked terrorist/freedom fighter who, along with his on-again-off-again co-conspirator Evey (Natalie Portman), plans to blow up Parliament on November 5 in commemoration of Guy Fawkes's plot to do the same in 1605, in order to topple the totalitarian government currently ruling England. He is also taking his revenge on the people who ran the institution that used him as a human guinea pig for inhuman medical experiments. Pursuing him is honest cop Finch (Stephen Rae).

This sounds like a fine plot, but its holes are big enough to drive a Mack truck through. I'll give just one example of its logical failures: the state is in control of everything. So why, when V takes over a television station and broadcasts live, were they not able to pull the plug on him? A better question is why did V even bother to broadcast live instead of just remotely uploading a pre-recorded message? The answer: so that the director could set up a cool fight scene. That's lazy writing.

But despite or perhaps because the writing was so poor, I had no clue where the story was going. I was constantly being surprised by its twists and turns. And this is why I rated Plot as highly as I did.

2006-08-10T20:44:00.000-04:00

Havivah just had a baby and moved -- all in the same week, so it may be a while before there's an update.

2006-07-07T18:30:00.000-04:00

Okay here is where we totally disagree: I could not STAND the soundtrack! I thought it was overpowering at times, making it hard to hear the dialogue, overwrought, and just plain annoying often. In a movie where there is so much dialogue and it's so important to hear every word especially I think it was a poor choice to have the soundtrack constantly welling up. It should have been used far more sparingly. In movies with little dialogue and a lot of action sequences or artsy shots it is okay to use soundtracks this much, not in this movie type! I did like how they chose to start the movie off with a crime scene and then flashback 24 hours to show what led up to that crime scene. This form of suspense usually draws me in and keeps me interested to see if it all adds up in the end fully.

2006-07-02T17:04:00.000-04:00

Crash looked good -- very smooth and very dark. The editing was good, too. But what I particularly noticed was the music. I thought it was quite haunting and beautiful and gave the movie a dream-like, floating quality even though it was so rooted in the mundane world.

2006-06-25T20:27:00.000-04:00

Wow, it's shocking to see those words in print from Debbie "Havivah is right"--don't hear that too often! I have to enjoy this moment because it's so rare.

Character wise I think because they chose to cram the movie so full of so many different characters and story lines no one really had a chance to flesh out their character extensively. Funnily enough, I think the one who had the most chance to flesh out his character was Matt Dillon's odious racist cop, who somehow became more human as the movie went on (though still not likeable). I also found the storyline about the Persian merchant and his daughter very intriguing, rooting for her as she tried to stop him from buying a gun and ultimately, her clever action provides one of the most powerful moments in the movie. And yes, Ludicris' speeches were very entertaining considering he was railing against the very thing that made him rich and famous. Very tongue in cheek.

I was a bit disappointed in Don Cheadle's character, though. He is a particular favorite of mine since he blew me away in Hotel Rwanda and I just felt he was underutilized terribly for the most part.

2006-06-24T22:02:00.000-04:00

Holy cow, Havivah is so right. Whenever I heard about this movie it was always emphasized that it was about racism. But as I said before, it merely demonstrated that people are racist; it didn't actually say anything about it. But what it really could (should?) have been about was powerlessness -- and how that can cause people to blame others needlessly and unjustly. But while this is a crucial element in the film, I overlooked it because the blatant expressions of racism overwhelmed everthing else. It's like they went for shock value over true thoughtfulness.

* * *

The characters in and of themselves were nothing particularly special -- and in the case of Brendan Fraser playing the distract attorney of Los Angeles, unbelievable -- but the actors playing them brought them to life very well. I particularly enjoyed Ludacris's, well, ludicrous speech about how white people invented rap music to keep black people down.

2006-06-21T19:15:00.000-04:00

Plot/2 Characters/2 Visuals/3
Total/7

I want to say flat out in the beginning that I don't think this should have won Best Picture at the Oscars. And it's not even because I saw the other contenders and was rooting for another one more. I simply didn't find this movie to be that impressive.

Firstly, I never appreciate movies where so much hinges on so many coincidences tying everybody together somehow and as Debbie's post illustrates, that is a common malady in this movie. Life is never anywhere near this neat, especially in a huge city like LA. I think the movie could have found a way to say meaningful things about racism and social interactions without all the silly crisscrossing of different plotlines and characters. It just diminished the overall believability for me of the movie. (My particular gripe: that Matt Dillon's racist cop is the one who happens to be first responder to the accident of the lady he racially and sexually assaulted hours before. Good grief, any drama inherent in that scene was lost on me because the set up was so outrageous.)

I think the plot's strong point was when it dwelt on the theme of powerlessness more than when it dwelt on racism, which was way too heavyhanded and overdone. I found it much more poignant watching Matt Dillon's cop waiting helplessly outside the bathroom door as his dad struggled to urinate yet again during the night and then later, raging against the insurance system that was screwing his dad. Or when Don Cheadle's detective walks in to his mom's house with groceries and his eyes sorrowfully rest on his mom, passed out drunk on the couch, clearly in a terrible downward spiral he knows he can't really stop. These moments were much more human and real to me.

2006-06-19T21:34:00.000-04:00

Crash
Plot/3 Characters/3 Visuals/3
Total/9

There isn't really a plot; it's more of a bunch of interweaving plots, like Short Cuts crossed with Pulp Fiction. We follow a whole bunch of people through 36 hours of their lives and we see how as each of them faces tough times, they each resort to racist name-calling, and in the case of one white cop (played by Matt Dillon), stopping a man on the charge of "driving while black."

Much of the plot hinges on somewhat unbelievable coincidences (white cop [Matt Dillon] saves black woman [Thandie Newton] who he molested from burning car crash) and set-ups that can only be described as contrived (white cop [Ryan Philippe] stops to pick up black hitchhiker [Larenz Tate], who is actually a car thief). Overall, the story is weak. It says nothing; it only illustrates the Avenue Q song, "Everybody's a Little Bit Racist."

There are only two scenes which resonated with me and actually seemed to say something important. The first was when the white cop shoots his black hitchhiker. Throughout the movie we really saw this young cop trying to do the right thing, and look what happens to him. Though this is no episode of Homicide, like Officer Hellriegal, he'll never get away with what he did. Just proving, that no good deed goes unpunished.

The other scene I liked was when a black mother shows a clear preference for her dead, delinquent son over her living, devoted, detective son (Don Cheadle). Maybe that answers a character's earlier question of why if both kids grew up in the same home, did they turn out so differently. Not because of racism, or schooling, but because their mother loved one more than the other.

2006-02-05T14:24:00.000-05:00

I'm not criticizing all of Christian Bale's movies, I'm critizing the arc of his career. The two you movies cited were made more than ten years ago. His more recent films are far less impressive.

* * *

The look of this movie was very smooth and very dark. I don't have any particular criticisms of the visuals except maybe that they were too monotonous and drab.

The other problem is that the fight scenes were shot too much in close up. I suppose it's meant to look artistic, but to me it just looked like a jumble of limbs.

2006-02-01T20:38:00.000-05:00

I'll give you one on the Katie Holmes issue: she does look too young to be believed as a lawyer, too true. I wouldn't say she doesn't have a face for movies, she just should stick to teenage movies I guess. I'm glad you at least appreciated Cillian Murphy, he is very chilling! I just saw him in Red Eye where he plays an equally unnerving bad guy very convincingly. I guess it's the combination of the smooth baby face he's got and the soft voice that hide a vicious mind beneath. It's generally more interesting and less cliched than the bad guy who looks evil and disfigured.

I will defend Christian Bale's honor! I think he did a fine job in this film, giving the well worn character his own little twists. It's not easy to step into a part played by so many others in the past. I also think it's unfair to bash all his movie choices too--he was very good in Little Women and Swing Kids as well. So there.

2006-01-08T18:58:00.000-05:00

You know what I forgot to mention about the hackneyed plot? That when Wayne is getting together his Batman gear it reminded me of James Bond and the bit on the train is just like Spiderman 2. And as I mentioned before, the beginning reminded me of Star Wars. So basically, this movie was unoriginal from start to finish.

As for characters, I suppose Christian Bale fits the part, but I don't think he did a very good acting job in it. Let's talk some more about how the mighty have fallen: from the brilliance he showed in Empire of the Sun, to a sort of blankness in this movie, Christian Bale has not made his mark on the movies the way he should have.

Katie Holmes, on the other hand, was a disaster. She still looks like a coltish teenager with her stick-thin legs and apple cheeks. I didn't believe her for one second as a grown woman. I'm not sure she has a face fit for the movies, either; she should stick to television.

The other real grown-ups in the movie -- Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and Morgan Freeman all did servicable jobs. It was only the freaky-looking and underused Cillian Murphy who actually embodied the creepiness and the darkness that is supposed to be a hallmark of the Batman universe. It's too bad he wasn't given a bigger and better part to play, instead of just being some other guy's stooge.

2006-01-01T18:25:00.000-05:00

Plot/3 Characters/3 Visuals/4
Total/10

I was much more impressed with this movie than Debbie! Of course that's partly because I have little love for the much overrated (IMHO) original Batmans with Michael Keaton. I always thought that guy was a complete miscast for one thing. Not so with Christian Bale. But I'm getting ahead of myself. I thought the scenes exploring how the young Bruce came to be so good at self defense, etc. were all interesting and well done. Yes, I will admit Neeson was reminding me of Qui Gonn an awful lot too but hey, that's a type of part he plays very well so once in awhile it's okay to play according to type I think.

I found the overarching plot, about the decay of a city and how people try to save it very poignant, especially since it is modeled after NYC, our hometown, which was in terrible shape a few decades ago and many people were ready to give up on. I'm sure there were people who thought it would be better to just wipe out certain parts of the city completely given how high the crime rates were, etc. The movie just takes this to the comic book villain extreme, and it is after all, based on a comic book in the end. So I do feel the movie had some good things to say.

However I will agree with you that the side plot about the sort of love between Bruce and Katie Holmes' character was a dead end and very unsatisfying. The movie probably could have done without it altogether but again, comic books always have to have a female the hero must desire but keep at arm's distance for her own good and safety out of his nobleness and selflessness. (Superman--Lois Lane, Spiderman--Mary Jane, etc.) That's the angst factor for superheroes and I guess some people really enjoy that part. Me, I'd like to see just once a superhero who just tells the girl flat out from the start and gets married just for a change.

2005-12-29T18:32:00.000-05:00

Batman Begins
Plot/2 Characters/2 Visuals/3
Total/7

Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

Okay, it wasn't as bad as all that. In fact, Batman Begins was a huge improvement over Batman Returns (which I can remember next to nothing about) and Batman & Robin (which is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen). But it couldn't hold a candle to the original Batman.

Batman Begins is exactly what its name says it is -- it's a movie that tells us how little Bruce Wayne (affecting played by Gus Lewis) saw his parents get murdered in front of him and subsequently grew up to be millionaire Bruce Wayne and superhero Batman (Christian Bale). The first half of this overlong movie shows Wayne growing up and then dropping out of his life to travel in Asia and train to become a ninja. All at once this has little -- and everything -- to do with the rest of the movie. They should have cut at least ten minutes from this part especially since they had Liam Neeson playing Wayne's teacher. I kept feeling like Ewan McGregor was going to wander by at any moment and ask Qui-Gon why he was training this other dude.

Eventually Wayne goes back to his life and commences ordinary crime fighting. But then a couple of costumed baddies show up with much more nefarious things on their minds than petty pilfering. Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe) wants to destroy Gotham City (though only for the noblest of reasons) and Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy) wants to, um, well, I was never quite sure what he wanted.

And then there was a non-romance between Wayne and Assistant District Attorney Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) which didn't seem to serve much point.

The plot was completely inadequate. It has none of the flair or pizzazz or even insane manic evilness that Batman did.

2005-12-28T19:16:00.000-05:00

Today is Plot Kicks In's three-year anniversary!

Though, sadly, it's been almost three months since our last post. Terribly sorry all. But at least on my end, I've been swamped with school. These past few weeks I've had presentations, papers, reports, finals, and the New York City transit strike to contend with.

We'll be back soon with Batman Begins and we're considering going to voice posts, video posts, or podcasting. Anyone have an opinion on which to switch to, if we do indeed switch from text posts?

2005-10-02T12:51:00.000-04:00

Actually, I didn't like Alexis Bledel. She seemed sort of out of place and added nothing to the movie, IMO.

The best part of the movie (and the reason why I didn't rate the thing a 3 overall) were the visuals and the songs. Visually, the movie was sumptuous, filled with gorgeous, vibrant colors, exotic locations and characters that weren't just pasty-white men and perfectly thin and beautiful women. The songs were wonderful, with tunes and lyrics that were memorable ("No life without wife"), even if I didn't know what the heck they were saying ("Dola dola"). I was humming them for hours after the movie was over. I recommend the soundtrack more than the movie itself.

2005-09-25T19:30:00.000-04:00

Well I didn't get to view the deleted scenes actually and now that I hear about the one of her working with her dad on the farm I will agree: THAT should have been left in for sure! Showing her dedication to working the land would have gone a long way to furthering her cause and character. I still felt the actress playing Lalita did a wonderful job with what she had to work with though unlike you. I never got the impression she was "uncomfortable" with her lines and she is strikingly beautiful besides so she may yet have a future in more English movies just wait!

The parents did have good chemistry and I too would have like to have seen more of them together. Mr. Kholi was a scene stealer indeed and kept me laughing--when I wasn't wincing at how awkward he was with courting Lalita and trying to act hip.

I would have liked to have seen more of Alexis Bledel playing Darcy's sister and a little of their relationship actually built up. She is barely in the movie and I think that's a shame.

2005-09-15T21:56:00.000-04:00

Ironically, one of the deleted scenes on the DVD shows Lalita working with her father on the farm. Aaaah, that explains everything, doesn't it? See what I mean that they left out half the important stuff and only kept the fluff?

Hey, I was going to mention Naveen Andrews when I got to my character discussion, so here it is: Not only are the characters themselves weakly-drawn stereotypes, the actors that play them don't do anything to even try to breathe some life into them. In one featurette, director Gurinder Chadha calls Martin Henderson "searingly handsome." I'd call him bland-looking, wooden, and even though in the featurette he sounds very intelligent, his character comes across as a moron.

This is Aishwarya Rai's first English-only movie and maybe she's a lousy actor in other languages too, but here I definitely felt like she wasn't comfortable with the lines. Bingley's snobby sister Kiran (Indira Varma) is a complete waste of time and we don't spend nearly enough time with Balraj Bingley himself. Naveen Andrews is a bright spot in this movie, as are Lalita's parents Mr. & Mrs. Bakshi (Anupam Kher & Nadira Babbar respectively), but they're not given enough to do.

One character the movie did right: Mr. Kholi (Nitin Ganatra). His scenes were hilarious.

2005-09-08T19:37:00.000-04:00

Plot/3 Characters/1 Visuals/4
Total/8

Alright, I enjoyed this more than Debbie clearly! First of all, I enjoy the plot of the original Pride and Prejudice immensely and since the movie kept very close to the original I enjoyed this ones' plot as well. I liked the twist of having the girls be traditional Indian girls from a backwater Indian town and "Bingley" and Darcy being an Anglicized Indian and an American respectively. And I have to interject here (I'm surprised you didn't mention it Debbie!) that it's really fun for a Lost fan like me to see Naveen Andrews, the always serious Sayid on the show, play a more lighthearted role where he gets to dance--and boy can he jam! Talk about a change of pace!

Was suspension of disbelief required at times? Sure but this movie doesn't take itself too seriously anyway so it's fine with me. I do agree that it would have been more satisfying if the movie had addressed the issue of the prejudice of Lalita's mother toward her getting involved with a non Indian. My only other major plot issue was how the movie wanted to portray Lalita as a strong independant woman who indignantly replies to Mr. Kholi (who is courting her and tells her he's so well off she won't have to work) that she LIKES to work--yet we never see her doing a lick of work of any kind. Or going to college--or anything close to that! All she seems to do is hang out and go to parties. It would have given her protests more credance if she'd shown some commitment to a career or education. It would also have made her character stand out more. But more about that in the next comment . . .

2005-08-31T10:24:00.000-04:00

Bride & Prejudice
Plot/1 Characters/1 Visuals/4
Total/6

Bride & Prejudice is an Indian musical version of Jane Austen's Pride & Prejudice, with the exact same plot, which is basically boy meets girl but both are too stubborn to admit that they like each other. This is a perfectly serviceable plot except for the fact that added interracial and intercontinental issues are raised but never dealt with. The "Bride" is Lalita (Aishwarya Rai), a somewhat traditional Indian girl living in a small Indian town, while the "Groom" is Darcy (Martin Henderson) a white Los Angeleno. At the beginning when Lalita's mother sees Darcy she sighs over the fact that he's not Indian, but when Darcy and Lalita fall in love this point is never touched on again. Nor do they spend a second wondering where the happy couple is going to live after they get married.

This is the essence of the problem. The movie took a fairly serious topic and plot and turned it into stuff and nonsense -- a fairy tale. But it never soars romantically. The movie is too long and every scene plods along; they feel like perfunctory plot points rather than genuine story. In fact, after watching the deleted scenes on the DVD, I'd say that the editor made a big mistake in which scenes to keep and which to discard. A subplot involving money problems with the family farm should have been kept, while Darcy's mother (who is ridiculously racist and over the top) should have been dropped.

2005-08-30T14:39:00.000-04:00

Sorry we've been away for so long. We're finally getting started again with Bride & Prejudice, but first for a bit of news. We're installing Blogger comments since we seem to be getting a lot of spam, and deleting the old comments. We're sorry if we delete something you wrote that wasn't spam. Also, we want to remind you that we have an Atom feed (http://plotkicksin.blogspot.com/atom.xml), so add us to your newsreader and you'll never miss a post again.

2005-06-30T20:55:00.000-04:00

Visually the movies was . . . actually, it's been so long since I've seen it that I can't even remember much about it, certainly not what it looked it. But, I can report that I just finished reading the book it was based on, written by Elleston Trevor, published in 1964. The book was better than the movie for a number of reasons -- first, it was far more psychological and realistic. The characters were stranded in the desert for a lot longer and had far less water. We were treated to individual portraits of people who are slowly dying of thirst but are desperate to live. Also, all of the more "exciting" elements in the movie such as the sandstorm that buried the plane at the end, or the way Elliot's (in the book Stringer's) secret comes out, or the confrontation with the arms dealers (in the book Bedouins) are far more muted or happen off-stage, so to speak, or don't even happen at all.

2005-06-15T16:53:00.000-04:00

I agree with you actually about two things: Giovanni Ribisi's character was interesting and intriguing to watch because you just knew he was going to boil over at some point but you could never quite tell when or what would really set him off. Additionally, I also enjoyed how the end credits showed the happy endings to all the characters tales (those who survived at any rate!) I don't agree that Quaid was doing an Indiana Jones imitation though! While he may have a similar voice type to Harrison Ford, something I never even noticed before, I didn't see any other similarity to him. I do have to point out one of the most fun scenes in the movie for me BTW was during the scene where they're all working on the plane busily and they've got a banging soundtrack going throughout, it really worked for me! It was even cute how they intercut that with snips of them going to the "bathroom" turning the sign around as they came and went. It showed a lot of realism--how often do you see people go to the bathroom in adventure movies?

2005-05-18T14:23:00.000-04:00

Some of the characters were interesting, some not so much. In fact, I couldn't always distinguish between some of them. But I appreciated that at least they came across more as being indistinct rather than cliched or cartoonish. Except maybe Dennis Quaid as the pilot Frank Towns. He was in full-fledged Indiana Jones mode; he even sounded like him. However, Giovanni Ribisi as Elliot the weird airplane designer with a secret is an interesting character. I liked the way he always seemed so cool, literally and metaphorically, but at the same time, so clearly was very emotionally invested in the project. It was interesting and sad the way he had to fight for respect when he really deserved it all along.

A very cute thing they did during the closing credits was showing snapshots of what happens to a bunch of the characters. This I liked. The overlong and underenlightening behind-the-scenes featurette I could have done without.

2005-05-16T18:59:00.000-04:00

Plot/3 Character/3 Visuals/3
Total/9

I really enjoyed this movie! Firstly, I just like Dennis Quaid--I can't fully explain it but there is just something so darn likeable about him to me. He has "nice" face meaning it's not that he's cute but he has an honest face and kind eyes. So even when he's playing somebody with an attitude like in this movie I still empathize with him.

Secondly it's a cool plot! I enjoyed the uniqueness of it and intelligance behind it. It is good to have a movie about people solving a problem with science and ingenuity instead of just brute force and guns blazing.I will agree with you though Debbie that the side plot with the smugglers or whatever they were was a bit farfetched and not really necessary. I think they just threw that in for the people who can't stand to have a movie without some shooting going on and to make the climax more thrilling. I think the movie could have stood on its own without this personally. I never found that it dragged or lost momentum and that's partly because while the characters weren't well developed they were still interesting and their interactions were fun to watch.

But that's for my next post.

2005-05-15T21:25:00.000-04:00

Flight of the Phoenix (2004)
Plot/2 Characters/2 Visuals/3
Total/7

Flight of the Phoenix is the story of a bunch of oil-drilling losers who are being evacuated from their drilling station in middle of nowhere Asia because they haven't found any oil and their company is pulling their funding. Shortly after take-off the plane runs into a sandstorm and is forced to make an emergency landing even further in middle of nowhere in the desert. To make matters worse, the aerial antenna broke off the plane so they can't even radio for help. It isn't possible for them to walk to the nearest city, so they attempt to build a new plane out of the old one. Along the way they encounter some hostile arms traders.

Flight is a genial enough movie. Nothing deep but nothing offensive either. There is very little plot, really, so it's surprising that it's only ten minutes shy of two hours. The building a new plane out of the old one is interesting in a McGyver-y sort of way and it's a shame they had to muddy it up with these murderous arms dealers whose motivations are pretty murky. Also, the secret that one of the characters is hiding is not really very shocking or disturbing. You somehow expect the guy to be a homicidal maniac, but it's really not anything like that.

There are enough survival elements that will interest Lost viewers.

2005-03-16T19:14:00.000-05:00

Well we can agree on one thing then at least: Orlando Bloom did play that coward scene very well. It was very hard to watch, it made me flinch and want to turn away because I felt so bad for him in his humiliation. But it is realistic because how many of us would have the stomache to just turn and face certain death really when we knew help was just behind us if we ran? Honor can go out the window when it is a choice between that and getting rammed through with a sword. So while it was not an uplifting scene it was true and sound.

2005-03-02T15:27:00.000-05:00

Yes, Hector is the true heart of this story. Who knew Eric Bana was such a good actor? Well, people who saw Chopper apparently, but I am not one of them.

I had no particular interest in Priam, though the scene were he goes to Achilles to beg for Hector's body back was pretty powerful. Nor did I like Odysseus. He was a total weenie who disliked Menelaus as much as Achilles did, only Odysseus didn't have the guts to do anything about it. In fact, he is the one who orchestrated the downfall of Troy by getting Achilles to fight and then thinking up the Trojan Horse. If anything, he is one of the villains of this story!

Achilles was not done very well, but one thing I did like about him was his conflict with Menelaus. I wished they would have fleshed that out more.

One character that they did do justice to -- though I couldn't really him like until the end -- was Paris. He truly grows and changes from a callow youth in the beginning to a responsible young defender of Troy at the end. His cowering from death after fighting Achilles was an awful scene and Orlando Bloom played it just right.

2005-02-27T17:29:00.000-05:00

Well at least we both agree Eric Bana's Hector was well portrayed! I also thought Peter O'Toole's King Priam was a sympathetic and noble character and I felt his pain as he watched his beloved city being decimated, it was hard to watch partly because of his horror and heartbreak. Did you really feel nothing for him at all? I also thought Sean Bean did a lot with the small screentime he had as Odysseus and many feel they should do The Odyssey with him starring BTW, because he showed such promise in what time he had.

In terms of Achilles and Patroclus I don't think that loving feeling had anything to do with Achilles rage. It was more of an honor type of thing, a "how dare you kill one of my kin?" situation. Achilles was so self centered and self worshipping I don't think he was really capable of truly loving another human being selflessly at all. And of course it was irrational for Achilles to get so upset at Hector since he couldn't have known it was not Achilles himself he was killing but Achilles is not a rational character either. He is a very simplistic and not particularily likeable soul: prideful to a fault, narcissistic, quick to anger, and bold to the point of recklessness. There isn't much else to him really which is why I don't blame Brad Pitt this time for poor acting because he really didn't have much to work with! He wasn't playing a complex character with many layers anyway!

I was disappointed that they didn't cast someone more exquisitely beautiful as Helen though. I felt the actress was just typical "Barbie" beautiful, nothing unusual or worth all the risks Paris took. Someone with a more atypical and exotic beauty should have been cast, I'm sure if they'd looked hard enough they could have found someone better, not necessarily a big name either.

2005-02-24T15:41:00.000-05:00

Just because I think there should have been gods in the movie, doesn't mean they had to be tongue-in-cheek the way Hercules was. If it was done seriously and well, I think it would have added a lot to the story.

I still maintain that there wasn't enough story there. For example, after Hector kills Patroclus, Achilles goes nuts and swears revenge. First of all, it wasn't Hector's fault; he couldn't have known it was Patroclus in Achilles' armor. Second of all, even though it was repeated that Achilles and Patroclus were cousins, I never once saw really deep emotion between them. There was more love between Achilles and his right hand man (whose name I can't recall, but he had beautiful eyes). We should have been shown how much Achilles loved Patroclus, not just told.

And forget character. On that point, Troy was even weaker. There was one single character I liked and cared for overall: Hector. Some of the other characters had their moments, but generally they could go jump in a lake.

2005-02-21T17:27:00.000-05:00

Plot/3 Character/2 Visuals/3
Total/8

I have to say right off what I really disagree with you on here: it is not bad that Peteresen left the gods out! If he'd left them in it would have lowered the movie to a more cheesy Hercules level. Now don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the TV show Hercules on occcassion but it was very tongue in cheek and meant to make you laugh often. It never took itself too seriously. This movie was meant to be taken seriously and show how brutal ancient battles were and how petty the reasons were for making all those men lose their lives. Cutting to scenes in Mt. Olympus of grandstanding gods would have taken away from that.

I think they did a good job of adapting the tragic story to the screen overall. They left in most of the elements I hoped to see and I didn't think it lagged too often. It was no small feat to try to summarize all the back story for those not familiar with the ancient story in the inital scenes and I think it was rather well done. Achilles' greatness was aptly illustrated from the very start and here is a good place to say I was particularly impressed with the fighting style they came up with for him. It wasn't like any style I'd ever quite seen before and I watched the extra about how they developed it wherein they explained it was a combination of different types of fighting styles in fact so that explains it. I am not a big Brad Pitt fan but I must say he seems to have mastered the forms well and he does look pretty darn lethal and scary coming at his opponents swishing his shield about at lightning speed!

Character wise I have some major issues however . . .

2005-02-13T12:58:00.000-05:00

Troy
Plot/1 Characters/2 Visuals/2
Total/5

Normally you'd say that a story is either plot driven or character driven. In Troy's case it's practically neither -- it's more like lots and lots of bloody battles punctuated by tedious dialogue.

All right, I'm exaggerating a little, but Troy doesn't have a strong storyline, despite being "inspired by" (as the credits say) by Homer's Iliad. Really, it's just the bare bones story of the Iliad -- Menelaus's wife Helen goes off with Paris, and he enlists his brother Agememnon to help get her back, but their quest morphs into a battle to take over Troy. Along the way there's some in-fighting, some falling in love, some noble speeches. But overall it's just a series of events that are more coincidental than inevitable.

The events are also a little too realistic and not quite mythical. Though the gods are frequently evoked, and Achilles is a half-god, we never see the gods nor does Achilles seem like much more than a man. Director Wolfgang Peterson took out all the literal god stuff because he thought it was silly, and that was a huge mistake. Seeing the gods sitting on high manipulating the events could have lifted Troy above other typical sword and costume epics.

2005-01-23T20:07:00.000-05:00

The problem with talking about junk food and school lunches is that it had nothing to do with his main thesis which was that McDonald's specifically is what is making America fat. But I suppose he was just engaging in a hyperbolic straw-man hypothesis when what he really meant was that unhealthy foods in great commodities are making Americans fat. Except that is hardly a revolutionary or exciting idea. It's much more interesting to see a guy taking potshots at a huge corporation with deep pockets and a friendly face (i.e., Ronald McDonald), who must be hiding something more sinister.

In terms of being informative, I'm going to have to reiterate that I learned next to nothing. In fact, most of the "facts" that Spurlock presented in the guise of man-on-the-street interviews, proved exactly the opposite of what he was trying to show. First there was the fat French woman who said she never ate at McDonald's in France, then there were the two black kids who said they ate at McDonald's all the time but always exercised and that's how they stayed thin, the bit on the guy who lost a ton of weight by eating at Subway, the guy who ate nothing but McDonald's burgers for decades and was really thin (this may give some credence to the Atkin's diet, though I chalk it up to this guy's particularly odd metabolism. And notice that his kid was on the chubby side. Also, did you notice that his wife was a nurse?)

You know what also bothered me? The experiment itself of eating nothing but McDonald's for a month. I don't think it was done very honestly. First of all, there was one week where Spurlock actually lost two pounds. They wanted to chalk it up to muscle loss, but frankly, it's not a credible explanation. Other weeks he gained approximately ten pounds. Even if he lost a couple of muscle pounds (not that I could believe that, like I also said before, Spurlock didn't strike me as being particularly muscular), then he should have gained only six pounds, not lost two. What they should have done was a body fat composition test every week. Notice that either they didn't do it, or they chose not to tell us what his scores were.

Second of all, all of his lab test scores kept going up until the fourth week, when they either went down or evened out. I think this proves that this type of eating was a shock to his system and naturally caused his numbers to go up, but he had stuck with it for a while longer, the numbers would have evened out and he would not have eaten himself to death, the way the doctors predicted.

2005-01-18T17:16:00.000-05:00

Firstly, I don't recall any interview with a guy named Schlosser and I did watch deletedd stuff. But it's so typical that you'd see gayness there, you always see "gay sexual tension" and sexual symbolism where I did not in general (i.e., Merry commenting about his sword to Eoywn).

Secondly, while the parts about school lunches weren't directly about McDonalds I still thought they were interesting and well done and fit with the general theme of how unhealthfully Americans eat. If the whole thing had ONLY been about him eating McDonalds non stop it would have got pretty old pretty fast. I think it was good he chose to intersperse it with other tidbits about obesity in America.

As for the cameraman I am not very learned in these things. I didn't find the camera work to be dizzying or out of focus so as far as I was concerned it was fine. You know more about the workings of such things so you tend to be more picky than me.

2005-01-12T22:05:00.000-05:00

Sure, Morgan Spurlock is a funny guy and the graphics are neat, but the guy wrote it, starred in, and directed it, and he's no Woody Allen. His directing skills are poor, his cameraperson didn't seem to have much of a natural eye, and the editing was slack. I was far more interested and engrossed in the five deleted scenes than I was in the doc itself. (Did you watch that interview between Spurlock and the author Eric Schlosser? That was so gay. The two of them were just fighting a massive attraction to each other.)

But Spurlock's girlfriend? I thought she was awful. She added nothing to the movie, and I cringed when she talked about their love life. Talk about Too Much Information.

Other things that were irrelevant and boring: the stuff about school lunches and school fitness programs. They absolutely did nothing to bolster the case that it's McDonald's specifically that is making Americans fat.

And what was completely missing was any proof that Spurlock's claim is true. Not scientific proof in the form of a study, or anecdotal proof in the form of even one person who was fat and said that they ate at McDonald's all the time. In fact, if you watched the deleted scene about Overeaters Anonymous, it was clear that these were unhappy people who ate to make themselves feel better. They never once mentioned McDonald's.

As for saying that he must have hit a nerve because McDonald's has changed their menu to make it more healthful, I say: don't believe it. I think the McDonald's executives are just afraid that this movie will prompt more lawsuits -- successful ones the next time around.

2005-01-07T15:59:00.000-05:00

Interesting/4 Informative/2 Visual/3
Total/9

I clearly found this documentary to be far more entertaining than Debbie! I never once glanced at my clock wondering if it was going to be over soon. Part of the reason why it worked so well for me was because the subject/doc. maker is a pretty amusing guy. He has a sense of humor about what he is doing and that's good because really, it is over the top to eat nothing but McDonalds every day for a month and supersize whenever asked. (yes, that's a rule he makes for himself, that whenever asked by the cashier if he wants it supersized he has to say yes) I often found myself chuckling over his wry comments or the graphics used for example. He even has his girlfriend on camera at times making comments about the situation and she is adorable and funny too being that she is a super healthy vegan chef and is repulsed by his new eating habit needless to say!

In terms of informative I must say I knew a good deal about the health effects already being that I'm a nurse and also pretty well read on current events related to health. But there were interesting tidbits and trivia in there that made me sit up and say "Hmmm." One example of this would be that Texas has some of the cities with the highest percentages of obese adults in it. I'd never have guessed that Texas would be such an obese state honestly. I don't know exactly why but maybe because I would think more urban states would be more sedentary and thus heavier. But he actually informs us that New Yorkers walk A LOT more than the average person thus making us more active! So my preconceived notions about this were washed away.

Ultimately, I think the proof that this doc was well done and powerful is that McDonalds has since abolished the Supersize option and added more healthful things to the menu. While they deny it had anything to do with this doc. that really doesn't wash. He definitely hit a nerve!

2005-01-06T19:34:00.000-05:00

Super Size Me
Interesting/2 Informative/2 Visual/3
Total/7

Since this movie is a documentary, we couldn't very well rate it on how good its plot and characters are. Instead we've come up with three different categories which are fairly self-explanatory, but I'll go ahead and explain them anyway.

Interesting -- did it hold my attention?
Informative -- did it tell me anything I didn't know already?
Visual -- was it more than just talking heads?

Super Size Me is the "story" of a man's attempt to prove that McDonald's is unhealthy by going on a one-month McDonald's-only diet. We watch him as he goes from a super-fit guy (at least according to the medical tests. To me he looked a little flabby) to a fat, unhealthy one (again, according to the tests. At the end he may have gained 35 pounds but it was barely noticeable; the guy is over six feet, after all).

Overall I was not impressed with this documentary at all. Sure it may be based on a mostly original idea, and it's a great visual stunt, but overall it's more sound than fury. More sizzle than steak. And, oh yeah, it was kind of dull. Despite its flashy graphics and pop songs, I found myself looking at the clock every fifteen minutes or so wondering if the month was over yet (for him and for me).

2005-01-01T19:12:00.000-05:00

Hi! Sorry for the hiatus. Havivah and I plan to come back soon. For now, may I present my favorite movies of 2004:

Antitrust
G. I. Jane
Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone
Whale Rider
Collateral

2004-09-02T09:51:00.000-04:00

Sorry, we're on another hiatus because Havivah's life is all up in a heaval. My life, as usual, is boring.

2004-08-16T22:14:00.000-04:00

Well Debbie, it's nice to see you are granting me my point about the upbeat endings! But I really am wondering as a related sidepoint what other teen movies have downer endings? Anybody?

As for visuals, definitely rock video based often and it actually worked for me. I found it fitting for the feel of the movie. The schtick I particularily enjoyed was at the start of the film as they introduce each characte and they freeze frame them for a moment and a printout comes up stating their class rank and their PSAT score possibly as well. That gave me a good chuckle, very cute! All in all, I found this movie a fun way to pass an hour and a half. It didn't take itself too seriously and as long as you don't either it is enjoyable and has some other well done funny moments as well.

2004-08-11T19:30:00.000-04:00

You're right, Havivah, about how the endings of these movies are usually upbeat. I don't know what possessed me to think that this one would be any different; it doesn't really subvert the genre in any other part of it. And the fact that Heathers doesn't end that way is only part of what makes it such a brilliant movie.

The visuals were actually kind of interesting at times. They way it kind of flashed into the character's memories or fantasies or into rock video mode, I'll certainly its visuals a tiny bit of credit. But overall it wasn't much to look at. In the making-of featurette the director admitted that this was a talky movie, and he was right -- there's more to listen to than to look at, and as I've said before, the boys in this movie were not much to look at. I'd've rather even looked at Freddy Prinze Jr., but I guess he's too old now to play a teenager.

2004-08-05T07:53:00.000-04:00

Well, it is a given that any teen movie about a group of very different teens coming together will inevitably be compared to The Breakfast Club. However, it doesn't mean that all the characters have to be knock offs of the characters in that movie and I disagree with you here about that being the case really. Scarlett Johanssen's character may be rich and have red hair but she is no girlie girl like Ringwald's character was by a long shot! She is a tough and angry chick with her own website to vent about issues that bother her. She wouldn't even be friends with Ringwald's character if they went to the same school, she'd probably despise her!

I liked that the jock character turns out to NOT actually be dumb at all, in fact he is a math whiz! It was a pleasant surprise that it was just that he was weak in verbal like many males are. I also like that the Asian character isn't a braniac nerd at all. It is very against type to have the Asian (who are hardly in teen movies to begin with as main characters, I'll bet!) be the stoner one and provide the funniest moments. He was completely NOT a cliche! And while it was a bit sappy and predictable that he'd reform somewhat by the end I liked how they got him to clean up his act.

As for Christensen--who I thought from day one looked like Julia Stile's younger sister---this certainly isn't her most amazing role (anyone who saw Traffic knows what she is really capable of!) but she made the best of what was probably the blandest role of all the teens. What I hated with her character was actually the end part: how she suddenly starts dressing like a "slut" (how Johanssen's character puts it, I dislike the word myself, but that's how the movie describes it). I understand her main problem has been being a pushover and letting her parents run all aspects of her life and plan her future, but why does overcoming this mean she has to change her way of dressing? It'd be one thing if she had been forced to wear plaid skirts and frilly blouses, but she was just dressing like a normal teen before so why rebel against that part? This irritated me and the message it sent also did.

You do make a valid point about the end of the movie, Debbie, and how they really can't be walking away with clear consciences completely. I hadn't really thought about that and it is relevant but it would have interfered with the feel-good ending they wanted to provide so I understand why they glossed over that fact. I hear your gripe about the end being too sweet and moral but from what I can tell MOST teen movies end with ridiculously happy and wonderful endings that don't usually happen in real life. (like that Julia Stiles movie we did for example or Never Been Kissed--boy gets girl and all is well) I can only think of one teen movie with a NOT at all happy ending--Heathers--and that is warped through and through! Even Breakfast Club has a pretty upbeat ending with the rich girl hooking up with the rebel "surprisingly" and everybody learns something about the other crowd.

2004-08-02T22:31:00.000-04:00

This is the third teen movie that you and I have reviewed -- if you consider Never Been Kissed a teen movie and I'm not so sure that I do -- but if you do, then so far you've liked two out of the three of them more than I did. Therefore we ought to do more research, review another teen movie in a month of so.

BTW, I thought the Dawson and Pacey comment was cute but totally pointless. That show was over like three years ago. Get with the times, people.

Anyway, the characters. Totally uninteresting rip-offs of the Breakfast Club characters, right down to the spoiled rich girl with the red hair (a slumming Scarlett Johansson). Erika Christensen who played the brainy girl was a poor man's J. S. (I'll let you say who, since you're the one who noticed it first). The basketball player (Darius Miles who actually is a professional basketball player in real life) was nothing. Our heroes, Kyle and Matty (Chris Evans and Bryan Greenberg, respectively) were boring and completely not cute. (Doesn't the name Chris Evans make you think of Chris Evert?)

The only character I liked was Roy (Leonardo Nam). He was funny and cooky and weird, and had the rest of the movie had his sense of humor I might have liked it. But the rest of it was just so earnest and bland.

Back to the plot for just a moment. SPOILER alert! The ending deserves a mention. At the very last moment the writers decided that they couldn't actually follow through with the stuff they were spouting in the rest of the movie about how biased and unfair the SATs are, so they couldn't possibly have our group cheat and get great scores and live happily ever after, thereby subverting the system. Oh no, they had to have them realize they actually have consciences after all and make the moral of the story not beating the system, but finding yourself and having fun too, and it'll all work out in the end anyhow. Very nice, sweet lesson for kids out there that they shouldn't cheat. But guess what, idiots? Even though they didn't sit and memorize the answers, they still had the questions in the advance and they worked them on a committee basis -- which meant they were still cheaters! They do not deserve to walk away with clear consciences.

2004-07-28T18:14:00.000-04:00

Plot/2 Character/3 Visuals/2
Total/7

I am surprised at how much you disliked this movie, Debbie! Usually you're the one who is more into these teen movies and I'm reluctantly dragged along for the ride. This time I actually enjoyed this one a good bit. It was an interesting idea for a plot--though not the most attractive of ideas, admittedly, in terms of role modeling and such. It was also quite funny at times and I enjoyed how it poked fun at some other teen movies/TV shows conventionalities. (my personal fave is when Scarlett Johansson's character says to the two guys instigating the plot and trying to recruit her, "Well, gee, Dawson, maybe I don't think you and Pacey can pull this off," or something like that--cute and her delivery is great!)

I didn't find it boring at all, I thought the conversation scenes had witty and fast paced dialogue for the most part. Sure, some of the plot called for far fetched coincidences (one being that Scarlett's character has a rich dad who OWNS the building the SAT's are lodged in--HUGE piece of luck!) and this is why I don't rate it the highest on plot. It does have some unreality to it after all--but then again so did all the other teen movies you made me sit through!

What also made this work for me was the characters but I'll save that for the next post.

2004-07-25T19:54:00.000-04:00

The Perfect Score
Plot/1 Character/1 Visuals/2
Total/4

By coincidence, we're doing two Scarlett Johansson movies back to back but they are not comparable except in that neither one of them was particularly good. The Perfect Score happens to be worse.

It's the story of six teenagers who can't figure out any other way to ace the SAT than to steal the answers. So one night (the night before the test -- brilliant, you idiots), they go to the SAT headquarters and try to do just that. Naturally they botch it and live happily ever after.

No, seriously, there was basically no plot. Whenever the characters weren't talking about the heist they were blathering about nothing in particular in a very boring, unoriginal kind of way. The heist itself is not really exciting either.

I usually complain how long movies are. This time I'm going to complain that despite the fact that it was only an hour and a half, it felt like it was three hours.

This is easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen. But that's only obvious to a grown-up. Teenagers, presumably who (a) don't know any better because they're too young to have seen decent teen movies*; (b) can relate to the topic, will probably like it.

*I was in Blockbuster renting this thing and a boy of about eight years old and his mother were looking for movies and video games to rent. At one point the kid asked the mother who Indiana Jones is. You see what this world is coming to?

2004-07-12T19:55:00.000-04:00

Plot Kicks In is now on temporary hiatus since Havivah just had a baby girl. Congratulations!!

2004-06-20T17:08:00.000-04:00

I think the press just likes Bill Murray. They have since he was in Rushmore. It's typical for them to start gushing over comic actors who take serious roles.

2004-06-12T22:01:00.000-04:00

Right, all the scenes related to her trip to the temple were beautifully shot! I particularily liked the shot of her skipping on the stones through the stream, very whimsical. It's too bad most of the scenes Coppola chooses to linger on are of the crowded city streets and clubs. Those were not at all eye catching to me and after awhile just became tedious--though maybe that was her intention? To convey how the site of it everyday had worn on Charlotte's nerves? Well, it just makes me think even more what a shame it is that the characters don't try to travel more and appreciate more of what Japan has to offer. I can see why the Japanese would be offended by the movie frankly since for the most part it focuses on the less savory parts of their culture and the characters have a negative reaction toward it besides. This movie had potential to be so much more, it's a shame what she ended up with ultimately I feel.

Of course, the critics seem to think it is just peachy the way it is!

2004-06-07T21:04:00.000-04:00

Yes, I'll have to agree with what you said at the end. The bits at the temple, the traditional wedding, in the garden, tying the bits of material to the tree, those were all lovely scenes. Shot very differently than most of the rest of the movie and when Charlotte said that she didn't feel anything when she went to the temple it made me think even more what a moron she is. First of all, just because it's someone's religion (Buddhism? Shintoism? I don't know what kind of temple it was), doesn't mean that it has to be yours and that you have to "feel" something inside. But not to appreciate the peace and tranquility away from the hubbub of the city means that she really wasn't paying any attention to what was going on around her.

Yet I did also like some of the chaos of the city scenes, particularly one of the clubs where they went dancing. There were balls of some sort hanging from the ceiling and bursts of fireworks were bouncing off them. That was beautiful too in its own way.

Of course there were some off-putting parts like the talk show with that freaky guy wearing the yellow suit. It was like an unpleasant acid trip.

2004-06-03T20:29:00.000-04:00

Look Debbie, it seems pretty clear to me there is NO earthly good reason for Bob to be acting so woeful about his life. Unless he's got some terminal cancer (in which case that should have been made part of the plot--THAT I could sympathize with) he really has zippo to be so down about. If he's that lonely then he should stop taking such long trips around the world and forgo the millions he makes doing it. His wife cares about the carpet so because they clearly have grown apart emotionally but his going off all the time doesn't help their marriage. If he really wants to work on his marriage they could get counseling etc. because as I said before it is never indicated that anything is so terribly off in their marriage that it can't be saved. But going away and sleeping with lounge singers sure isn't helping!

BTW, good point about why they have such young kids if they've been married for 20-something years! They really should have teens by now.

I also do agree with you that Charlotte clearly doesn't use her ample amounts of spare time wisely for the most part. It is implied that she is intelligant and yet more often than not she isn't really exercising her mind at all. This just makes me more annoyed with her character. When a movie doesn't have much of a plot or action it is REALLY important to at least have good characters the viewer can empathize with and find likeable and because the two main characters here come off so badly to me it is ultimately why the movie really failed to win me over.

I DID find some of the scenes beatifully filmed at least but I'll save that for next time.

2004-06-02T18:50:00.000-04:00

I absolutely did not sympathize with Charlotte at all. She went along with her husband on what she knew was a business trip, which means she knew that he would be working and not spending time with her. I think her husband, John (a small role played by Giovanni Ribisi), does the best he can to pay attention to Charlotte, but he's legitimately busy. And Charlotte came along with him because, as she said, she had nothing better to do with herself. As a young woman with a good education, she should have found something to do with herself back home and in Japan. We see her listening vaguely to self-improvement tapes; why doesn't she read tour guides to better appreciate the temples and gardens she goes to see? Why doesn't she read a book of fiction or philosophy? Her self-indulgent sitting around and staring out the window is the mark of someone with not much floating around in her brain even if she does know that Evelyn Waugh was a man.

Not that I sympathized with Bob, either. Even though I wouldn't characterize his family situation as dysfunctional, it's clear that his wife cares more about the carpeting in the study than about Bob's mental state. We don't really know much about Bob except that he's a washed-up movie star and has a couple of young children (which doesn't make sense if the couple's been married twenty-five years, but hey, who's counting?), and we mostly see him reacting to situations. We don't really know why he's acting so blah. Is it a mid-life crisis, as Charlotte suggests? Is he lonely? Depressed? Feeling regretful over the life he could have had?

This is basically a grown-up version of all those shows on television about teenage angst. None of these people have much to be down about, which is why we can enjoy movies or television shows like these; it's not much fun watching the legitimate depression of a person who has nothing to eat or nowhere to live.

2004-06-01T10:04:00.000-04:00

Plot/2 Character/1 Visuals/3
Total/6

This is one of the movies we've done I've really rated low. I knew going in it wouldn't be my type of movie first of all but I tried to view it with an open mind. However, I have zero interest in Japanese culture unlike Debbie so that didn't hold my attention (though as Debbie pointed out the parts of the culture shown were the most bizarre elements anyway usually, not the more mainstream) and the plot was incredibly slow moving! I suppose Coppola was aiming for that pace and sometimes maybe it can work but it was just TOO slow, I found myself getting really impatient sometimes with how long it took the camera to pan over a scene! (Usually of the Tokyo skyline which isn't all that beautiful frankly.)

In theory the plot could have been more engaging I think but a big part of why it just failed with me ultimately was because the two main characters were just not people I could empathize with much. Charlotte comes off as very whiney and jaded most of the time though I could feel for her a little since her husband really wasn't connecting with her at all and was completely wrapped up in his work. But Harris particularily annoyed me because he just seemed to want to wallow in his misery. And he seemed to me to have little to really be miserable about! He has a wife and two kids who seem to be normal, not dysfunctional or who hate him. He has grown distant from his wife but he admits they used to have fun together, etc., so it's not like he has had a terrible domestic situation. He has enjoyed successes and continues to have opportunities to make good money. And yet he seems to like to see himself as some very tragic character. Please! Cry me a river!

And Debbie, at least Charlotte IS shown making attempts to see some sites of Japan like the beautiful temple scene. Harris however never tries anything unless prompted by her. He really is a big stick in the mud.

2004-05-23T00:15:00.000-04:00

Apparently they hate this movie in Japan because of the way that pretty much all the Japanese people and situations are totally cliched and mostly insulting. I don't blame them for not realizing that this is deliberate; the effect is "lost in translation" to them.

2004-05-09T16:47:00.000-04:00

Lost in Translation
Plot/2 Characters/2 Visuals/3
Total/7

When this movie first came out, despite my interest in Japan and Japanese culture, I had no interest in seeing it. Then, after the Academy Awards, when I found out that Sofia Coppola become only the second woman ever to be nominated for Best Director, I got interested. And now I've seen it. Honestly, I'm not sure what I think about it. It's a small, quiet movie that's certainly different than the typical slick, Hollywood fare, but I'm not so sure it adds up to much.

The story is, well, there's not much plot here. It's the story of two Americans (Bill Murray as aging movie star Bob Harris; Scarlett Johansson as the newlywed Charlotte) in Tokyo who are staying at the same hotel. They are both married but their spouses are absent. They are lonely and jet-lagged, so one night they strike up a friendship that teeters on the edge of an adulterous romance.

Like I said, there's not much plot. Not much happens besides for Bob and Charlotte hanging out, and Bob going on various advertising and publicity shoots. This is where most of the humor comes in, that they encounter only the wackiest parts of Japanese culture, which, in retrospect is symbolic of their alienation. But overall I thought it was ridiculous that two people could go all the way around the world and not make any effort to see the important cultural and historical sites. So basically, this was a total waste of a trip. And in some ways, a waste of a movie.

2004-05-04T09:21:00.000-04:00

Well the rest of the movie is supposed to be a fast paced action/adventure so the cinematography HAD to change I think! Filming the rest of it in such a haunting way wouldn't have been appropriate. But yes, there were some lovely shots of the majestic desert that I was impressed by. And the scenes of galloping horses, particularily from the very end of the movie are really beautiful and uplifting, especially if you are someone who appreciates equine grace.

2004-04-21T18:56:00.000-04:00

The beginning of the movie is a sort of hallucinatory version of what happened at Wounded Knee. The cinematography was really striking, all blues and dark colors and white bits fluttering around everyone. It was very haunting. Then the rest of the movie is completely different, nothing nearly as striking, though there are some interesting long shots of the shimmering desert. Yet overall it had a fairly standard look to it. It's too bad that they didn't put the same effort into the cinematography of the rest of the movie as they did with the first few minutes.

2004-04-20T18:06:00.000-04:00

Oh here's one thing we both wholeheartedly agree on! I also found that scene where he almost had to kill Hidalgo very heartwrenching and was VERY relieved when he didn't have to in the end! I think the movie does a good job in general of showing the very strong and important connection between every horse and rider in the race. I really felt for another nameless rider when he had to kill his horse because of some bad injury.

Omar Shariff's character was a very interesting combination of new and old. I like how he is so fascinated by Hopkin's gun due to his overall fascination with the old West. The daughter was a good character too and one thing I appreciated was that the scriptwriters didn't give in to the Hollywood cliche and have her and Hopkins sleep together and run off. I like that she remained true to her culture and ways and said goodbye to him. Much more powerful statement to me!

2004-04-04T15:47:00.000-04:00

I did like the movie, don't get me wrong, but even at the time I thought the plot was weak; the script needed a crueler editor. Though I didn't mind not knowing much about Hopkins's Indian heritage. He himself was trying to hide it and he seemed to have been doing a fairly good job of it, so I think it would have been a little weird for us to see what Hopkins was trying to repress.

But what redeemed it were the mostly interesting characters and relationships. I'll agree that some of the Arabs were cliched and interchangeable, but I liked Hopkins's cheerfulness and willingness to use violence to defend his friends. I liked Sheikh Riyadh's (Omar Sharif) dignity and traditionalness mixed with his proto-feminism in allowing his daughter to go riding and his reading of penny dreadfuls. And on top of all that, the horse that played Hidalgo. Notice how I know that horse "actor's" name (T.J.) and not the horse's that played Seabiscuit. I can't recall Seabiscuit ever doing much, while Hidalgo "talked" to Hopkins, acted convincingly like he had a limp, and had a sense of humor. Hopkins's nearly killing Hidalgo was one of the most moving scenes in the movie.

2004-04-03T21:48:00.000-05:00

Plot/3 Character/3 Visuals/3
Total/9

Debbie, you sound pretty down on it now but you certainly didn't seem so when we saw it! Personally, I think the plot is pretty intriguing and not having ever seen Laurence of Arabia or having much interest in seeing it, I can't complain it wasn't original either. What we do agree on is that it is VERY different from Seabiscuit ultimately! One major difference I have to mention up front is that here the horse really IS a character with a very well conveyed personality. This horse can ACT! Many people I spoke to afterwards agreed on this. When he had his close ups he really showed emotion! In Seabiscuit the horse doesn't get much face time except when racing.

I found the idea of a Western cowboy having to adjust to Middle Eastern culture a very good basis for a movie and it was handled well. While some of the Arabs were portrayed in the cliched way others were more fleshed out and it was interesting to see how they related to Viggo's character. My only real objection is how little we knew about his character's own half Indian heritage throughout the whole first part of the movie, it was kept hidden too much I think, especially considering how important it is for his survival at the end.

2004-03-29T19:55:00.000-05:00

Hidalgo
Plot/2 Characters/3 Visuals/3
Total/8

Hidalgo is the story of long-distance rider Frank Hopkins (Viggo Mortensen) and his horse Hidalgo (T.J.). Hopkins is a half-Indian who feels tremendous guilt over the fact that he delivered the dispatch that caused the massacre at Wounded Knee. He is challenged to the greatest long distance race ever in the Arabian desert called the Ocean of Fire. There Hopkins and Hidalgo face obstacles -- human, natural, and emotional -- and have to draw upon each other's strenghts to win the race.

We did not choose Hidalgo because it is a horserace story like Seabiscuit or because it has a man with a troubled past like Seabiscuit. In fact, even though the movies share those two basic plots, they treat them in such completely different ways that they aren't remotely comparable. (People also compare Hidalgo to The Last Samurai but I haven't seen that, so I can't comment.)

The bare bones of the plot of Hidalgo is perfectly serviceable, if a bit overstuffed with far too many human enemies and schemes. It's a long movie that should have been shorter. But it's in the details that it really falters. I don't think there was a single thing in Hidalgo that also didn't happen in Lawrence of Arabia. But Lawrence of Arabia is forty years old, so I guess Hidalgo can get away with some of its lack of originality.

(P.S. The above pic is from the L.A. premiere of Hidalgo; I couldn't find any from the movie that I liked.)

2004-03-28T21:13:00.000-05:00

Well I was very impressed by the way the movie was filmed, especially the racing scenes! I am not a huge racetrack fan by any means but I found the scenes very engrossing and exciting. It was loads of fun seeing on the extras the apparatus they used to make it look like Toby was actually in the race himself. This is one of those times where we really come out on unalterably opposite sides of a movie. You don't appreciate this movie nearly as much as it deserves in my opinion!

2004-03-27T20:26:00.000-05:00

Honestly, by now I don't remember what I thought about the visuals of the movie. Clearly they did not make a lasting impression. I do recall that the colors and lighting were very clean and crisp. Almost antiseptic. Hmm, that could at least partly explain why why I didn't cotton much to the movie.

2004-03-22T20:31:00.000-05:00

Well I 'm glad at least you acknowledge Chris Cooper's excellent job as the horse trainer. I absolutely adored his character because of his gentle way of talking and slow, deliberate mannerisms. He had a real understated charm. I also liked Charles Howard but I do agree his wife was never really fleshed out and left to be a prop mostly which was disappointing since it's nice to have one strong female lead generally but what can you do? Tobey Maguire was my least favorite of the three male leads but I don't feel he was "blank". I think he had the right look for the part--he just looked like he stepped out of an old photograph somehow. I think his part of the story was just the hardest to follow somehow and that left his character a bit undefined.

I disagree with you overall when you say Ross neglected the people ultimately. The movie works for me because the characters did come alive and the relationships seemed real to me. Character is always very important to me, in books and movies, and the ones I really love have vibrant characters that are believeable and Seabiscuit has two fully developed ones and Tobey's character is a good partial at least. I think if they'd given a bit more time to the father-son relationship that developed between him and Howard that would have done the trick actually.

One other thing we do agree on though: I also found the DVD extras to be very engrossing and interesting.

2004-02-29T10:29:00.000-05:00

Yes, you never know what's going to happen next because the script is so weak; there's no clear progression where this story is going; it seems to just meanders from incident to incident.
*
The cast was mainly uninteresting. I didn't care about Charles Howard and I cared even less for his wife, Marcela (Elizabeth Banks, who had little to do but smile and hug her husband). Tobey Maguire felt oddly blank, like there was nothing going on behind his eyes and I never really believed that he was a tough guy. The only person who I did like was Chris Cooper as Tom Smith. His understated confidence as a horse ~~whisperer~~ trainer made me wish that he would have been the true focus of the movie. Even Seabiscuit the horse wasn't all that interesting. The only time I even remotely liked the horse was at the beginning when they were talking about how lazy he was and how much he liked lolling about in the sun.

But I'm not entirely sure that my disinterest in the characters was entirely the fault of the actors. It was also the fault of the script which was poorly written and the fault of the director. If you watch the much more fascinating documentary extras on the DVD, you'll see how carefully director Gary Ross worked on the details of the different shots. Seems like he neglected the most important part: the people.

2004-02-24T20:28:00.000-05:00

Plot/3 Character/4 Visuals/4
Total/11

I really loved this movie! In general I have always had a soft spot for "horse and his boy/girl" movies of course (loved The Black Stallion growing up) but this one was particularily special to me in a few ways. First of all I had no problem with a little background being interjected. I didn't find it cheap and I think that in this day and age when so many in the general public have poor knowledge of American History it was really essential.

I never found that the plot was slow moving either. I can think of only one scene I would have cut completely and that's pretty good considering the length of this movie that you pointed out. However, Macy's radio announcer was a great addition, he was fun and very much captured the sound of announcers of that period. It was great to see how all the sound effects were produced by he himself or his assistant--what a contrast to today where it's all recorded or computer generated noises!

Furthermore, I think that there was plenty of doubt to spare and not everything was predictable. When Red gets injured right before the big race you would expect he'd pull a remarkable doctor defying recovery and race himself. But in fact, he does NOT. This great victory is left to a rival of his (however courteous a rival he may be) to complete. Once that happened I felt unsure as to what might happen next in general because in a standard feel good movie that turn of events would not have occurred.

Another huge part of why this movie was so moving was the characters and the casting of course in relation to this, but I'll leave that for next posting.

2004-02-23T19:42:00.000-05:00

Seabiscuit
Plot/2 Characters/2 Visuals/2
Total/6

Seabiscuit is the story of . . . hmm, I'm not entirely sure what it's the story of. But what happens in it is that there's a man named Charles Howard (Jeff Bridges) whose son dies. He and his wife get divorced, he gets remarried, then he and his wife decide to buy a racehorse. They meet up with horse trainer extraordinaire Tom Smith (Chris Cooper) who helps them to buy and train Seabiscuit, a horse that nobody expected would do anything. With the blind-in-one-eye jockey Red Pollard (Tobey Maguire), Seabiscuit goes on to become one of the most winningest, popularest horses of his time.

The biggest problem with the story was that although ostensibly the arc was the little horse that could, there was no tension to the story. There were no moments where you actually worried that Seabiscuit couldn't. The movie felt more like a series of connected moments without any force driving them forward. I think even the filmmaker realized this which is why he introduced a fast talking radio announcer (William H. Macy) to basically narrate the movie and tell you how exciting it is.

I also didn't like the way bits in the beginning were like excerpts from someone else's documentary about the Depression. It was pure lazy not to have all this information come out in the characters' lives and dialogue rather than cheating this way. Though this was a time saver, since at two hours and twenty mostly dull minutes, thank goodness Seabiscuit wasn't a minute longer.

2004-02-22T17:03:00.000-05:00

Just to let everyone know, I posed the question about any sexual innuendo undertones to the Merry/Eowyn scene to my LOTR group and got many vehemant 'NO!"s back. However a number of people felt that there could be something in the scene where Aragorn hefts up his reforged sword that Elrond brings him for the very first time. Yes, swords can be phallic symbols and with Aragorn apparently people's minds go there. But with Merry and Eowyn as one person said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Nobody saw it as anything more as a big sister/little brother type of moment.

2004-02-20T13:40:00.000-05:00

I don't think that anyone will argue that swords are phallic symbols therefore even if people disagree with my interpretation of the Merry/Eowyn scene, I don't think you can say that it's utterly impossible and out of left field.

2004-02-11T19:55:00.000-05:00

Okay finally one thing I agree with you on: Aragorn's hair DOES indeed look bad pulled back like that in the final battle scene! I also wondered what they were thinking. However I did not find the Pippin and palantir scene to be gimmicky or overdone. The only problem I had with that scene is how long it takes for Gandalf to wake up and react. After all it's not as if Pippin and Merry are all that quiet and one would expect a wizard in particular to wake up quickly from all that noise, especially in midst of battle conditions when he should be sleeping lightly.

Regarding the Merry/Eowyn scene I am going to post this question at the Partisan site I belong to and see how many people agree with you and how many are just shocked by your reading.

2004-02-08T15:31:00.000-05:00

Believe me, I've seen enough war movies where a guy dies in his buddy's arms and it doesn't seem gay at all. I think the problem is the actors were like living together for three or four years and they got really close and it shows a bit too much. But ROTK also showed how hard this was on everybody, PJ especially because I thought the directing was the weakest in this movie. Sometimes I even wondered if it was PJ at all. The worst example of it was when Pippin found that big black marble thingy and it starts to burn him and time starts going all slow and I'm like, that is such a gimmick. Sad that PJ felt he had to resort to cheap tricks like to make the moment more suspenseful. Also, the hair and makeup people are to blame in that Aragorn looked ridiculous with his hair pulled back as he rode out to the final battle. What was going on there? I hardly think that Aragorn is the type of person to even think about doing up his hair.

Regarding the scene between Merry and Eowyn, I just think you and whoever you spoke to are simply naive, that's all. Even though they saying is "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," in this post-Clintonian era, a cigar is never just a cigar no matter how much you wish it would be. Come on, who's with me on this!?

2004-02-04T19:28:00.000-05:00

Good grief, Debbie! I cannot believe how many inflammatory things you just posted! Firstly, that scene where Gollum frames Sam is one of my least favorites! It's NOT from the book--which doesn't automatically make it bad BTW, but in this case I was disappointed in PJ. I found this too out of character for a. Gollum--he wasn't THAT smart or manipulative! and b. Frodo-would not have actually sent Sam away and c. most importantly Sam would NEVER have actually left! He might've followed behind quietly but he would NEVER abandon Frodo to Gollum no matter what! He knew how untrustworthy Gollum was and how Frodo's life was at risk if he left him alone with him. So typical that you would like this a lot when I can't stand it.

Next annoying thing is you saying Merry and Pippin are gay! Good grief. If you found me lying wounded on a battle field I would hope you'd pick me up and huge me and comfort me too, bozo! That's not gay, it's being a loving, worried friend. And look who is being dirty minded now--I can't believe you are reading sexual subcontext into the scene between Merry and Eowyn! Not ONE person I have discussed this movie with mentioned this idea occurring to them and I have discussed it with a number of people! You are way off the mark here and more in the minority than usual. How can you watch a very sweet scene like that and go there? Shame, shame. (:

And finally, it is quite clear that Denethor was NOT doing a good job ruling at all at the end. So even if he had lived I doubt he would have found many supporters who would have been wiling to fight with him. And while there is no doubt Faramir would have made a good Steward Faramir had no interest in contesting Aragorn's claim to the throne. He was not a power hungry sort of guy by nature plus he was learned in the old lore so he knew all along that when the rightful King returned it was bye bye Stewards.

But you're right about one thing: it would make an interesting alternative ending if you had Denethor living and somehow fomenting rebellion. Want to try another fanfic?

2004-01-28T13:23:00.000-05:00

I liked only two parts with Frodo/Sam. The first is when Gollum tossed away the lembas then accused Sam of eating it all and Frodo believed him over Sam. That produced in me a real sense of frustration becasuse I know how someone with evil intentions can always manage to manipulate a situation for his own gain and there's little that one can do to counter it. And the other part was at the end when Sam and Frodo thought they might die on Mt. Doom. As much as I didn't mind the "multiple endings," their dying would have been an acceptable and more moving ending for me. Otherwise Frodo and Sam were dead boring and Gollum was annoying. I have to say, however, that Frodo and Sam weren't as gay as in TTT. In ROTK, Merry and Pippin were the gay couple. Though there was a bit of something going on between Eowyn and Merry, especially in the scene where he takes out his sword and shows it to her. That was so full of disgusting subtext. If you take the whole thing as a double entendre. . . . It makes me sick just thinking about it.
*
Now that I think about it, even though the movie is called Return of the King, there's not much kingly returning or politics in it. Granted, Aragorn was the rightful heir to the throne of Gondor but it's amazing that people accepted him so easily without considering for one minute that maybe the Stewards had done a good job of governing the place and that Faramir would have been a great Steward. And if Denethor hadn't killed himself, he could easily have started a civil war over it. Now that would have been cool.

2004-01-27T20:09:00.000-05:00

Plot/3 Characters/4 Visuals/4
Total/11

I am going to disagree with Debbie a lot here of course being that I have long been a huge LOTR fan and think Jackson has done a remarkable job overall of adapting something I never thought could be adapted to the screen. The plot is complex and multi faceted and I think a very admirable job was done bringing it all together, better than in the second one even. I can see why one might feel the Denethor/Faramir plot would seem unnecessary since ultimately it doesn't decide the fate of the Ring or the War but it is a very powerful plotline in the book, a study of a very warped father/son relationship. Jackson could not do it the full justice it deserved because there simply wasn't time so he had to resort to Denethor going insane almost immediately, unlike in the book where he is far more rational far longer.

Unfortunately I can also see why one might say Merry seemed almost unnecessary. This is due to some unfortunate cutting though, not because he really is uneeded! I know for a fact the touching scene of him swearing fealty to Theoden was indeed filmed and it really should have been included since it enhances his whole plot thread and why he wants to follow Theoden. Their relationship in the book is very sweet and touching. In the movie Theoden is horribly abrupt with him and it is a shame. I am afraid it may not be so clear to people how important Merry is to Eowyn's victory over the Nazgul King either. She was a goner until Merry struck his foot. It is important to note that Merry not being a "Man" technically and rather a hobbit, also qualified for mortally wounding him just as Eowyn did being a woman. Thus they were a perfect team to take on this baddie. That's my defense of Merry and one of my few criticisms of how Jackson chose to edit/cut this final installment.

Frodo and Sam's plot thread was executed beautifully with incredible and moving performances turned in by both Wood and Astin--shameful that the Academy didn't acknowledge either of them for a Supporting Actor nom BTW! It is interesting Debbie thought too much time was spent on Shelob, she is once again in the minority for every review I've read has praised how well done Shelob was and how realistic and not a one griped she was given too much screen time!

I have so much more to say about the acting in this fim but I'll reserve it for the next post after Debbie's rebuttal.

2004-01-22T21:23:00.000-05:00

Return of the King
Plot/2 Characters/2 Visuals/2
Total/6

I chose this picture of Eomer (Karl Urban) to be emblematic of the fact that ROTK was one missed opportunity after another.

The plot was a disaster. It was virtually a carbon copy of TTT crossed with The Wizard of Oz with a touch of Pirates of the Caribbean. The only difference this time was that we spent half the time watching Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) moping and whining about how they were going to lose the war but, by golly, they were going to fight it anyway because they are men, or possibly, Men. (Which suddenly made me realize what a high-pitched voice Aragorn has versus the deeper, yummier one of Eomer.) Too much time was spent with Shelob. And there was absolutely no suspense whatsoever. I never thought for one second that something was going to go wrong or someone was going to die or that the war would not be won.

But the very worst thing was that the whole bit with Denethor (John Noble) and Faramir (David Wenham) was not only not moving, but seemed completely unnecessary. So were Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) and Legolas (Orlando Bloom). And Merry (Dominic Monaghan). And nearly everybody else. ROTK was so plot driven that you could have dropped out all of the characters and it barely would have mattered.

The truth is, I kind of felt like this movie was written and directed by different people from the other two movies. But it's to be expected that this one would be the worst, for two reasons: 1) endings are hard, as a rule; 2) the third movie in a trilogy is always the worst (c.f., The Matrix Revolutions, The Godfather III, Return of the Jedi, Scream 3).

2004-01-15T12:53:00.000-05:00

Actually I tend to doubt that one shot would serve a fast paced movie very well. Mostly because action cannot be captured in one shot. If there's a shoot-out between cops and criminals who are across the street from each other, what would the camera focus on? How would you show both sides? You'd have to pan back and forth, and that would either be very boring or very nauseating.

But I agree with you that this is an interesting technique that hasn't been used to its fullest possible potential. Alfred Hitchcock did a similar thing in Rope but that was basically a play that was filmed, taking place in one room. Timecode was also done in one shot but there were four distinct storylines all playing on the screen at the same time so it sort of minimized the importance of it being one shot. There was an X-Files episode that did it too. It was pretty cool, if I remember correctly, but that may have simply been because it was well written, rather than because of the directing.

2004-01-14T22:18:00.000-05:00

I'm not saying I wanted the French guy to be gushing over the Hermitage the whole time and his critiques may have some validity but he was just so full of himself! He put down Russians in general, not just the art. Now, I'm not Russian myself but it still struck me as way too superior an attitude and I tired of it quickly.

As for the idea of a one shot movie I CAN appreciate the concept, I really can. It was very fresh and original and it has nothing to do with why I don't like the movie. I think it is just a shame the director wasted such an innovative technique on such a meandering, plotless and often boring movie! This technique would be best suited to a movie with a quick paced plot IMHO. It would be a great way to show the urgency of the situation and move things along.

2004-01-13T16:41:00.000-05:00

I feel exactly the opposite! I liked the French guy's snootiness and snobbishness. It was almost exactly the opposite of what you might expect, someone who would just extol the Hermitage's greatness. And I disliked the blind woman. She was so boring, particularly when we first meet her and she's standing there feeling the sculpture. Yeah, her turn as a tour guide was interesting, but so is an Art History class. I liked when any of the characters talked about the art.
*
So if I can admit there's no much in the way of plot and character, what, then, drew me in to Russian Ark? The visuals. What it looked like. Ther Hermitage itself is gorgeous. The costumes are fabulous and meticulously detailed. The very experience of a one-shot movie is so different than typical music video inspired movies with cuts every few seconds because they're too afraid that the audience will get bored.

My one criticism is that sometimes the lights were reflected in the paintings very badly. This is the one outright flaw in my mind and it is only technical, not artistic.

2004-01-12T20:16:00.000-05:00

Acutally I couldn't stand the actor playing the Frenchman. I found him bizarre, snooty, and unnerving. The narrator sounded like he was half asleep and bored mostly which didn't help to keep me awake. I kept hoping he'd finally start emoting more and become more animated and involved but he never did and it is too bad because if he had maybe I would've become a bit more invested too. The only character I found engaging was this blind woman the Frenchman becomes entranced with at one point and for some inexpicable reason our dull narrator warns him away from--for no good reason that ever becomes apparent! (not many explanations provided anywhere in this film, another big annoyance for me) She was interesting and lively and fun--how well she knew the paintings though she was blind for one. But they ditched her pretty fast, again for no apparent reason.

Very aggravating movie indeed!

2004-01-11T00:35:00.000-05:00

The main characters were the French man (Sergei Dontsov) who was the skeptical tour guide to Hermitage and Russian culture in general and the narrator, voiced by director Aleksander Sokurov and was possibly playing himself (of this I was never quite clear). They have a bizarre though fascinating and, at times, educational, running dialogue through most of the film. The French man is weird, funny, knowledgeable and extremely engaging and therefore when he's not on the screen, the focus of the movie and our attention is lost. (This rather reminds me of Interview with the Vampire when Lestat [Tom Cruise] is killed and out of the movie for a while. For as much as I love Brad Pitt, it was Cruise that really captured your heart.) The narrator is a more tentative fellow; while more curious, he seems content to just look at things without commenting on them. His voice is also more muted. It feels like it's almost supposed to become like a voice in your own head which adds to the dreamy feel of the movie, that you have become part of the narrator and that you too are journeying through time and space.

2004-01-10T19:37:00.000-05:00

Plot/1 Characters/1 Visuals/2
Total/4

Of all the movies we've done so far this one definitely wins the prize for the worst! I found it to be confusing and even so boring at certain points I almost fell asleep (not many movies do that to me). Mostly this was like one big tourism commercial for the Hermitage I think. Even the cameraman lost interest in the "plot" at some points so much that he let the camera linger on paintings for long periods rather than on the bizarre man we follow most of the time.

I don't require constant action to be happy at a movie by any means and the plot doesn't have to be fast paced at all times but here we have only a whisper of a plot and it never even really pans out into anything at all. It could have been an intriguing story if only the writer/director had actually developed his original idea. However one gets the impression he got too lazy or perhaps just too taken with the Hermitage itself and forgot what his original idea was. So there is never any real resolution to anything, just one ridiculous view/line at the end of the movie which just feels like a cheat!

Don't even get me started on the "characters"! At least not until next post!...

2004-01-03T22:57:00.000-05:00

Russian Ark
Plot/1 Characters/2 Visuals/4
Total/7

Russian Ark is a combination of a great commercial for the Hermitage museum in St. Petersburg, Russia, and an emotional, turbulent journey through Russian aristrocratic history. There is no discernible storyline or even an obvious of passage of historical time. Instead, this movie is a dreamlike, hallucinatory, floaty series of images and ideas, shot as a single Steadicam take. If you can get into this plotless, cut-less movie, then you will be enthralled by the costumes, the art, even the only-momentarily-seen characters like Catherine the Great and Anastasia Romanov. It helps to watch the two hour-long documentaries first because they give keys not only to individual movie scenes, but to what the whole movie is essentially about.

I was not bothered by Russian Ark's lack of a clear plot ark though it perhaps would have been a stronger film with one, or at least by showing the various figures in the order in which they lived, rather than intertwined, and then dwelling on them longer than just a few seconds. But none of this really matters because despite its huge marketing push, this is an art film that needs to be decoded (similar to the way the symbolism of a cat and a chicken in the Tintoretto painting The Birth of John the Baptist are discussed) rather than simply passively imbibed.

It's too bad that Havivah and I don't have a category of "Ideas" along with "Character," "Plot," and "Visuals," because then I would score Russian Ark higher, but how often do movies really deal in ideas almost completely separate from the the plot and characters?

2004-01-02T13:42:00.000-05:00

Russian Ark is finally in my possession! They had it in a different Blockbuster than the one around the corner from my house. I'm going to Havivah's house Monday night and we'll watch it then. I hope to start posting about it on Tuesday. Sorry again for the unplanned hiatus in November and December.