Man on Wire – (emotionally stunted little pygmy on a wire)

After the guy does his unbelievable wire walk between the twin towers, which he, his girlfriend and his best friend worked toward continuously for YEARS, what does the guy do? He has random sex with a stranger, becomes a complete egomaniac, and dumps his girlfriend and his best friend (who are clearly still fucked up about it,) never talking to them again for the rest of their lives. How sad is that, that he is such an emotionally stunted little pygmy that this was the only reaction he could think to have to his success?!

The documentary is a fun story and enjoyable, but it is not a great documentary by any stretch of the imagination. And the fact that the hero is such a fucking jerk does not help matters – makes me wonder if we needed a documentary on such an individual.

Posted in 2008 | Leave a comment

Slumdog Millionaire – wake up people: this film is BAD!

What on earth is all the hubbub about this film?! Everyone I know raves about like it was the greatest thing in cinematic history. It won the Golden Globe and will probably win the Oscar, if the Academy can resist giving it to another Holocaust movie. I went into that theater prepared to be knocked cold by the shear brilliance of the thing.

This film is boring, badly written, and badly acted (except for the actors playing the young kids – they were okay.)  It’s pretty badly filmed, too. The romantic leads have NO chemistry, and independently they have all the cinematic appeal of wet dish rags. The plot is contrived in the extreme – I didn’t find it clever or impressive at all. And there are lots of mobsters doing their “mobster thing”, which just drags the whole thing down further.  (As my wife pointed out, Mobsters have a very limited emotional range and this makes them really boring to watch.)

But the worst thing about Slumdog is that it’s like watching that idiotic game show for two hours.  This is not great or even good film making: watching the kid slumped over in his chair, looking like a halfwit about to drool, thinking about what he’s going to answer on some game show.

The romantic plot definitely owes a debt to Forest Gump, but even there it falls flat.  The scene in Forest Gump at the Lincoln Memorial where she sees Forest and goes running across the reflecting pool yelling his name has more emotional pull than everything in Slumdog put together. And I say this as someone that thinks Forest Gump is basically a bad movie that I never want or need to watch again.

I think people love Slumdog for the same reason they watch the game show itself – we are all numb with unhappiness and despair and want to be titillated with the fantasy that all the detritus from our meaningless, disappointing lives might one day win us a million dollars on some stupid game show. Just as they say in the film itself: why do people like the show? Because it represents the dream of a way out of their wretched lives.

Oh yeah, as if all this is not enough: WORST CLOSING CREDITS EVER.

And WAY too much bad, over-Autotuned Indian music – make it stop, please!!!!

Posted in 2008 | Leave a comment

Synecdoche, New York – worst movie ever?

Yes, it’s the worst movie ever. Disgusting, meaningless, and totally boring. It does not get any worse than this film.

Posted in 2008 | Leave a comment

American Gangster – textbook bad film-making

This film makes Eastern Promises look good (see my review of Eastern Promises.) I only lasted one hour into the film – if a film can’t make a compelling case for itself in one hour, forget it.

These filmmakers have no idea how to set up a movie! Ridley Scott could have learned a thing or two from (cough) Ben Afleck. Gone, Baby, Gone may not have a great set-up, but it does at least have a reasonably competent set-up. The plot is engaged within about 10 minutes, and decently written dialog tells us all kinds of information about all the characters and sets the plot in motion.

Ridley Scott’s movie, on the other hand, is a dissertation on how not to write a movie. The plot is not set in motion until 42 minutes into the movie – this is never a good sign. Those 42 minutes are wasted on badly done back-stories for the two lead characters. It is incredible how little information the filmmakers convey in that space of time. We learn almost nothing about who Denzel was or is (for a while I honestly thought he was the son of the guy he works for in the beginning,) who his family is (they pop out of the blue later) or why we should care about them, how Denzel set up his operation, how the whole import thing worked, did they hit any snags and how did he overcome them, who Russell Crowe is, why he is so pure and driven as a cop, and nothing, not a hint, about what might link these two men. All this time is spent on Crowe’s partner – why? They kill him off, and that’s it. I don’t even know his name!

Scene structure in the film is pathetic. Take the scene where Denzel sits down with his brothers in the restaurant, which should have covered all kinds of ground about his operation, who he was or had become, who each of them were (if that was important,) and set up the narrative to come in an interesting and compelling way. Instead, the scene basically exists in the movie exactly as it sat in the preview: after uttering some quotable line that was specifically crafted for a preview, he gets up, walks out of the restaurant, shoots someone, comes back and calmly says “now, what was I saying.” So all we learn is that he is kind of nuts. We don’t even get an unambiguous reaction from the brothers, as they watch their sweet little brother blow some guy’s brains out seemingly for nothing, and a scene or two later, they are all partying with Denzel happily.

Similarly, the scene where Russell Crowe sits down with his new team to discuss what they will be doing should have been riveting! It should have communicated the character traits of all the men and their interrelationships, established dramatic anticipation of what was to come, and could even have been your first view of what really makes Crowe’s character tick. Instead, what do we get? A retread of the “I heard you found a million dollars and gave it back – what’s wrong with you?” storyline, which was already covered, boringly, with about 10-15 minutes of earlier film. So the scene simply falls flat – no interest is generated, no information communicated.

It’s like film-making for retards. They keep repeating these painfully basic facts: “twice as good for half the money,” “gave back a million dollars”, etc. Absolutely painful. Then we have the “fuck me like a cop, not like a lawyer” scene, just to wake everybody up. What does Crowe’s womanizing have to do with anything in the film? So why is there a scene about it?

To add boredom to injury, the film is visually uninteresting, and completely fails to capture new York in the 1970s, either the look or the vibe. Academy Award nomination for art direction? You have to be joking! Watch the street scenes near the opening of Fame, or watch Marathon Man, and see for yourself how close they got to the real thing.

That’s enough time wasted on this piece of rubbish. Go watch The French Connection to see just how well the whole “cops and drugs in 1970s New York” thing can be done.

Posted in 2007 | Leave a comment

The Good Shepherd – guttless and boring

(I found this old review fragment on my hard drive – thought I would put it up here, for posterity.)

This film contains some of the worst actors out there – William Hurt, Alec Baldwin, De Niro, Angelina Jolie – and they fully live up to their awfulness. Matt Damon is badly miscast. Michael Gambon is good (of course) but has almost nothing to do. Tuturo is okay, but again has nothing to do. The actor who played Damon’s (grown) son was like a retarded freak from outer space. Damon and his son look the same age.

They basically tried to rip off every decent spy movie ever made and some other 60/70’s thrillers: Tinker Tailor/Smiley’s People, A Perfect Spy, The Conversation, Blow Up (and Blow Out for that matter), All the President’s Men (they ripped off the music), Marathon Man, and more probably. They completely failed to capture anything that made those films great.

The film has no guts. It’s a totally gutless portrayal of the CIA’s excesses. Why not make a movie that REALLY shows what they have done in our name and with our tax dollars over the past 50 years!? (Because no one would watch it or star in it, that’s why.)

The film is 3 hours but feels like 6. The story made no sense and was completely boring. I don’t want to waste time explaining why – just don’t bother seeing it.

Posted in Films of the 2000s | Leave a comment

Waitress – a surprisingly soulful movie

This is quite a good movie.

It is a film about determining what the character and extent of one’s relationship to love is going to be in this life. We are presented with a spectrum of characters, each struggling more or less successfully in this regard, and by the end the sum total of their interacting struggles is really moving and poignant. The film avoids cliche almost entirely, quite a feat given it genera and its basic storyline.

Waitress is billed as a comedy, and it does have funny parts, but I found the film to be a rather weighty experience – it’s not like an episode of Alice – this is serious, good stuff, very well written, and decently acted.

Very highly recommended!

Posted in 2007 | Leave a comment

Eastern Promises – a movie to make you hate movies

A sample line from Eastern Promises, spoken by a thug in classic gumba slow-speak with a bad Russian accent plastered on top:

“I’m gonna watch you fuck one of these beeeetches, so I know your not queeeeer!”

If this line sounds interesting and exciting to you, by all means watch Eastern Promises. Otherwise, steer clear of this ridiculous piece of trash!

(PS: If you like throat slashing, throats are slashed very, very, very deeply in this movie, so that’s a real plus.)

Posted in 2007 | Leave a comment