parasaurolophus Reviews

Ice Princess (2005)

Disney Fluff - Fun, but it missed it's potential

[7/10 · 16 August 2005]

Ice Princess was typical family fluff that was an enjoyable hour and 1/2 escape from the tensions of real life. With that in mind, it was a great success as entertainment and release from stress.

The plot is simple and "age worn" - a teen named Casey (Michelle Trachtenberg) is torn between fulfilling the dreams of her parent or following her own dreams. Nothing new here. Yet, the supporting characters of Gen Harwood (Hayden Panettiere) and her mother Tina (Kim Cattrall) also have the same situation. Tina, a skating coach, wants her daughter to become a skating champion, an achievement Tina was unable to fulfill in her own skating career. Thus, both Gen and Casey have something in common: pleasing mom or pleasing themselves.

Yet, Gen and Casey were dramatically different. Casey was a brilliant student with her eyes on Harvard while being gifted at skating, too. Meanwhile, Gen excelled only by becoming a slave to skating and sacrificing her schoolwork.

And it is with that difference that I believe Disney missed the potential. The "Casey's" of the world are few and far between, and it is difficult to relate to them: "Oh, gee. Will I go to Harvard because I'm brilliant at school? Or will I become a skating champion because I'm brilliant on the ice?" Because she is so distant from the vast majority of people, she never truly grabbed my empathy.

Gen, on the other hand, is very, very real. She is being pushed into a sport by a parent, and her social life and academics are suffering. She faces a real dilemma. Plus, she has no hope of excelling at either academics or skating. Her social life is her only escape from this vise. And Gen is endearing because she seems to have a "good heart" despite the difficulty. And how often we see kids with "good hearts" trapped by situations.

I believe that most of us can relate much better to Gen than to Casey. I would have preferred the character of Gen to be the focus of the story with Casey's character in the supporting role. It would be tougher, grittier, and more meaningful to the audience.

Yeah, we all cheered for Casey, but I was cheering for Gen even more.

Sideways (2004)

Low-brow humor for adolescents only

[1/10 · 6 August 2005]

Take 2 pathetic characters, mix with generous proportions of vulgarity and repetitious profanity, and you have this childish attempt at entertainment. This insipid movie is not advised for anyone over 13.

Enough said. However, I will try to recall what I have striven to repress in my memory ...

If you are in the unfortunate position of being cognizant throughout the movie, you can note these factors along the way. Two men embark upon a "road trip" into the wine valleys of California. One, a failed writer, is Miles who is a man without confidence and seemingly without hope. He is also a character with whom the viewer does not wish to identify. Yet, the other "protagonist," Jack, is without brains or character. He has been reduced to a life support system for his genitals, and his sole purpose throughout the movie is to seduce someone other than his fiancé, whom he is destined to marry soon after the trip. Jack is an even more repulsive character than Miles.

For fear of creating a spoiler, I will not divulge if Jack succeeds. (Who cares.) I will also not divulge if Miles overcomes his confidence issues. (Again, who cares.) Yet, the hilarious antics in-between the beginning and end will leave 12-year-olds rolling in the aisles. For adults, the childish gags and predictable "humor" will be boring, the language grating, and the characterizations lacking in appeal.

If there is any redeeming value for this movie, it is regarding pinot noir. Being highlighted frequently through the movie as Miles' favorite, it definitely evokes curiosity about pinot noir and wine tasting in general. This much over-looked wine deserves a boost in appreciation such that it competes with the chardonnays, Rieslings, and other popular white wines. It was known to the Romans, and it's historical value alone should encourage everyone to try it.

And prior to watching this flotsam of the movie industry, I encourage anyone (over 21 and at home) to imbibe heavily in pinot noir as it may improve the movie (or destroy any memory of it). Further, it may induce drowsiness and sleep soon after the opening. This will mercifully allow one to doze through the remainder of the ordeal.

I gave this movie a "1 for awful" because "0 for abysmal" was not available.

What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? (2004)

Cutting Edge Science meets New Age

[31 August 2004]

Quantum physics and neurobiology join forces with Ramtha in the movie, What the #$*! Do We Know!?, to give a "mind-bending" and "life altering" experience. Quantum physics, grounded in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, opens the door to endless possibilities for human growth. The entity Ramtha, as channeled by JZ Knight, puts this new knowledge into the light of New Age metaphysical growth. Meanwhile, knowledge of the workings of the brain and emotions are used to tie quantum physics and metaphysics together using mind-boggling graphics and humorous cartoon images. (The take-off on Robert Palmer's "Addicted to Love" was a riot.) All of this is pasted over a story of a photographer struggling with life's common problems and anxieties. The photographer plot, though thin, provides a useful platform for all of the other ideas, in that it provides some reference point to apply the carnival of new ideas presented in this very, very thought provoking movie. As we used to say in the sixties, "Far out!"

Miss Congeniality (2000)

A Dark Comedy??

[7/10 · 29 August 2001]

My wife and I watched Miss Congeniality last Saturday night, and though it was brainless fluff, it was great fun. We chuckled and laughed from beginning to end. This is definitely a fabulous movie to help unwind and have a good time after a hard day at work.

I was going to write my comments along those lines, but as I looked back upon the movie, I noticed a shadow underneath it. Intrigued, I studied it, and this veil of darkness grew as I looked closer. Though most reviewers are pouncing on the obvious "ugly duckling" transformation into "beautiful swan" plot, some shadowy wisps suggest a dark satire underneath the glare of the obvious.

As I looked back from a distance, almost all of the characters were deranged, deviant, or bimbos. The only characters not in this class were Gracie (Sandra Bulluck) and the FBI chief. The latter was a bit part and not strongly highlighted. The rest of the FBI team appeared as bimbos with voyeuristic tendencies. Meanwhile, all of the pageant folks were bimbos, weirdos, or "two-faced," and everyone seemed caught in obsessions. I suddenly realized, "What a wretched portrayal of humanity!"

It was then I also realized that the rough-hewn, but gutsy and savvy character of Gracie was the only one whom most of the audience would empathize. Compared to the others, Gracie was already a "swan" at the start of the movie. Only outwardly was she "ugly."

As the movie progressed, not only did Gracie get sucked into the pageant physically, but there were hints that she might be getting sucked into the mind-set as well. Was Gracie becoming a bimbo? Also, near the movie's climax Gracie made a venomous threat toward the movie's villain which bordered on being maniacal. Was Gracie becoming deranged, too?? Was Gracie's character becoming corrupted and degraded like the other characters? Would she become "ugly"? Or would she finally extricate herself from this twisted mass of humanity and retain her "gutsy and savvy" persona?

Is Miss Congeniality a light comedy, built of Pollyana fluff, describing an ugly duckling's transformation into a beautiful swan?

Or is that just a façade for a dark comedy, with hints of A Clockwork Orange, describing a swan's degradation into an ugly duckling?

Intriguing questions ... Unfortunately, I cannot spend anymore time on this because I've decided to devote my life to world peace ... ;-)

What Women Want (2000)

Light fluff - some clever twists.

[6/10 · 9 July 2001]

I'm not much for situation comedies, and with a touch of reticence, I allowed my wife to coax me into watching What Women Want. I'm glad she did. Though not one of the great comedies, it was light fun and worth watching for relaxation.

My assessment was not felt in the beginning, however. Much of the opening scenes were "run of the mill" character and plot development. But one standout scene was Mel Gibson's dance routine - a sort of Astaire/Sinatra tribute. That ended up as a highlight for me.

Other than that one bright spot, most of the opening humor was almost cliche. Mel Gibson's character (Nick?) did some slapstick in drag which is terribly worn out. Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis in "Some Like It Hot," Dustin Hoffman in "Tootsie," and Robin Williams in "Mrs. Doubtfire" were much, much better and left very little for recent actors to explore. Nevertheless, I understand that it was necessary because it provided Gibson a means to acquire his "magical power".

With the introduction of Gibson's "superhuman" power, the movie finally took off, and it was fun the rest of the way. Some of the dialog and situations were a bit lascivious, so it may not be appropriate family fare, but overall, it was pretty tame and funny.

Cast Away (2000)

This movie should be cast away.

[4/10 · 9 July 2001]

I was warmly looking forward to this movie since I love the ocean and I generally enjoy Tom Hanks movies (such as Forrest Gump and Sleepless in Seattle). Unfortunately, I was very disappointed in Cast Away.

The movie opened with a variety of global snippets creating a sense of speed and excitement. After a while (and a few borrowed scenes from airplane disaster movies of the 70s), we found Hanks in a predictable marooned situation on a tropical isle doing all of the things we would expect: finding water, food, shelter. The plot drearily and ploddingly followed each step of the way.

The only freshness and creativity was the introduction of the new star, Wilson. I admittedly cried when Dumbo's mother was locked up in the Disney movie, "Dumbo," but I just couldn't get into this "Wilson" thing in Cast Away; I was dry-eyed the whole way through. Call me crass, call me hard-hearted, but I never cried for poor, enigmatic Wilson.

Perhaps my greatest disappointment was the movie virtually ignoring a gut-wrenching issue throughout 95% of the film. Sure, Hanks was lonely on a deserted island, but what about his love interest, Helen Hunt? She faced a very difficult issue: give Chuck Noland (Hanks) up for dead and start a new life or cling to the chance that he might still be alive? Watching a great actress like Hunt grapple with this tough decision fraught with emotional drama and trauma would have been much more interesting than watching Hanks fishing and losing weight. And what is more relevant to most of us - getting cast on a deserted isle or having a loved one disappear - kidnapped, killed, a runaway? The questions facing Hunt were, by far, the most relevant and engaging ones to be touched and indulged by the film.

Alas, it was not to be. Helen Hunt's role was almost a cameo in comparison to Hanks. And for the little time she had, she should be given the Charlie McCarthy award for the wooden delivery of her lines.

Strangely (and sadly), Wilson was the best supporting actor in this movie. I give Cast Away a 4 - only for the upcoming star, Wilson, and for the island and ocean surf which actually were quite lovely.

(By the way, the symbolism of the "crossroads" was lame, too.)

Men of Honor (2000)

Most inspiring when looking beyond the film.

[9/10 · 29 June 2001]

If I had not known this was a true story, I would have thought it to be too unbelievable - another overblown Hollywood movie. After researching Carl Brashears true story, he is even more amazing than portrayed in the movie. Hollywood actually down-played his accomplishments! Carl is one of the most amazing and inspiring individuals I have ever learned about. Men of Honor is worth watching if only to get people to learn more about this incredible person.

The Cider House Rules (1999)

Excellent, but my head hurt afterwards.

[8/10 · 29 June 2001]

So many ethical and philosophical issues wove and twisted themselves through the characters and plot in such an intricate way that my head hurt after watching the movie. This was a gritty portrayal of a hidden but real part of our past Americana, and in some ways of today as well. The whole issue of "what rules are for whom" and "what rules do you choose to govern yourself" was deeply thought-provoking. A feeling of isolation pervading various characters despite being with others was also intriguing. And it seemed that it was within each character's own isolation that the question of rules was to be asked and decided. (My head is beginning to hurt again.) In many ways, this was a great movie, but not something to watch after coming home after a tough day at the office.

Back to the Future (1985)

Still fun after 15 years.

[9/10 · 29 June 2001]

The mark of a good movie is one you can watch fifteen years later and still enjoy. Back to the Future is such a film. However, instead of just being fun looking back at the 1950s, this movie is fun for looking back at the 1980s, too. (A DeLorean?!) Great, wholesome fun, and Christopher Lloyd still steals the show!

Forbidden Planet (1956)

Still the best sci-fi ever.

[10/10 · 29 June 2001]

Today's sci-fi thrillers are more like Rambo in outer-space with monster special effects (frequently ludicrous such as sounds of explosions in the vacuum of space). Though tame by today's standards, the special effects of "Forbidden Planet" were quite striking for their time. Even today, they still hold plausibility. Yet, the best part of the movie is perhaps the reason that radio thrillers still have appeal. Much of what was going on was left up to the imaginations of the audience. (What did the Krell creatures look like?) By having much of the framework of the story never divulged or only divulged in the end, the tension and suspense held throughout the movie. The ending was also very thought-provoking and satisfying. In my mind, this is still one of the best (if not the best) sci-fi films ever made.