Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
The expected and the unexpected
I walked into the movie with the worst of expectations. While the previews were very honest about film's intentions and tactics, my impressions were different than I had initially anticipated. I didn't like Bowling for Columbine-I don't particularly like Michael Moore. However, this movie made me think. I am well aware that many people will come out of this movie convinced one way or the other. I'm not entirely sure what I think of the president at this point, judging by all of the facts that were laid out in front of me. But I think to myself, "are there any facts similar to these pertaining to Democrats?" Truth is, this movie is too much of a battle between Democrats and Republicans, with the Democrats getting a lot more "explaining time." This movie should not be about Democrats and Republicans. It should be about Americans. 60% of Americans supported the war at its outset. Why? Moore suggests that it is fear. If the war is unjust and illegal, where were all the Democrats when it was still up for "debate?" I think America needs to stop thinking so narrowly and realize who is really the cheater, and who is really the liar. 60% of Americans aren't afraid of Iraq. Heck, America destroyed the Iraqi army 13 years ago. 60% of Americans don't care all that much about the Iraqi people (what about other oppressed people?) So, what is it that got 60% of Americans so excited? Did everyone really believe that Osama Bin Laden's thugs are operating out of there?
Anyway, back to my movie commentary. I think Michael Moore is too much all-over-the-place. I liked the segment about the military being comprised of so many people from poverty-stricken inner cities and neighborhoods, and it was very powerful when coupled with the segment with Moore asking Cogressmen if they would like their sons enlisted in the army. I just don't see the connection. NO ONE WANTS THEIR CHILDREN TO BE IN A WAR. We know that Lila Lipscomb went from being a pro-war, pro-Bush, "conservative Democrat" to being anti-war, and anti-Bush. We know why. The question is, why was she supportive of the war in the beginning? I think the point that Moore fails to make is that Americans just don't understand/care. The American people didn't support the war because they were fooled by the president. Americans supported the war because they just didn't care. We, as Americans, need to take a good look at ourselves and realize that we do not live on this planet alone. It shouldn't take your son's death (God forbid) for you to realize that something is right or wrong. Yes, it is painful for a mother to lose her son, and no one should take away from her pain, but why does it take something so terrible for you to think about the war's terrible consequences? Americans need to be more actively involved in the political process. They need to be informed. I don't think those same 60% were informed. I don't think they care to be informed.
Cold Creek Manor (2003)
I walked out of this movie saying, "Did I miss anything?" I mean, the story was so predictable and bland, I thought that there must have been something that I missed that would have complicated the plot. No. As far as the story goes, it is so predictable that it is almost unpredictable. You're thinking to yourself, this cannot be the cause of so-and-so, it's so obvious! Ahem, think again. The story is incredibly slow, to the point that the writers must have had to wrap up the screenplay in 15 minutes or so. The semi-interesting parts of the plot, where the story speeds up, all take place in the final 20 minutes of the film. However, by this time the viewer is uninterested and not in the least bit surprised.
Photography of this film was excellent, and the location was rather creepy. Sharon Stone and Dennis Quaid have very little to work with, but they make the best of it. As far as the direction goes, it is generic suspense. Juliette Lewis stands out as the only character that is left unexplored but is worthy of such exploration.
In comparison to other movies about "haunted" houses, this movie is rather primitive. "The Others" is superior in all aspects. Oh, and one more comment: there's one scene where Sharon Stone shows a lot of cleavage. That was good.
The Shape of Things (2003)
Excellent but ugly portrayal of relationships
I had the pleasure of watching this film at a screening at Raleigh Studios recently, and I must say this is a very enjoyable and emotionally arousing film. The performances by all four cast members were nothing short of brilliant. Rudd's character, Adam, develops very from the initial "geek" into the confident, "better," sexually-driven machine. The seemingly-infinite awkward moments of the film make it that much more comical, and Rudd's character has a hand in all of them. The film's story gives a great outlook on relationships, although it is bound to depress some--it did so for me. The film itself is open to interpretation when it comes to taking sides, which the audience is instinctually prompted to do at the end. The film is not only about relationships and their sometimes "silly" nature, but also about art versus morality. The filmmaker's own opinion is not instilled in the audience's head, which allows each person to decide which is more important to him or her--art or morality. Overall, this is a funny, witty, sexual, and all-too-familiar film that definitely deserves a viewing. I give it a 9 out of 10.