corway-2 Reviews

Wizards (1977)

Don't bother - not worth your time

[1/10 · 6 October 2004]

First of all let me say that I love movies. In addition to that general love of film, there's a special place in my heart for animated films. So when I finally saw the DVD of "Wizards" I had hoped to see an overlooked classic. Instead, I sat through a poorly animated, horribly written waste of 83 minutes.

The biggest problem with this film is the story. None of the characters really came to life with believable personality, and had no motivation for what they said or did. The notable exception was Necron 99, who was fascinating. Underused in this film, his character could support an entire feature or comic book line. The attempt at humor was lacking to say the least. But as unfunny as it was, the heavy-handed attempt at allegory was even more disappointing. Much more effective than using real 20th century Nazi symbols would have been to use icons reminiscent of this familiar imagery. Yet, we are supposed to believe a wizard has found a working projector and reels of film from MILLIONS of years ago and by showing the old propaganda film, it will magically inspire the enemy and demoralize the good guys? Not to mention that in addition to the projector, that tanks, guns, and ammo from WWII survived a nuclear holocaust 2 million years prior?

Then there is the issue of the animation itself. I'm all for rotoscopic animation when used to good effect. However, the shadow army in this film is atrocious. How many times did Bakshi think he could use the same frames of rotoscopic animation as well as traditional animation over and over in the same film? It just looked lazy. The only characters that looked like they had been designed with any thought were Necron 99 (once again, the only character I liked) and the gas-masked troops of Blackwolf.

If you want to see a great animated feature from this time period, see "The Hobbit" (Rankin-Bass, 1977). If you want to see an example of a wonderful story redeeming poor animation, see "The Black Cauldron" (Disney, 1985). But skip "Wizards" if you value your time.

Food of Love (2002)

No Third Act

[5/10 · 19 September 2004]

Here is a story with obvious first and second acts, but no conclusion. Act I: the development of the relationship between Paul and Richard. Act II: Paul's move to NYC and his disillusionment (he also becomes a jerk). Act III: oh, wait it's not there. Right when the story begins to reach a climax, it ends. No resolution of any plot threads. A disappointment in an otherwise adequate feature.

Unlike the previous reviewer, I thought Juliet Stevenson and Paul Bishop did a great job with their American accents. I was surprised, since I knew Ms Stevenson was British -- I thought for a while that I was mistaken in that.

The sad thing is that none of the characters really learned anything about themselves. They simply learned that people lie and life sucks. I guess that's how life really goes, but I don't watch movies to see real life. Movies should transcend real life. There's not much to take away from the story without the glaringly missing third act.

Waking Life (2001)

Why use your movie comments to insult?

[10/10 · 22 November 2001]

I don't understand why people who dislike this film are calling its fans and creators things like "pretentious," "boring," or "pseudo-intellectual." They are acting like the intellectual-snobs they accuse everyone else are being.

There are several unusual aspects of this movie. First, it's one of those rare films that is mostly conversation and almost no action. So, right away that eliminates the interest of at least 80% of the American moviegoing audience. Second, the animation is very unusual. This film was based on live action filmed by Richard Linklater, and that becomes clear right away as you see how the characters move and act like live actors. The live action film is then animated via a technique called rotoscoping. In addition, the animation is not attempting to recreate reality, but rather emphasizes the emotions and mannerisms of the characters in a surreal but beautiful manner. Lastly, the subject matter is like all those deep conversations you would get into at a coffee shop, or sitting with your friends late at night having a few drinks. People talk about philosophy, religion, relationships, and even the meaning of life. It's a very thought provoking and intellectually stimulating film.

You know how every once in a while you read a book or play and say, "this book changed my life!" For a lot of people that might be The Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, etc. I'm not implying that Waking Life equals reading great literature, but that's the kind of high I was on when I walked out of the theatre.

This film is not for everyone. Some of you will think it's ugly animation or say it's boring. But that's not what I see. If you're not afraid of a prod toward introspection, you must see this film.

Put another way, I believe the value you find in this film reflects the value you find in yourself. You take from it what you want to take.

54 (1998)

Are you ready for disappointment?

[3/10 · 20 August 2001]

54 is one of those films that has potential to be engaging and intoxicating, but that potential is never fulfilled. The impression I got was that each storyline was intended to go somewhere, but was hacked up and edited out somewhere in the process. There is no overall arc to the story, which gave it the feel of a 2-hr pilot for a prime time TV drama, in which case we would eventually find out more about the characters.

The only character I was interested in was Mike Myers's. Surprisingly, the owner of Studio 54 was relegated to a minor role in the story -- merely window dressing. Instead of the film being about the club, its owner, and its patrons, it seems to be preoccupied with how gorgeous Ryan Phillippe is.

With such a talented cast, it is a shame that they were wasted on a story and characters that go nowhere.

The Broken Hearts Club: A Romantic Comedy (2000)

We've seen ALL of this before!

[15 March 2001]

I commend the producers/director/writers on trying to bring a "gay" movie into the mainstream and to bring mainstream actors into the process. But they could at least have tried to do something different with the concept.

Most of these comments rave about how this film isn't about being gay. ("Finally!" they say.) Nonsense! That's the only thing this film is about. It's like a primer for newly out men. Or, it's like the makers of the film are taking the viewer on a tour of gay cliche.

First, take the cast. Instead of well-drawn, rounded characters (like real people -- gay or not), we have a parade of different gay stereotypes. The hopeless romantic boy-next-door, the gigolo, the intellectual, the troll, the druggie club kid, the young "just-out" guy, and the flamer (who doubles as the token minority character). And yes, there are people that have these qualities in real life, but in this movie it is their only trait!

In the course of the movie, we have lesbian mothers, a drag scene, a drug overdose, and a funeral. The only missing was an AIDS patient.

If homosexuals are going to be accepted and treated like everybody else, we must be portrayed like real people. The ironic thing is, if you portray homosexuals as real people instead of stereotypes, how will you know they are gay?

In the Flesh (1998)

Skip this one. There's better out there.

[2/10 · 12 October 2000]

Lame plot, lame script, lame acting, lame editing, lame soundtrack, lame sound quality. Oh, yes. All this and more.

1.) Lame plot: where to begin? (WARNING: SPOILERS!) The undercover cop, Philip, is horrible at his job. On each assignment we see him on, he has cop written all over him. He should never be undercover. He has the typical tough-talking, street-wise, African-American, female boss, who -- while the best actor in the movie -- had one of the most poorly written cop characters in cinema. Totally unbelievable that an uber-macho copy would fall in love with the rude, snotty, hustler, Oliver. This hustler, who outwitted what must be the dumbest detectives by switching places with a deceased driver after a car wreck so he wouldn't get arrested for DUI and manslaughter. They couldn't pick up on this? Even more unbelievable is that he hustles to buy his sister heroin because he believes she'll die without it. Why doesn't he use the money to send her to rehab? The whole murder mystery plot played out like a bad TV-movie, treating the audience like it had no intelligence to figure things out or see through the weak characters.

2.) Lame script: this movie plays out like a porno movie without the sex. Yes, it's that bad. The lines are laughable in all the wrong places. There are 2 or 3 gems of one-liners, one from the cop's aforementioned boss on the phone to her kids. Another from the cop when he's carrying the unconscious hustler through the bar.

3.) Lame acting: The cop is about as good as a cardboard cutout. The hustler acts like a reject from after-school special. The cop's boss is A+, however. I guess she needs a better agent.

4.) Lame editing: This story did not flow well at all, and it was obvious that different angles were shot at completely different times of day. Anyone hear of continuity? Look into it. The trailer, however, flowed nicely and was much more entertaining than the movie.

5.) Lame soundtrack: No catchy songs or music. A melodramatic, synthesized score, and songs that should have come out in the eighties.

6.) Lame sound quality: All the lines sound like they were re-dubbed in a concrete tunnel. The echo was unreal.

There was no excuse for this one. The hustler had a nice body, but that doesn't carry a movie, folks. I don't care how small the budget was, invest in a screenwriter, cinematographer, editor, director, and actors that know what they're doing.

The only reason I don't give it a 1 is because the cop's boss was excellent. She raised it to a 2.

Trans (1998)

Like the main character, the film goes nowhere

[3/10 · 30 March 2000]

TRANS begins very promising, with an unusually natural acting style and equally unusual cinematography. With a documentary feel, we follow the adventures of a boy escaped from a juvenile detention center. His encounters are interesting and believable, but after about 80 minutes or so, the story just stops. What happens to the boy? We'll never know. Maybe we're not supposed to know. However, good storytelling involves a beginning, a middle, and an end. This film has no end, and therefore no story arc. This is a good first two acts of a film, but without a third act, there is no film.

Mission to Mars (2000)

Weakest sci-fi "blockbuster" in years

[2/10 · 8 March 2000]

With a cast that boasts Gary Sinise, Tim Robbins, Don Cheadle, and Jerry O'Connell, I expected more from "Mission to Mars." A lot more.

The movie opens with an "Apollo 13"-style barbecue at an astronaut's home to celebrate the upcoming launch of Mars 1. The year is 2020, and admittedly the set and costumes did look slightly in the future, but not overshot (unlike the overly futuristic 1999 in the beginning of "Demolition Man"). Now, if only we had a good story, the movie would have gone somewhere. Instead, the set-up scene of the movie runs the gamut of space exploration cliches: one astronaut lost his wife several months previously and "washed out" of the mission (the same actor who "washed out" of the mission in "Apollo 13"), two astronauts have an established relationship, one astronaut is a cocky womaniser (like Kevin Bacon in "Apollo 13"), and another astronaut must comfort his little boy who doesn't want his daddy to go (like Tom Hanks in "Apollo 13").

*THESE NEXT PARAGRAPHS CONTAINS A FEW MINOR SPOILERS. YOU MAY WANT TO SCROLL PAST.*

After 20 minutes or so of this forced soap-opera drama, we switch to "13 months later" for one of the few action sequences of the film. With a feel reminiscent of something Ray Bradbury would write, a mysterious architectural artifact causes a windstorm killing almost all of the crew. Now we're getting somewhere, right? Wrong. This, the only interesting scene in the movie, lasts about five minutes.

For some reason, the space station "control room" rarely has contact with the crew on Mars, so we're spared an entire "Apollo 13" re-hash. Instead, a second team (Mars 2) goes to the rescue. In addition to a queasy, rolling camera motion that is used for all interior shots, we are treated to a lengthy scene in which the astronauts dance in zero-gravity, and the formerly washed-out astronaut watches videos of his dead wife making lofty speeches about finding the origins of Earth-based life on Mars. Then, we are served with several contrived crises on the ship resulting in an astronaut unnecessarily sacrificing his life. I certainly hope that real NASA spacecrafts aren't as flawed as this fictional one.

The crew finds a half-crazed survivor from Mars 1 who survived alone for a whole year through a very unlikely scenario. After becoming sane again in about a day, the survivor explains the earlier disaster, and the rescue team quickly solves the mystery in an arbitrary fashion.

*END OF SPOILERS.*

After a few minutes of what is supposed to be suspense, but is lacking any tension whatsoever, the hackneyed plot is resolved in a style combining both "Contact" and "The Abyss."

My rating: 2 (out of 10)

Rounders (1998)

This movie thinks it's better than it is

[5/10 · 30 July 1999]

WARNING: These comments contain spoilers!

Actually, the movie is already spoiled. I rented this movie last night thinking that with such an impressive cast, I would be wholly drawn into a great movie. No such luck. Or, as Damon's character mentions, it's not really about luck -- it's a game of skill. And that's what this film is lacking.

The film's strong points are terrific characters brought to life by Edward Norton and John Turturro. These very different poker pros don't meet in this film, but they both tug on Damon's character is different directions: Turturro encourages Damon to play it safe, Norton encourages Damon to risk and cheat. What an interesting film it would have been if it had been a drama focusing on these three characters and the resulting struggle within Damon. Rather, this film is about Damon's circle from gambling law student, to giving up gambling, and then giving up law to become a gambler. And the movie portrays this in a good light. He's the hero because he follows his dream to gamble. What? Damon and the other stars give half-baked, phoned-in performances (excepting Norton and Turturro).

The script is also defective. Some things just don't make sense. Damon and Norton are severely beaten after they are caught cheating in a game (which made sense -- I thought the film was taking a better direction at that point), but then they argue about it and Norton's character is suddenly absent from the rest of the movie. Oops? Did the writers forget this character? Martin Landau's law professor character gives Damon $10,000 to help pay off his friend's debt. Really? Don't we all wish we had teachers like this? Damon's girlfriend leaves him because he lies to her about one game AFTER ABSTAINING FROM GAMBLING FOR NINE MONTHS!! Is she perfect? Is this how a rational human being would react? Lying is a terrible thing, but most real life relationships go through much worse than one lie -- and still survive.

The bottom line is that all the losers stay losers, and no one learns anything. But the movie doesn't play it that way -- it portrays Damon as a hero, and that gambling is a profession, not an addiction. And unless you are a card player and/or familiar with pro poker jargon, a good portion is likely to lose you and bore you. Skip this one.

Arlington Road (1999)

Weak characters, weak script, weak performances

[2/10 · 12 July 1999]

The opening five minutes of the movie almost made it worth the price of admission. Had the movie sustained this level of intensity and suspense, it would have been a great film that "Hitchcock would have been proud of" as I have read in some reviews.

The trouble begins after the opening credits where the script descends into a plot filled with cliches and riddled with holes. There are things that I liked about this movie - the heart-pounding opening sequence, the flashback scene that Faraday (Jeff Bridges) has about his wife, Joan Cusack's performance - the only believable acting in the film, the interesting lighting used in the film, and of course, the surprise ending that everyone is now hearing about. The rest of the movie however, consists of tired characters and weak performances.

The story is about Michael Faraday, a college professor and single dad who obsessed with the mysterious and questionable background of his neighbors, Oliver and Cheryl Lang. Since he teaches a class on American terrorism, guess what? That's right! Oliver seems to be a terrorist. And that's just the first coincidence. Mentioning any more would give away plot. But the characters alone give me plenty to criticize.

If it was necessary for Jeff Bridges to go over the top in this film, then he arrived there too early. Once he got to the point of overacting, there was no place for him to go. His character flies off the handle trying to get his girlfriend (Hope Davis) to believe him about his neighbor, and of course, she doesn't. Wouldn't it have added to the tension if Faraday had been a calm, rational person for most of the film? His unusual situation would have contrasted well to an "everyman" approach to his character, rather than the paranoid lunatic he portrays.

Tim Robbins, one of my favorite actors, presents no mystery for his character. Again, if his character could have been a normal, intelligent person instead of a wacko, he would have been much more terrifying. Oliver Lang is a stark contrast to his wife Cheryl (Joan Cusack). She was the only person that intrigued me.

This would have been better as a made-for-cable movie. Then my expectations would have been so low that could not have been let down. Skip this one and watch The Usual Suspects or The Silence of the Lambs again. Better yet, The Man Who Knew Too Much or North by Northwest.