ktappe Reviews

Recount (2008 TV Movie)

More accurate than some claim it is

[10/10 · 11 November 2008]

At first I did not intend to comment on this film, for it largely spoke for itself. But in retrospect I now feel a strong need to refute those who have claimed this film is inaccurate and/or strongly biased. How anyone can claim this film misportrays the events of late 2000 is dumbfounding considering that the film itself includes the actual CNN and other news clips of the events in its own trailer. The dialog of the film is exact, its portrayals spot-on. In fact, as a film devotee I feel qualified to state that of all the historical films I've seen this is one of the most accurate. Wide liberties were not taken. How could they have been? We know the outcome, we know the players, the court rulings are on record, and the protagonists were on camera constantly.

It is not right for IMDb users to post "reviews" on here that are tainted by THEIR bias. Just because they oppose statements in a film does not give them the right to claim the film is inaccurate, any more than it was right of Gore to cherry pick which counties to recount or Bush to oppose any county recount. This is a film that is not fundamentally about either Gore or Bush but about the people of Florida whose votes were not ultimately counted. And the film does a wonderful job of making the viewer realize just how important each and every vote is and how critical it is that nobody be disenfranchised. For that it deserves every accolade it receives. The film does not have a liberal bias, it has a reality bias. Sometimes reality has a liberal bias and this may have been one of those times. Giving the film an unfairly-low ranking or review will not change that.

Slacker Uprising (2007)

Even tedious for Moore fans

[5/10 · 6 October 2008]

I'm a rather serious fan of Moore's work and lean heavily liberal in my politics. And even so, this film got tedious and felt very self-serving on Moore's part. There are good parts, no doubt, but did we really need to see him signing autographs and hugging women with "Hug me Michael" signs? What on earth is that besides self-aggrandizement? I can't imagine what he was thinking other than "I need some more filler here."

Michael: We've seen you do better. Much better. And your timing here is very suspect--you are releasing this in the final days of the 2008 election season because you think people will, in their fervor, watch your film for some input about the election. Yet you have little-to-nothing to offer. You're looking four years in the past here while Obama is looking forward. Sure, your message "the young should vote" is currently applicable, but I think Mr. Obama has already done an amazing job of getting that out.

Overall, this is somewhat interesting for us die-hards, but I can't see it being all that captivating for the masses.

Flirting with Disaster (1996)

Tries too hard

[2/10 · 14 June 2007]

This movie is overwritten. The screenwriter(s) felt it necessary to relentlessly hit you with line after line after line after line, with no room for you mentally "breathe" and digest what everyone was saying and why they might be saying it. They also mistake characters saying obviously incorrect or obnoxious things as humor. In spite of this being a movie about a character seeking his real parents, there is surprisingly little real inspection of the characters' true natures and motivations. There's an age-old saying, "show me don't tell me", but this film does a lot of telling and disturbingly little showing. It's not horrible, so it still gets 4 stars out of 10, but it also has few redeeming qualities unless you consider amateur pratfalls and shallow insults to be humor.

Crash (I) (2004)

Puppet show

[5/10 · 27 October 2005]

I normally don't comment on films, but this one really disappointed me enough that I have to say something in response to all the 10-star reviews on here. Way too often in "Crash" we see characters doing or saying things for one and only one reason--because the director needs them to get themselves into situations that he desires later in the film. You can very easily see it--characters are inconsistent throughout. One minute they're complete jerks and the next they're sweet or heroic. One minute they're funny, the next they're philosophical. First they're meek, the next they're aggressive. Yes, real people have multiple sides to their personalities, but they don't swing nearly as far or as fast as the characters in "Crash". You can just see the writer pulling their strings like marionettes. Another well-known screenwriter (JMS) once contemplated how his characters often surprised him by doing things he didn't expect. That is good writing. What we have here are characters with no minds of their own; they are mere extensions of the writer's fingers, manipulating the story (and the viewer) for his whims. Problem is, I don't happen to like being manipulated. In a good film, characters stay consistent, react realistically, speak using real English, and actually have a sense of self- preservation (trying not to get shot, for example.) A truly good film would have been less heavy-handed, less forced, less didactic, and way less coincidental.

Strictly Ballroom (1992)

What a mixed bag!

[3/10 · 14 May 2005]

I watched this with great expectations--everyone had told me it was a must-see. For the first 50 minutes I had absolutely no idea what anyone could possibly see in this film. The characters were all one-dimensional, the "plot" made after-school specials look good, and the storyline was completely predictable. But then the Pasadoble scene came and I was glad I'd forced myself to keep watching. If only the rest of the film could have been that good. Not long after, the movie returned to schlock status and stayed there until the end. The final dance scene is worth seeing, but of course it is--it's the morality play coming to a conclusion. Good absolutely must prevail over evil, right? The real question is how so many viewers have allowed themselves to be manipulated into liking the "good dance heals all wounds" lesson. In fact, this film was so heavy-handed it's essentially Top Gun with dancing instead of fighter jets: Outcast bad-boy wrestles with personal & social pressures but prevails in the end and gets the girl. We've been there before and know the story, which makes this film unnecessary.

House of Sand and Fog (2003)

Great cast & acting cannot overcome countless plot holes & unexplained scenes

[2/10 · 1 May 2005]

Other reviewers cannot understand how this film didn't win an award. I can't figure out why they think it should. This film is a textbook case of taking itself way too seriously and not having a coherent message or plot. Just because a movie has a good cast and is tragic does not mean it's a good film. Do not mistake sadness and acting for story.

My family and I lost count of how many plot holes this film contains, but after an hour we all agreed there were so many that we lost interest in the whole thing. No characters made us care about them, and so when the end comes about, we felt nothing. And that is why the film is so self-important; it assumes it has grabbed the viewer but it has not, and so it falls flat, and badly. We do not really know the motivations behind any of the characters. That and other rather interesting coincidences are the only things to make the "plot" limp along at times.

This film was also way too long. There are far too many scenes that just drag on as we watch totally inconsequential things take place. The film could easily have been half an hour shorter without removing a single meaningful scene, just removing the wasted frames when absolutely nothing is happening.

Then there's the pseudo-symbolism. We keep being shown the birdbath--at first it's bright, then it's dark, then it's raining. Oooh, how deep. If the plot can't show you that things are going downhill, the birdbath is going to do it for you? Not. Just more self-importance.

And finally, here is a point for filmmakers: Give us at least one character whom we can identify with. Who in this film was I supposed to like and feel sorry for? I didn't end up liking or empathizing with any of them--they all made really blatant, stupid mistakes and ended up bringing everything that happened upon themselves. There are enough bad things going on in the world that we shouldn't manufacture completely implausible situations like those in this film and waste our time trying to care about characters who don't deserve our caring.

If you want to see a recent film that is truly tragic and deserves your empathy, try Hotel Rwanda. It's not perfect, but it's way more worth your time than Sand and Fog.

Iron Jawed Angels (2004 TV Movie)

Great insight into a little-reported era in US history

[8/10 · 19 February 2004]

This is a moving and educational look into a period of U.S. history that has gone largely unrecognized by Hollywood in recent years. We all know the words 'suffragette' and about the 19th amendment. But herein we learn that our own U.S. citizens, 'guilty' of only exercising their 1st amendment rights, were treated so harshly that the U.S. would have been in violation of numerous articles of the Geneva Convention had it been in effect at that time. Human rights violations such this are are why the ACLU exists today. The same resistance tactics were used 25 years later by Gandhi, who liberated roughly the same number of people, and he is a household name. Why isn't Alice Paul equally recognized? This should be required viewing for every American, before they claim to understand what the words 'freedom' and 'liberty' truly mean.

Minority Report (2002)

Could, and should, have been so much more

[5/10 · 31 December 2002]

As a huge fan of Blade Runner, Philip K. Dick, and sci-fi in general, I should have loved this film. So why did it leave me saying "ho hum"? Because good sci-fi as any true fan knows is not about the science or the effects or the story--it's about the characters. This film does very little in the way of character development. We get to know John a little bit but every other character on the screen is one-dimensional. SPOILER AHEAD You have no idea why Lamar chose to kill in order to set up a program to catch killers, you have no idea what makes Danny be so relentless, you don't know how such a crazy woman as Iris was able to lay the foundation for such a large program as Pre-Crime, etc. I left the film having many more questions than answers. And these were plot-related questions, not deep philosophical questions such as Blade Runner left me with. We the audience are supposed to care about the question of crime and its prevention, but that topic is forced far into the background by all the other plot elements crammed into this film, and thus you don't continue pondering it once the film ends. -Kurt

Changing Lanes (2002)

Don't care about the characters, why care about the plot?

[2/10 · 25 December 2002]

This movie had such great reviews, I chose to rent it even though I knew it would be a downer about bad things happening to everyone involved. Little did I realize that the film would not contain a single character with whom you can sympathize. Why should a viewer continue to watch a film when they don't care about anyone in it? Very rarely have I found myself checking the clock so often during a well- produced film, hoping it would finally be over. Bad films are one thing--boring ones are another. Great acting by Jackson and Affleck has no bearing on a plot that leaves the viewer cold, bored, and cringing the next highly dubious event. It seems as if the characters were treated as dolls by the writers, who sat around a table brainstorming different mean things they could throw at them. Why sympathize

with a plot that does this? So now we have neither a worthy plot nor characters. Therefore, how can this possibly be a great movie?? The answer is it's not. Anyone who says otherwise has been duped by the emperor's new clothes.

The Santa Clause 2 (2002)

Dating plot worked, stand-in did not, reindeer are creepy.

[15 November 2002]

It's amazing to find a film that works so well on one level and so poorly on another. The plotline with Santa dating is charming, funny, heartwarming, and worth every minute of your time. Sure, it's a bit predictable, but the chemistry between the two is almost timeless. And then there's the other plotline. Without giving away any spoilers, the events at the North Pole are bizarre and twisted. There are no characters you can or want to identify with. And if you examine it from a kid's perspective, there are a few events that might cause them a nightmare or two. Finally there are the animatronic reindeer. They're just creepy and occasionally gross. Yes, kids in my theater got a good laugh at that "one scene" which was given away in the trailers. But reindeer who talk like Gizmo from "Gremlins" and who are stupid, unclean, and ugly are not cute or funny; they're gross. It's a fine line and unfortunately, this movie crosses to the wrong side. There's an easy solution: wait for the home video and FF over the bad plotline while stopping to enjoy the good one. You'll be rewarded with a pleasant viewing

experience.

Enemy at the Gates (2001)

Not bad, could be better; missing parts

[6/10 · 5 August 2002]

My understanding is that the book takes the reader through sniper training school and describes how this band of sharpshooters came together. The film is really missing this detail; Vassili goes from being nearly the sole survivor of a suicide attack to being a sniper on assignment. We're told little to nothing about how this comes about and that's a pity, because it would be fascinating to see how a sniper is trained. Instead, we're tortured with a tedious love triangle, a gaping plot hole (* MINOR SPOILER*) when a scathing letter written by Danilov is completely forgotten, and a predictable ending. A 6 out of 10 for great production, cinematography, and acting, but poor screenplay and a hodgepodge of accents.

The Shipping News (2001)

Great Newfie feeling; unpleasant supernatural bits

[6/10 · 5 August 2002]

Having been to Newfoundland myself, I can attest to how well this film transports you there. The island really is that bleak yet stunning, remote yet homey, forbidding yet alluring. The actors' accents (especially Judi Dench's) are pretty authentic, except that they're understandable. And we come to feel for both Quoyle and

Prowse and their plights--they really come across as honest and true. What doesn't work about the film is the supernatural subplot. It was completely unnecessary and detracted from the location feel and the warmness we came to feel for the main characters. It leaves the viewer wondering why on earth it was

included and why none of the screenwriters realized they could simply omit it. A 6 out of 10 for a well acted, wonderfully filmed, yet occasionally Blair Witch picture.

The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)

Distance of the characters keeps the audience distant too

[5/10 · 29 July 2002]

I went middle-of-the-road with a "5" on this one. The film was indeed boring at times, but the characters were off the wall enough to keep the viewer intrigued more often than not. The montage where Royal shows his grandchildren how to live on the streets as urchins was priceless and should be shown to all parents.

However, all the characters are off in their own worlds, keeping the others at arms length and emotionally distant. The primary problem with the film is that this effect carries over to the audience; we can't relate to any of them due to the way they keep their emotions bottled up. This leads to us not caring nearly as much about them as we could, and therefore not caring as much about the film as we could. "Tennenbaums" is apparently highly autobiographical. The author should have been a bit less self-absorbed during the editing and considered what the audience might have considered an interesting film.

Once Upon a Time in America (1984)

OK, but overrated

[6/10 · 29 June 2002]

As a fan of Leone's spaghetti western trilogy and of Robert DeNiro, I was very much looking forward to finally seeing this film. Quite a letdown. Despite good direction and acting, the story absolutely d-r-a-g-s. How anyone can compare

this to the Godfather trilogy is beyond me--that series has movement,

development, continuity, and lives up to the emotions its characters express. This film has characters constantly being deeply introspective ... and that's about all it has. There are a few fun to watch moments such as when the boys

catch the crooked cop having sex and shake him down, but they're all too rare. This is a wistful film that might interest those who were there but like home movies, it won't interest anyone else. Two and a half hours of watching DeNiro long for the olden days in discontinuous flashbacks is two hours too much. If you want to see a good DeNiro flick set in NYC, see "A Bronx Tale" instead.

Enemy of the State (1998)

Veil of plausibility hides an underlying simplicity

[4/10 · 20 May 2002]

Enemy of the State is an interesting study in contrasts and could

be a textbook case of how to dress up a boring, impossible plot in

nice acting, writing, and cinematography. Aaron Sorkin did

wonders to give the film cogent dialogue and Will Smith brings

much to the table. But far too many plot "twists" are downright

impossible (example: the panoramic replay of the lingerie shop

scene) and if the viewer dares take a step back, they will shortly

realize how completely unrealistic it is for so many people to be

involved in such a huge conspiracy and have so many tools and

funds at their disposal. Suspension of disbelief is one thing,

turning your brain completely off is quite another. Enemy of the

State is nothing short of eye candy; the brain will go hungry.

From Hell (2001)

Wonderful look at 1888 London

[8/10 · 26 October 2001]

To look at "From Hell" as a slasher or gore film is to miss the forest for the trees. The true value of this film is to gain insight into the ways of life in Victorian London. Few of us can imagine what life was like for the folks that we see

portrayed in this film and if one looks beyond the plot one can learn much. How often have any of us seen what an opium den was like or how the poor had to

sleep upright in doss houses or heard what a dank, busy London street

sounded and looked like at night? No, the film wasn't 100% historically

accurate, taking liberties with the facts in the Ripper case, but that should be obvious to anyone viewing. Take the investigation with a grain of salt but not what the film has to say about the slice of the human experience it shows you. Further, do not discount the excellent acting that From Hell contains. Anyone who discounted Heather Graham's abilities based on what they saw in The Spy

Who Shagged Me needs to eat their words. Admittedly Johnny Depp's facial

expression changed little (even when he was having his drug-induced visions), but Ian Holm always brings his all to any role he fills and Liz Moscrop's

incarnation of Queen Victoria is uncanny. Also, the direction of From Hell nicely complemented the unsettling nature of the material it was portraying. Viewers will feel as if they are a part of the disjointed mind of a serial killer. From Hell transcends being a movie and is more aptly described as an

experience. It passes the test of any good film--that it leaves you thinking and wondering about it long after you leave the theater.

The Game (1997)

A Recommended Emotional Thriller

[7 September 2001]

One of the best signs of a great film is that it brings out your emotions. This means it's making you think about and react to its characters. The Game does

this in spades. As all of these events unfold, dragging Nick with them, you keep wanting to give him suggestions and you certainly ask yourself repeatedly what you'd do in his place. Is it plausible? After a second viewing, I'd say that 95% of it would indeed be possible to pull-off, given the kinds of funds they made it clear were available to be spent. It would take serious thought and planning to cover all the angles, but it could be done.

::MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD:: Should the plot have gone other directions, such as having Nick be the only one who believed he was playing a game? Certainly not--films that have a single

protagonist following the truth with the rest of the world disbelieving are so common, they're beyond cliche. This film deftly avoided falling into that trap by having the "police" concede that there was evidence to support Nick's story (the graffiti, the ambulances, etc.) It also wisely kept one character (his lawyer) completely out of the loop, adding to the credibility of the plot.

::SEVERE SPOILERS AHEAD:: There's a serious plot hole in that they couldn't have predicted what side of the roof Nick would jump from. Nor could they have known he'd hit the airbag

back-first (hitting it head-down from that height could easily have been fatal.) In fact, having him hit the "X" instead of being a bit off-center really ruined the scene. And the plot doesn't deal at all with the natural anger Nick should have felt at being not only duped but made to think he'd killed his own brother (very uncool.) Instead he smiles and shakes hands with people who have put him through

such living hell he willingly chose to die. The ending absolutely begs for this to be addressed but it is not.

Nevertheless, any film that causes such thought-provoking discussion must

receive recommendation, even if it doesn't warrant a vote of "10".

Hamlet (2000)

Interesting modernization, mediocre acting, bad sound

[4/10 · 22 July 2001]

This modernization does a superb job of convincing the viewer that the story could take place in modern times; it was less than 5 minutes into the film that I was comfortable with Shakespeare taking place in NYC. What failed, however, was the delivery of the dialogue by actors who didn't seem involved. Hawke especially seemed bored with his character and does nothing to convince us that Hamlet was tortured with his father's death, his mother's remarriage, his love for Ophelia (which is never explained), and his own mortality. Instead he comes across as a spoiled brat overwhelmed by his trip to the big city and his inability to have things his own way. That such powerful dialogue as Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy was so lost is not a compliment to the filmmaker. We simply can't identify or sympathize with Hamlet, so the story loses most of its impact. Surprisingly, it's Bill Murray's performance as Polonius that steals the film, making us wish he had more scenes. Julia Stiles is also convincing as Ophelia. But their efforts aren't enough to save this film. It is also true, as others have written, that this film's audio transfer to tape was poorly done; you will find yourself adjusting your TV's volume frequently. The lack of enunciation by Hawke and Shepard doesn't help either. (Also, Shakespeare shouldn't be performed over a speakerphone.) Give this film a try if you're a fan of the bard who wants to see an interesting interpretation, but be ready to provide your own enthusiasm motivation for the characters who won't do it for you. A "4" out of "10".

Dune (2000)

From one who hasn't read the novel: Worth Seeing

[9/10 · 9 December 2000]

It seems that most comments so far on this film/miniseries are from those who have read the novel. I steered clear of it after the failed 1984 film left me befuddled and cringing. And yet I took another stab at Dune when this version aired, primarily because I figured that if it were worth remaking, then the story must be better than Lynch made it seem 16 years earlier. I was not disappointed. Even as a Dune neophyte, this version kept my attention whereas most miniseries don't. After the first night, I made sure to tune in for the remaining four hours and chose it over competing programming. Yes, this version's FX borrowed from the 1984 version (the worms looked like direct lifts), but that wasn't a problem. If anything it used Lynch's version to help introduce this one, so that viewers could get involved faster. The costumes were not distracting; the let you see the facial expressions and body language of the characters. And the story, unlike the movie, was surprisingly intelligible. You could tell why everyone was doing what they were doing as opposed to Lynch where you were left scratching your head asking "They're climbing on worms because....??" Sci-Fi did this one right, and I look forward to watching it a second time when it airs again.

Magnolia (1999)

If only it had a plot

[1/10 · 3 December 2000]

There's no THERE there. This movie is not ABOUT anything. As such, there's little reason to watch. And without a plot, this is a rudderless film and the characters have little to do than muddle through their pointless existences on the screen. If you have any urge to rent this film, consider that it's three hours of your life you won't be able to get back.