Change Your Image
allbell
Reviews
Star Trek Beyond (2016)
Blech
I love Star Trek, and I want this film to do well enough that companies invest a lot of money in future Star Trek projects, but this was an awful movie. There are many Star Trek fan videos on YouTube that are better than this. There are probably five-year-olds playing Star Trek with stuffed animals who come up with better plots than this film had and understand the characters better.
I don't really care all that much about originality or realism. I just want the show to feel fresh and feel real. This didn't feel as if it was real, as if it were original, or as if it made sense. And the technical credits weren't even good. I'm sure many of the people who work in special effects in Hollywood do so because they are Trekkies. The film company could probably get great special effects people to work for free in exchange for getting to have dinner with George Takei. But most of the special effects work and set design work was really boring. I didn't even feel as if I understood the Enterprise bridge.
Lookwell (1991)
Clever, heartfelt, rough around the edges
I located and watched this show because I'm a fan of Adam West's Batman, Conan O'Brien and Robert Smigel. Now that I've seen it, I can understand why people tend to either love it or hate it.
The premise is great, Adam West is great, and the Lookwell character is hilariously annoying and genuinely noble at the same time.
The clash between the luxury show business side of Los Angeles and the regular, scruffy side is great, too.
The actors seem to be well cast, but one issue is that, in some cases, they do stage-y, sketch comedy style acting instead of regular TV show acting.
I think a bigger problem is that the script isn't structured all that well. There are too many different characters who get about the same amount of screen time, and suspense doesn't build the way it should.
It looks as if neither this show nor Andy Barker, PI has a story editor. It seems to me that a good, experienced story editor would have ideas for ways to make shows like these hold together better.
Up (2009)
Beautiful but random; NOT a film for young children
I love Pixar, and I love Ed Asner, and I went to this film thinking it would be beautiful and hilarious. It was beautiful, but it wasn't particularly hilarious, or full of any genuine emotion. I'm glad it made everyone involved a fortune, and now that the filmmakers are (good for them) carting their loot to the bank, I want to rant about how overrated this movie is.
The animation and all other technical aspects of the film are, of course, gorgeous. The voice acting is great. The land-based settings have no personality but are fine in a fairy tale way, I guess.
The old man's house is a fine old house, and the airship is a great airship.
The old man and the boy are, in my opinion, clichéd, stereotyped characters without much oomph to them. I can't even remember the chief bad guy well enough to say what I think about him, but the bad guy dogs were good and funny. Maybe not all that original, but original enough, and funny.
Ellie started off as a good character in the beginning, but then turned into a nonentity. The screenwriters seem to have an idiotic idea that anyone who has a regular day job -- who does something other than writing a screenplay or flying off in a house balloon -- is a boring stiff. If Ellie is such a firecracker, and she and her husband are too broke to travel to distant lands, why don't they go to amusement parks in their town? Or museums, or libraries, or camping trips? Or quickie cruises the Bahamas? If these people are too clueless to figure out how to have adventures within 100 miles from home, why would you think they could figure out how to have adventures anywhere else in the world? The movie focuses on what a great, spunky girl Ellie is -- but then, she's the only openly female character in the whole movie. The movie is sort of about how girls and other kids can dream, but it cuts every woman except for the woman who plays Ellie out of the casting process. Filmmakers: If you want some women out there to be able to afford to fly to South America to have adventures, WHY DON'T YOU TRY HIRING THEM?!?!??!?!!?!?!? Also: the overall lack of dialog may have seemed charming to the filmmakers and many viewers, but I see that some people have posted comments in the message board here indicating that they had missed important developments in the movie because the movie was just plain too subtle. Other users then skewer the users who admit to having misunderstood parts of the movie, but why is it the viewers' job to be Sherlock Holmes Movie Viewers, especially at an animated film that's partly aimed at small children? Why can't the filmmakers' get off their high purity horse and put in enough dialog to make sure that blind people in the audience, or people who just aren't great at figuring out visual clues, know what's going on? I guess, then, you could make a case that the whole house balloon trip is either a "real life event in the movie," or a "dream sequence within the movie." Either way: the trudging around part seems really absurd and gets old quickly.
The part with the dogs (I'm trying not spoil this too much) is actually exciting and funny, but it's simply too scary for small children who have problems with scary movies. The ad campaign for this movie went to great lengths to imply that Up was a funny, heartwarming movie for children. So why let the scary parts get scary enough that children are hiding behind the seats in the theater? The overall "scrapbook" theme is sweet and beautiful, and, for me, aside from the dogs, that was the one part that made the movie that made it sort of worthwhile. But it's also kind of a manipulative, sentimental, tear-jerking, greeting card kind of effort to yank the emotional chains of the audience members. Finding Nemo and Toy Story are two examples of comparable movies that evoked some of the same emotions a lot more subtly.
The filmmakers seem to be saying: We won't give you enough dialog to help you figure out what is going on with the plot -- but we will use mood music and stills to tell you over and over and over again (and again and again and again) that it's sort of bittersweet when children grow up to be old and then die with some of their dreams unfulfilled.
Star Trek (2009)
There's no continuity with REALITY
I worshipped Star Trek: The Old Show, and I like Abrams' efforts to reboot the series.
All of the actors did a fine job of capturing the spirit of the original characters without doing imitations. Example: I love Shatner's Captain Kirk, but I also love Chris Pine as Kirk.
Especially during the first half of the movie, the tone and rhythm of the script were great. Kirk had great, Kirkian lines, and Spock had great, Spockian lines, and so on with the other characters. Certainly, the characterizations were a bit different than in the Old Show, but the plot explains those differences. And, really: if George Washington characters in historical movies can evolve over the generations, why not Kirk and Spock? So, for me, the new Star Trek works fine as a "reboot of the franchise." The problem is that it's a mess of a movie. Because I want the Star Trek franchise to live long and prosper, I'm thankful that non-fan reviewers are being kind to the movie, but I'm amazed.
First, the character of Nero, the bad guy, is completely underwritten.
He used to be a miner, his wife and kids died in a nova, and he has a ship that looks like a bush. Other than that, we know NOTHING about him. We don't know whether he used to like to take his kids hunting dragons, or if he drinks tea with Romulan wiggle worms, or whether he collects rocks from planets he's destroyed. There is nothing distinctive about him.
Second, the plot makes no science fiction movie sense, let alone scientific sense.
Nero destroys Vulcan. Spock, who knows about time travel, has come back in time and seen Vulcan destroyed. He ought to be talking about trying to use time travel to keep Vulcan from getting destroyed. But he never does. He just uses time travel to give the young Kirk and young Spock fatherly advice, without ever discussing the possibility of using it to prevent civilizationicide.
Third, in the second half of the movie, the captain-crew relationships aboard the Enterprise make no human, naval or Star Trek sense. This Kirk is rowdier than the original Kirk, and that's fine, but we don't ever see half a scene with Kirk even pretending insincerely to get along and obey rules. If he were really like that, he couldn't serve on a Somali pirate ship, let alone get through three or four years of military training. Also, toward the end, Kirk publicly mutinies, Spock dumps him on a Vulcan ice moon, and then, at some point, Kirk psyches Spock into losing control so that he'll turn command of the Enterprise over to Kirk. And then, at the end of the movie, he and Spock are all luvvy duvvy. Sorry, but that's not how boats, ships or human beings (or Vulcan-human hybrids) work.
If, say, Abrams' first assistant director had mutinied the way Jim Kirk does here, is it possible that he could ever work with that first AD ever again? Is it possible that the producers would let either him or his mutinous, out-of-control first AD stay in charge of the movie? I doubt it.
Individually, each of these problems might not be that big of a deal. But the overall effect is to make the action in the second half of the movie seem random. We know that stuff will blow up because it's the time in the movie when stuff should blow up, and we know Kirk and Spock will end up getting along at the end, because that's the time in the movie when people get along, but the action makes no actual sense.
Jack and the Beanstalk (1974)
Gorgeous film; DVD is fine
This is a beautiful, multilayered film that's drawn simply enough to appeal to a 4-year-old and originally enough to appeal to a parent who's seen everything.
The characters are close enough to fairy tale archetypes to appeal to that 4-year-old but, again, original enough to appeal to a parent who's seen everything.
The mom is definitely a sister of all of the Disney drag queen meanies, and her goon is a brother to all of the Disney assistant drag queen meanie goons, but their relationship is really, really unique. You have not seen that relationship before.
The music is stunning, haunting music that seems to have been composed by the sorts of people who could have worked on Rocky Horror Motion Picture Show, or maybe Hair. It's truly moving music. When I'm supposed to be creeped out, I'm really creeped out. When I'm supposed to be happy, I'm happy. I want to find the people who made this movie and shower them with candy.
The DVD version that I'm looking at cost me just a $1, but someone I know who sometimes makes DVDs in connection with his job says the quality of the DVD is fine.
Anyhow: If someone at Henstooth DVDs who was involved with making this DVDs reads this: I love you. Whatever else you do right or wrong in terms of film-making and DVD distribution, you can spend the rest of your lives feeling a warm glow about the fact that you did this one.
The Simian Line (2000)
"Ghost" for Grownups
The New York papers hacked this poor film to bits this week. A friend dragged me in, and I expected it to be terrible.
Wrong! This is a beautiful, funny, romantic film. "Ghost" for grown-ups who watched the WTC towers crumble to dust.
WHO WOULD LIKE THIS: People on a date who are mature enough to like "Ghost"; adults in their 40s and up who want to see a film that's intelligent without being grim. Probably not for kids under 16 (unless they really like the Turner Movie Classics channel.) Has an R rating, but suitable for most people who aren't too sensitive, because most of the cussing takes place in one short scene. The only other R-type material is a few tasteful shots of couples in bed together.
THE FILM: The main characters are three couples, two roommates, and a fortuneteller who talks to her dead husband who live in Weehawken, New Jersey. The film follows the struggle of the couples to stay together; the roommates to avoid coming together; and the fortune-teller to hold to her belief that she can talk to her dead husband.
THE SCRIPT: The script is a little loose, but there is actually a plot, the characters all have real jobs (no professors, detectives, prostitutes or starship captains) and the dialogue is subtle. Moreover, all the main characters have excellent parts. The writers also got the Weehawken details right.
THE CAST: The cast includes William Hurt, Tyne Daly, Lynn Redgrave, Harry Connick Jr., Eric Stoltz and Cindy Crawford. Cameos? No. They all have real parts, and they all do a great job. (Yes, even Cindy Crawford. )
THE REAL HEROES:
- Patrick Seymour wrote a gentle, moving score, and he or someone else worked it into the film at the right moments without letting it overpower the other elements.
- The cinematographer, David Bridges, made the people and houses look haunting. He also made excellent use of the fact that Weehawken sits on a cliff across the Hudson River from Manhattan. Bridges took a lot of shots of the characters walking in front of the Manhattan skyline -- including eerie glimpses of the WTC towers. He also took lots of shots of the New York Waterway ferry boats -- the boats that spent Sept. 11 ferrying thousands of people to safety -- and corpses to morgues -- in places like Weehawken and Jersey City.
Of course, a lot of the people who died lived in houses just like the ones in this film.
The Simian Line is a sweet, peaceful film. But, without knowing what would happen to the WTC towers, the filmmakers made the first film released after the tragedy that cherishes the spirit of what was lost.
Mule Skinner Blues (2001)
Art as respiration
"Mule Skinner Blues" is a beautiful, messy, extravagant little documentary made about struggling dreamers by struggling dreamers for the struggling dreamer in all of us.
Go to any film festival that features genuine, undiscovered filmmakers, and you will find a few glamorous filmmakers who use $100 bills for facial tissue, along with hundreds of diehards who have spent all their money. and all the money anyone would give them or lend them, trying to put a little of the love and terror in their hearts on screen.
"Mule Skinner Blues," the song, is about a woman who is pleading for a chance to sing -- to a team of mules. To get away from the boredom and sadness in her life.
"Mule Skinner Blues" is about regular people in rural Florida -- not the richest, but not really the poorest -- who want to sing, write scripts, design costumes, make a horror film, etc. -- to find some way to rise above the pain in their lives, and turn both the pain AND the joy in their hearts into art.
The people in the film talk wistfully about becoming famous, but they're a lot more interesting than the typical twentysomething would-be artiste in the big city, or the typical established artist. First, because they live in a spectacularly beautiful part of northern Jacksonville (even if you DON'T feel the terror, you WILL feel the urge to move into a trailer park); they're older and have better war stories; they have a sense of humor; and, because they're so far from the big money, they're just more real.
When they screw up, they can't fall back on trust funds or Mommy or Daddy. They don't have trust funds, and, for the most part, they don't have living parents. If they have living parents, chances are they're the ones feeding the parents.
If you see the film and come away saying, "Those people are not all that different from the people who made 'Mule Skinner Blues,' or the people back in my neighborhood who have a garage band. Or the old ladies who get together for a quilting club," well, yes. What exactly is wrong with that?????
Va savoir (2001)
The emperor has no clothes
This film is now showing in New York at the New York Film Festival and regular theaters. It's a textbook example of the kind of film high falutin' artistes use to make regular people feel bad about not liking "intellectual" European films.
First, the whole idea of making a film about artsy fartsy theater people seems so, um 1962. If you don't have a great script that brings out great insights into the nature of your navel, don't write about your navel.
Second, Rivette, who probably has lived off of government grants for much of his adult life, focuses on lead characters who can afford to stay in a luxurious hotel in Paris even though their play is failing and they're broke. And no one in the hotel asks them once about how they're going to pay the bill. What a grievous insult to all the real theater actors and independent filmmakers who are happy if they can afford to buy tuna fish instead of cat food.
Third, the film features "As You Desire Me," a Pirandello play, within the film. The play is shot and acted and staged so horribly that it's impossible to watch two seconds of it without your eyes glazing over. Unless you're a masochist, or you're deeply familiar with the play, you'll have no idea what's happening in the play, so you'll have no idea
Fourth, be a bird or a fish but not a bish. Rivette is too intellectual to have a real Aristotle/Syd Field-type plot, but he has everyone hook up toward the end of the play, and he throws in a jewel thief. Fine, if you're too intellectual to have a plot, don't have a plot. But then don't throw in a glamorous jewel thief.
Fifth, the cinematography and actors are great. It's horrible for a big-time director to drag actors and production people into a mess like this without having a script.
Pootie Tang (2001)
A lot smarter than it sounds
This is a film written and directed by Louis C.K., who is one of the smartest, funniest standup comics/comedy writers working today. He's won many Emmys and Emmy nominations writing for the Chris Rock show, the Dana Carvey show and Late Night with Conan O'Brien. Pootie is NOT one of those dumb gross-out kid comedies. If anything, it's more like an African-American Austin Powers. This film is not perfect, but the actors and characters are great, a lot of the scenes and ideas are great, and Louis C.K. made this film from the heart. You should go to this film first because it's funny, second because we have to show studios that they should give people like Louis C.K. money to make films.
Bobby G. Can't Swim (1999)
This isn't just another drug dealer film
It's hard to summarize this film because the facts of the plot make it sound like a ton of other gritty heartfelt films about drug dealers in Hell's Kitchen. One difference is that it's a Hell's Kitchen film that gets the details absolutely right. These characters aren't rich college kids made up to look poor, appearing on million-dollar sets made up to look shabby. These are perfectly cast actors appearing in perfectly chosen locations. Another difference is that this is a deeply spiritual film in a quiet, haunting, non-preachy way. This is a film that will stay with you a long time and make you want to drag other people into theaters to see it.