heresjay Reviews

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon (2001 Video)

Highly misleading

[1/10 · 9 May 2005]

Writer/Director Bart Sibrel bases his work here around a can of film that he says was mistakenly sent to him by NASA. He says it shows the astronauts faking the television footage of their trip to the moon by employing camera tricks. The astronauts were in low Earth orbit all the time, and editors on the ground composed this raw footage into just a few seconds of finished film.

Unfortunately Sibrel's research is so slipshod that he doesn't realize his "backstage" footage is really taken in large part from the 30-minute live telecast (also on that reel) that was seen by millions, not hidden away in NASA vaults as he implies. And we have to wonder why Sibrel puts his own conspiratorial narration over the astronauts' audio in the footage, because hearing the astronauts in their own words clearly spells out that the astronauts were just testing the camera, not faking footage.

Finally, anyone can see the raw footage for themselves without having to buy Sibrel's hacked-up version of it. (He shows you more of the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination than of his "smoking gun".) Sibrel thinks he's the only one who's seen it. What's more revealing is the clips from that raw footage that Sibrel chose NOT to use, such as those clearly showing the appropriately distant Earth being eclipsed by the window frames and so forth, destroying his claim that mattes and transparencies were placed in the spacecraft windows to create the illusion of a faraway Earth.

As with most films of this type, Sibrel relies on innuendo, inexpert assumption, misleading commentary, and selective quotation to manipulate the viewer into accepting a conclusion for which there is not a shred of actual evidence.

Camp (2003)

Some good, some bad (spoilers)

[30 March 2004]

This film exhibits a lot of flaws that can be attributed to many first-time indie films: stereotypical characterizations, clumsiness, lack of depth, etc. But it was clearly a labor of love for its director, and I think his enthusiasm trickled down to his cast and emerges in the film. If you expect unconventional, complex performances and a gripping script, "Camp" will bore you at best and make you retch at worst.

But the flaws notwithstanding, this film is likely at some point to strike a pleasant chord with people who grew up as performing artists or who struggle with sexual identity. It's ultimately a feel-good film, even though all the plotlines have predictable outcomes.

Vlad (David Letterle) basks in female attention as apparently the only heterosexual male at a performing arts summer camp. He has a handful of affairs, gets his plain jane Ellen (Joanna Chilcoat), redeems the drunkard, and instills confidence in his drag-princess roommate Michael (Robin de Jesus) all without wilting his smile. Even his fatal flaw seemed tacked on; it is mentioned once and then forgotten. The one trait that showed dramatic promise -- his overwhelming desire to please -- isn't explored until the film's final scene. Charming as Letterle is, Vlad goes little beyond the fairy tale prince.

Ellen's character is an oddly contrived mixture of vulnerability and indifference although Chilcoat's skill at least makes it clear which personality dominates any given scene. Michael (de Jesus) rounds out the principals as the alienated gay teen whose pain we never seem to feel. De Jesus is comfortable and competent in the role, but the character begs to be shown in more depth.

Ironically the character most apt to be wrongly dismissed as a stereotype is Spitzer (Vince Rimoldi), an air-headed "chorus boy". While there is no doubt that Spitzer is as cliche as they come, he's nevertheless a cliche that is closely imitated in real life, raising the question of whether Spitzer is stereotypical or merely exemplary of the alternative conformism in, say, the club scene. Ultimately the question is irrelevant as Rimoldi's performance is neither over-the-top nor contrived.

Writer/director Todd Graff's newcomer cast seems more chosen for musical talent than for acting, so enjoy the music and dancing. "Camp" spotlights a handful of exceptional solo performances as well as generally strong ensemble work. The score's emphasis on Sondheim likely stems from the composer's cameo.

The key to enjoying "Camp" is the realization that writer/director Todd Graff is creating a retrospective of his own experience. Some of the faults are mechanical, attributable perhaps to Graff's first foray behind the camera. Other faults derive simply from trying to combine too much into one film. We can look to "Apollo 13" and "Memphis Belle" for examples of this type of film that succeed on some level, but if Graff's script is to follow their example it has to shed some of the extraneous nostalgia and focus on creating specific characters that are not just disjoint amalgams of his experiences.

If you need something to take away from this film, there are many isolated messages that ring true, despite being somewhat inexpertly framed. For example, when the washed-up playwright Bert (Don Dixon) blunts the idealism of the young campers in a stinging monologue, the viewer is apt to reject the attack as jaded mean-spiritedness. But there is fundamental truth in each of his assertions, that many have had to learn the hard way. There is a mildly amusing scene as two black siblings (Steven Cutts, Kahiry Bess) protest being cast in beards and sidelocks for "Fiddler on the Roof". Such train wrecks in ethnicity are common in minor league theater.

Some have compared "Camp" to a high school play. And perhaps in a purely technical judgment that's defensible. But a quality found in amateur productions, often absent in slicker packages, is an ineffable quality that comes from people doing something out of the sheer joy of doing it instead of professional necessity. Graff and his cast clearly enjoyed making this film and their enthusiasm infuses it with a sort of indie-film energy that softens some of the deeper shortcomings.

A Knight's Tale (2001)

Save your money

[7 May 2002]

You know you're in trouble when the crowd at a medieval joust sings Queen's "We Will Rock You", complete with the obligatory stomp-stomp-clap. Writer-director Brian Helgeland's attempt to infuse a would-be period epic with modern enthusiasm fails to do justice to either idiom. Spiked hair, electric guitars, and dialogue liberally sprinkled with adolescence ("hel-LO") is oil to the water of medieval chivalry and tournament. What's next, the Pepsi logo on Heath Ledger's shield?

This film clearly works for a teenage audience, where one can either ogle leads Heath Ledger and Shannyn Sossamon, or get a buzz from the jousting. But a more mature audience will spend two hours swerving between idioms. You get the idea that Helgeland could produce either a passable sports film or a passable period film, but should have had the foresight to choose between them.

The cast makes a brave attempt to rescue Helgeland's schizophrenic screenplay. Once you resign yourself to the deficiencies in the blueprint, you can watch some pleasing workmanship from the ensemble. And the jousting works for a while, but wears thin. Save your money and go to the nearest Medieval Times if you want jousting.

"A Knight's Tale" promised a lot, but doesn't deliver.

Spider-Man (2002)

Spider House Rules

[7 May 2002]

If you don't think of Tobey Maguire as a super-hero, you're right -- and that's what makes this film work. Maguire's prowess with subtle, introspective characters brings a depth to Peter Parker and his alter-ego that is both faithful to the comic and engaging to the moviegoer. Willem DeFoe's portrayal of the Green Goblin stands easily on the same shelf with Nicholson's Joker and Hackman's Lex Luther. Stellar performances from the supporting cast, especially veteran Cliff Robertson and gem J.K. Simmons, add to the overall texture of a thrilling character-driven story. It's so easy to be drawn into this story that you'll almost forget to watch for Stan Lee's cameo.

The story necessitates some heavy-duty visual effects, executed with typical precision by John Dykstra. You have to intentionally want to see the flaws, and there aren't many. Dykstra strikes a perfect balance, supporting the story without overshadowing it. The sets and costumes are similarly well-appointed, but restrained.

Danny Elfman's score does for this film what he did for Tim Burton's "Batman". The traditional Spider-Man theme is absent from the main title, but peeks in during the incidental music to remind you of the musical heritage.

All in all, this is an exciting film of high quality.

Treasure Island (II) (1999)

worst adaptation ever

[2 February 2002]

This two-hour commercial from the Isle of Man Tourist Bureau bears only a superficial resemblance to the Stevenson novel. At the end, all the wrong people are dead and you half expect the strumpet from the first half of the show to make one final appearance. The Isle of Man provides all the locations, even masquerading (poorly) as the tropics. Nevertheless a few good performances emerge from this hacked-up classic. Kevin Zegers gives us at least as good a Hawkins as Bobby Driscoll. The venerable Walter Sparrow shines as Ben Gunn. And Jack Palance rasps out an engaging Silver but it's disappointing to see his name spelt wrong in the credits. Palance fans might like to see him tackle one of literature's most famous old coots, but Stevenson fans should leave this one alone.

Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? (2001 TV Movie)

Responding to Ted

[1/10 · 8 August 2001]

People still go on about the expected crater under the lunar module without explaining why they think they should see one.

The contention that the people sympathetic to NASA weren't given much air time because they didn't have much to say is garbage. I know for a fact that astronaut Brian O'Leary is livid about how selectively the Fox program presented his comments. Dr. O'Leary is penning a rebuttal which will be published on my web site. I have been informed by friends of NASA spokesperson Brian Welch (now deceased) that his comments were also heavily and misleadingly edited. These people spoke at length to the producers of the "documentary".

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that when you grant an interview to the producers of a program, they -- not you -- control the final version. It's much more reasonable to believe that the NASA spokesmen, astronauts, and engineers weren't given much screen time because the producers of the program didn't want them to have much screen time. I have the luxury of knowing what Dr. O'Leary said to the producers, but which WASN'T included. I suspect Mr. Welch gave similarly detailed comments.

Where's the rebuttal? Fox aired it a few weeks after the second airing of this program. Considering that the Fox network thrives on sensationalist and controversial programming from which it typically does not flinch (e.g., "Temptation Island"), the fact that they would provide air time to retract the implications of this program tells us a great deal about the reliability of its conclusions.

There are also a number of web sites both in an out of NASA where these charges are rebutted point by point. I happen to run one.

Ted says that when he examines the examples of obscured fiducials (crosshairs) he concludes, along with the producers of the program, that the only reasonable explanation is a darkroom shenanigan. That's because the viewers were shown ONLY the examples of missing fiducials which support that contention. If you look at ALL the examples of missing fiducials you realize that the cut-and-paste argument falls completely flat. But most viewers won't double-check the producers to that extent, and that's what the producers are counting on.

Any photographer can explain in minute detail why the fiducials disappear "behind" bright objects. It's emulsion bleed. It's well understood and it accounts for ALL the evidence, not just the few the producers wanted you to see.

No, this program is not any kind of serious or credible investigation into anything. It's a load of fallacious arguments based on naive or factually incorrect assumptions, coupled with unbridled speculation and selectively chosen testimony and evidence.

Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? (2001 TV Movie)

Same old garbage

[1/10 · 27 July 2001]

Most of the issues raised in this program have been around for many years and have been thoroughly debunked for just as long. Every so often someone gives them a new coat of paint and parades them around for a new generation of gullible patrons. That's what this program does. I am an engineer and well acquainted with most of the issues this program brings up. Their so-called anomalies are not anomalies at all, merely the producers' lack of understanding. This program aired on Fox, which shortly thereafter aired another program in which most of these charges were refuted.

Obviously a point-by-point rebuttal is inappropriate here, but take for example the charge that the lunar module's engine should have dug a huge crater. The LM engine produces 3,500 pounds of thrust at landing, while a Harrier jump jet's engines produce 27,000 pounds. Nobody expects craters under a Harrier, so why should they expect one under a lunar module?

This program is entertaining, but not for the reasons its producers intended. It's an exercise in how silly some people can be.