Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
eskaty
Reviews
Alias (2001)
"Alias" takes the "I" out of CIA
This mildly entertaining Spy-Fi show had me going at first. I enjoyed the fast-paced story lines, the talented cast, the ruthless baddies, the martial arts. And Jennifer Garner is just so nice and likable that it's hard not to enjoy something she's in.
But I soon became frustrated by the convoluted, who-really-cares story arcs, (particularly the obsession with Rambaldi, which seems lazy and makes little or no sense), the incredible incompetence of both good and bad guys, (how can anyone miss so many stationary targets with automatic weapons?), as well as the increasingly poor decision-making skills of these so-called intelligence officers. Seriously, these guys make Todd Margaret look like Winston Churchill. I mean, honestly! Sydney can't make it through a single mission without tripping some alarm, being "made," and ending up in a kick-boxing-for-god-and-country fight to the death? Really? Would the real CIA use such a person repeatedly after so many screw-ups? And how is it that that the bad guys never recognize her and Dixon as soon as they walk into some swanky resort or KGB-infiltrated, bass-pounding nightclub? She always looks very distinctively the same, regardless of her hair color, and they aren't exactly the blend-into-the-background couple.
Now I'm a Sci-Fi fan (I like it better than spy stuff, actually), and can put up with a lot of junk science and incredible plot twists. After all, I was a fan of "The X-Files", even though some of the "science" in that show is stranger than fiction, and Mulder loses his gun in almost every episode. But most of the "science" in "Alias" is just so silly. Or perhaps it's the unquestioning, blasé way it is presented that makes it so unbelievable. As if you can simply say: "Oh, I can change your DNA to make you look like another person"; or "Some guy from 1500 invented a nuclear weapon," and people just go: "Oh. Weird. How do we stop it?" instead of "WTF??" Although I must admit that Marshall's incoherent descriptions of his "Q"-like inventions make me smile.
I'm a latecomer to Alias, and am watching it almost 10 years later, and have to admit I missed all the contemporaneous hype. So maybe I would have thought Alias were a better show if I had been swept along by the initial furor. But I doubt it.
I'm in season 3 now. Maybe once I finish the series I'll revisit the review. I hope it gets better. But for now, I gotta say I'm not a huge fan.
Reality Bites (1994)
The title says it all
None of the characters in this movie are as clever as they think they are, much of the dialog is trite and eye-roll worthy, and the one character who's supposed to be a dumb sellout is the only one who actually shows any depth, maturity, or compassion. Which is a shame, because I like almost all of the actors in the film, especially Ben Stiller and Janeane Garofalo. Good thing most of the actors went on to make much better films.
First, let me say that the best thing to happen to Mike (Ben Stiller) is that Lelaina (Winona Ryder) left him for the slacker. Mike deserves a woman who can appreciate a man who is willing to go out on a limb for her time and again, who tells her she's beautiful even when she's dressed like Betsy Wetsy, and doesn't mind that she's a self-centered pseudo-intellectual who's still trying to find herself. Lelaina clearly isn't that person. She'd rather have a guy whose idea of honesty is insulting her at every opportunity.
Maybe Mike seems more sympathetic to me than Troy because Ben Stiller is such a likable guy, and I'm not the biggest fan of scruffy facial hair. Who knows? The bottom line is, anyone who takes her "craft" so seriously and is so irrational that she gets mad at the most honorable, self-aware, kindest person in her life (one who puts his reputation on the line to get her a big break in the field of her choice), just because the people he worked for butchered her film (although some might call the resulting montage, which basically mocks its whiny subjects, an improvement over the poorly shot mess she originally submitted), deserves to be stuck with a commitment-phobic loser with a bad attitude.
I'm a Gen-Xer, and although I remember how hard it was to find decent work in the 90s, I must say that I cannot identify with those characters who, I suppose, the filmmakers wanted us to believe are cool, intelligent, and profound. Mostly, I guess, because I don't see that they possess any of those qualities.
To be fair, this film is very dated. Maybe it seemed fresh and original in 1994. Perhaps I might have liked it had I seen it back then, when I was a self-admitted self-centered, maudlin GenXer facing tough career choices, too. But I doubt it.
King (1978)
Well done, fairly accurate, uncompromising
For a television movie, this is really good. True, some of the acting was a bit over the top, and some of the 70s "cop chase" music really needs to go. But overall, it managed to tell the story of a complex man who became an almost reluctant hero. Better still, "King" does not forget that remarkable men are always supported by other remarkable people--and gives them some voice as well.
I was pleasantly surprised that the movie didn't try to deify King, a mistake that has been made too often in the last 35 years. He was a man, with all of the attendant potential for good and bad. But what comes across here is that he tried hard to choose the path he believed would give the Civil Rights movement the best chance for success. I was also glad that the movie showed how engaged and brave Coretta was. Some movies about Martin have tended to push her to the background.
This movie rarely pulls punches, which means it doesn't try to let the government off the hook either, like so many recent movies about Civil Rights tend to do. Despite what movies like "Mississippi Burning" claim, the FBI often hindered the work of the Civil Rights movement--even more than was shown in "King". And the White House was not to be relied upon for unconditional support. No disrespect to previous posters, but it was well known that the Kennedys were often reluctant to get involved in the Civil Rights movement (don't take my word for it--any good history of the Kennedys will admit to it). The Kennedy brothers were always very concerned with the political ramifications of their actions. They were politicians first and foremost. Sadly, it often took a tragedy to push JFK to take action (like the murder of the four little girls in the Birmingham church). That is not to say that the Kennedys did not care at all--because no one really knows what was in their hearts at the time. And I think RFK became more dedicated to the cause after JFK's death. But "King" shows how everyone involved in this turbulent struggle thought and acted strategically. And no one was a saint, but few characters were shown to be thoroughly corrupt. I think the only person portrayed as truly evil was Hoover--but, I must admit, I have no problem with that.
I enjoyed the imaginary conversation between Malcolm X and King. The two men never actually met, but I liked the way "King" managed to express both men's points of view rationally, not as being good and evil, but as being two sides of the same coin. Malcolm wanted to attack the problem and give back as good as he got, keeping in mind the nation's history of violent oppression. He was a revolutionary. Martin was a diplomat, who wanted to change the system itself, and realized that he would need to work with the white government to do so. Neither man was completely right or completely wrong--but both sides were necessary to put sufficient pressure on this country to begin to change its policies. That said, it is eerie the way so many of Malcolm's predictions have eventually come to pass.
I saw this movie a few days after Coretta Scott King's funeral--in the wake of all of the brouhaha about Carter's words about wiretapping, and the political nature of some of the speeches given. I think this movie serves to remind us all that in order to celebrate the lives of the Kings and all that they fought for, we must never forget--nor should we abandon--the ongoing struggle for social, racial, and economic justice.
All-American Girl: The Mary Kay Letourneau Story (2000)
I didn't see this movie as a justification
I guess we're all capable of interpreting a movie in whatever light we are predisposed to. Keeping that in mind, I must disagree with those who believed that this film approved of Mary Kay Letourneau. I thought the movie, although told from Mary Kay's point of view, was careful to show how distorted her point of view really was.
For the most part, based on news stories I have seen, the film stayed pretty close to the facts as presented by the investigators and the parties involved. But the film did have a spin--Letourneau was portrayed as an irresponsible, almost infantilized woman, who looked to men to define and complete her. From the first, her relationship with her husband was shown to be indifferent, even hostile--so he could not provide her with the validation she needed. Rapid flashbacks were used to show how her relationship with her father was unrealistic (bordering on hero worship). To my knowledge, the film did not show several defining events in her life with father that might have shed even more light on her pathology. But, although the movie implied that these dysfunctional relationships contributed to her behavior, I do not think it tried to pretend that she was mentally healthy or morally right. In fact, I think Penelope Ann Miller struck just the right note--a mixture of manipulative dependency and eerie, willful, innocence.
I think the important point of this movie was that although what this woman did was reprehensible, that does not mean we cannot be sympathetic to her. But I certainly do not think this story was meant to be some simplistic tale of star-crossed lovers. The filmmakers juxtaposed various techniques--such as bright and dark lighting, realistic and silk-screened sequences, and jarring jump-cuts--in order to cast doubt on the perceptions and motives of all of the people involved, including Vili. It is not clear to what extent Mary Kay used her helplessness almost aggressively to ensnare Vili, nor to what extent Vili was taken in by her--or if he even manipulated her in his own right. It is a very complex situation. True, Vili was a child, but I was not 13 so long ago that I have forgotten that children that age can consider themselves quite grown up and fancy themselves in love with adults. It is the adult's responsibility not to capitalize on adolescent emotions--but if the adult is an arrested adolescent him- or herself, we have a big problem. I think that, more-so than pedophilia, was Letourneau's pathology. (Of course, if you want to get technical, adults attracted to adolescents are not pedophiles, but ephebophiles. The definition of ephebophilia actually fits Mary Kay much better.)
The question that kept popping into my mind was: how would I view this situation differently if the gender roles were reversed? I had a hard time imagining that eventuality, however, because the power dynamic between men and girls is usually so different. I could not envision a grown man appealing to a young girl by being so emotionally helpless. I am not expert, however. Personally, I was disgusted by Letourneau's behavior, and am highly doubtful that her relationship with Vili will work out. But I think the film did a good job of presenting the situation in such a way that the viewer could draw his or her own conclusions.
The Wonderful World of Disney: Tower of Terror (1997)
Probably fun if you're under 12.
But this is really a silly movie for adults. The characters do really dumb things. The plot is transparent. Which is more than I can say about the ghosts. On the bright side, it's not the least bit scary, so the kiddies won't get nightmares. If your children must watch it, try not to groan aloud too much.
Better yet, if you want them to develop good taste, let them watch a better kid's movie. Like Harry Potter. Or make them read a book. Like Harry Potter.
Sweet November (2001)
Trite and terrible
Just an awful, awful film. Not a single redeeming quality.
Clichéd, ponderous, heavy-handed, silly tearjacker. Yes, I said tearjacker. Like a carjacker--one who takes your car by force. This movie fires every weapon in the sappy-movie arsenal at you. I will cry when I feel empathy for genuinely compelling people, thankyouverymuch. I don't even need to like the characters, as long as the story is well told. Heck, I'd cry over Hannibal Lecter before either of these people, because at least he's interesting and makes me feel something--even if it is fear and loathing.
Typical man-inexplicably-yearns-for-wacko-slut movie. (Think Four-Weddings-Chasing-An-Almost-Famous-Jules-et-Mama-Tambien--only not clever, not funny, not sweet, not touching.) Why do people think movies like this are romantic?
I was rooting for the grim reaper, folks. Never a good sign.
Kate & Leopold (2001)
Even less enchanting the second time.
Am I alone in thinking Meg Ryan seemed churlish? I couldn't understand what anyone would see in her. She was cranky and peevish. Not her usual enchanting self. (I think "You've Got Mail" is one of Meg's most charming performances.) Hugh Jackman was dreamy. However, a man of Leo's breeding should have been affronted by Kate's bad manners. But, then, I'm surprised he could say the words "fresh creamery butter" with a straight face. What silly dialog!
I like science fiction/fantasy, and very willing to suspend disbelief. I'm also a romantic, and love time-travel romances, like Jude Devereaux's Knight in Shining Armour. But I rolled my eyes all throughout this movie. And you could drive a semi through the plot holes.
The secondary characters were far more fun and interesting than the primaries. Bradley Whitford and, especially, Breckin Meyer save this movie from being completely blah. In fact, I would have liked to see a movie about Leopold and Charlie's friendship, actually. It was livelier and more believable than Kate and Leo's romance. This move had such potential. How disappointing.