kcfireplug Reviews

Barbarella (1968)

Pure Candy

[7/10 · 16 October 2006]

If you're looking for a quality science fantasy experience, you will probably be disappointed in BARBARELLA, which tells a typical story of an intergallactic astronaught who is sent on a mission to save a brilliant scientist from the clutches of an evil force that threatens to destroy the universe.

On her quest she finds daunting foes, unexpected comrades and twists and turns like any good superhero story should have. The only problem is that her world is made up of Christmas lights, cellophane and balsa wood, and it's all held together with scotch tape.

However what some might consider schlock entertainment, I saw it as pure camp all the way, with some hysterical situations and outrageous costumes draped over not-so-difficult-to-look-at actors (especially our babe-o-naught Ms. Fonda), and to top off the cake we have an icing of infectious music by comedic composer Charles Fox (9 to 5, Foul Play) and singer/songwriter Bob Crewe.

This is pure candy all the way so don't expect any nutrition here, but if you let it happen instead of looking for more, you may find yourself inspired to watch it again and again, when you don't feel like using any brain cells in this dimension.

The Ringer (2005)

Short Bus Kids Make Good

[5/10 · 4 January 2006]

I guess the appeal of THE RINGER is that we get to see Johnny Knoxville try to act two parts; his character, and his character acting mentally challenged. It's been said that when an actor can come off like he's acting as another character within the same story, it's the truest sign of dramatic skill. Knoxville pulls it off for the most part, but his base character is so dull and lifeless that his alter ego, Jeffey Dahmor, a mentally challenged adult who's decided to try and best the current champion at the special Olympics, really doesn't seem like much of a departure.

His motives are noble; scam a local gambling ring to vote for the champ, and try at all costs to win the gold, all so he can help out a friend who needs medical attention. Not life threatening mind you; if the poor guy had a brain tumor or AIDS, God knows what Knoxville would be up to. So I was intrigued by the situation at hand, and wondered how they might pull off such a funny idea, when it's really not funny to laugh at "special" people.

Of course the comedy is there, but it's flaccid for the most part. As it turns out, the hero's are definitely the mentally challenged, and their abuse of Knoxville is the punchline. So instead of picking on the underdogs, we get water fights and athletic slapstick, in addition to sophomoric situations involving Knoxville's guilt over the deception at hand, and a love interest and her cheating boyfriend.

All in all it's a movie best viewed half drunk on late night cable. That or a free DVD on Pizza Night. Either way, I hope Knoxville makes another film with John Waters. They seem to work well together. I loved a Dirty Shame.

King Kong (2005)

Big monkey steals New York, but his song isn't catchy enough for 10 stars.

[8/10 · 14 December 2005]

First off, I have to say that Jackson's visual style hasn't changed much since Lord of the Rings. It's not a bad thing, it's just that I couldn't help but feel like I was back at Middle Earth in some sequences. I wonder if it was too soon for him to make this film after "Rings" because of that fact. It's not hard to look at, just the color palate has that green-gray tonality that was so pervasive in "Rings". However, the city sequences back in NYC were a bit more colorful.

The action was fresh and new for this Kong, and totally put to shame the 1976 version produced by Dino De Laurentis. I kept asking myself, why didn't THAT Kong do the kind of things that this Kong does? Even though they didn't have the luxury of digital effects, it seems almost cheap and easy now, and with the exception of the score by John Barry, that Kong could never truly entertain me, if it ever did to begin with. I mean, he's a REAL Gorilla this time! Unfortunately there are a few moments when I got the "they are trying to hard" flag, but they aren't too distracting when most of the other moments are breathtaking. He's got the girl in his hands while he's fighting and swinging and jumping and climbing almost 80% of the time, so making those sequences had to be tough and they pull it off "almost" flawlessly, and that's only because of overkill, but by then I was immersed enough in the movie it hardly mattered.

Although the sound design was fantastic, my biggest problem was with the music. I thought the score from James Newton Howard was effective but a bit underdone. Being that he was brought in after Howard Shore couldn't (or wouldn't) complete the task of composing the music (I'm still unsure if his score was rejected or not), the problem for me lies in a lack of lyrical themes or interesting orchestration. We have the typical "Lost World" list of rhythmic orchestral elements and romantic chordal structures, but nothing really felt new or lyrical for these very intense, if not romantic, characters. In addition, some music cues felt completely unnecessary, wherein he tried to "Mickey Mouse" scenes within the first hour of the film where there were no interesting dynamics to follow. "Mickey Mousing" is a film composers term for following the action musically, almost frame by frame. While it's a Disney reference, Carl Stalling was brilliant at it for the Warner Brothers cartoons.

Another interesting bit of trivia about the music; during the stage scenes when Kong is back in New York and thereby the "main attraction", the music performed by the on-screen theater orchestra appears to be none other than the original score from the 1933 film composed by Max Steiner. Howard Shore also appears to be the conductor of the orchestra as well; which puzzles me more why he didn't score the actual film.

Of course the best thing about this Kong is that he has heart. We truly get a feel for his motivations, his passion for the girl, all through non-verbal cues which are delicately sculpted by the loving hand of the director. In addition it's shown that at one time Kong had another ape companion which met an untimely demise, and therefore his exit near the end of the film seems that much more tragic; as if he has been fighting the pain of loss for some time, and this last stand at the top of the Empire State Building, while protecting his girl, is his blaze of glory.

King Kong is fun, it's fresh and there's never a dull moment, although some scenes are a bit long such as the drama between shipmates during Kongs rampage on Skull Island. However with amazing effects, new kinds of monster mayhem, impeccable photography and sound design, and keeping all elements on track with a heartfelt story, those merits alone should make Kong a favorite at the box office.

Citizen Kane (1941)

It's more than just a great looking movie.

[10/10 · 12 December 2005]

What makes a great film? In my opinion it is the following:

#1.Photography (most important because it IS a film. If it's shot badly, then your skrood.) NOTE: I consider the best filmmakers to be great cinematographers first, such as Stanley Kubrick, Steven Spielberg, Etc.

#2. Directing/Editing (I lump the two together because the director really edits what is going on while it's being filmed, then finishes the process in the cutting room)

#3. Acting (If we can't believe the people, we've lost it. But, bad acting can be corrected in the cutting room, and with multiple takes).

#4. Sound and Music (If what we hear doesn't fit, the movie might as well be silent).

Now, this is all well and good for a movie that tells a great story. Add to that a serious dose of style, ingenuity, and passion, all of which can be found in each frame of Citizen Kane.

Citizen Kane isn't just a great movie with great characters, a great cast, great music from Bernard Herrmann or great photography. At the time of its creation it was like a cannon shot from the camp of RKO at the media moguls who were dominating the minds of people at the time.

This message was not only important to the American public who had a right to objective journalism, but also because we were seeing the affects of divisiveness over the airwaves thanks to Hitler, and the power that comes from shaping the perceptions of the masses needed to be acknowledged from a semi-fictional standpoint, and Wells did it with so much energy and style you can't help but admire this work even 60+ years later. Citizen Kane shook the rafters of the media, and even though they played it down, everybody at the time was feeling the quake.

Above all else, Citizen Kane tells the story of a man who is a victim of his own success, a story that can never be told enough.

When you see Citizen Kane, you're not just watching a well made film, you're watching a piece of art, a piece of history, and a timeless story of how power corrupts.

Absolutely.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

Blood Sugar Blues

[6/10 · 25 November 2005]

I'm not sure if my comment contains a spoiler, but I have noted as such considering a few elements are discussed which some readers may not have been aware of, especially if they had planned on comparing this film with the original.

I grew up loving the original film and read the books and was giving this movie high hopes, but it didn't work completely for me. I still gave it a 6 for the craftsmanship behind the scenes and a genuine love of the story I could feel coming from the cast and crew. It's not a total waste, and the good parts I will let you discover for yourself, but there are flaws.

My main problem with the film is the pacing, and even worse, the choreography was terrible. I guess I was expecting moves like Oscar giant "CHICAGO", and considering Elfman did the underscore for that film, I'm totally saddened that the dance sequences weren't as tight as the music. Only one moment when the Loompettes were bouncing off of Violet's totally outrageous blueberry frame did I actually sit up and notice. But it was very brief and I was left wanting more.

I also felt that the effects destroyed the pacing of scenes, like the perfection of them were holding the story hostage. Since they were paying for such wild and realistic shots I can only guess Burton was compelled to include them all without editing them down for the sake of timing.

The scene where Varuca Salt get's thrown down the garbage shoot could have been compressed a wee bit more to augment the urgency of the situation, which wasn't suspenseful enough for me. No, I didn't believe a little girl was being overpowered by squirrels, despite the squirrels looked great.

Johnny Depp as Wonka is just plain creepy. He's a great actor but I would have thought someone "down to earth" would have made a better Wonka. I guess I saw Wonka from the books as being more like the Artful Dodger from Charles Dicken's OLIVER TWIST; someone vulnerable but strong, with color in his cheeks and boundless confidence. Wilder came close in the first film, but his Wonka was more airy, and Depp's Wonka was more metallic. Willy Wonka bonds with Charlie at the end of the story, so their connection must be genuine and solid. But someone like that obviously wouldn't have fit into the added subplot of a grown up child who hates his father for not letting him eat candy in his formative years. I think this irritated me most of all. Wonka is a hero, not a cripple! The children carry the psychology of the story, Wonka is just the provider of organized chaos, only so he can find a worthy successor to his throne. Reward comes from non-attachment and selflessness. That's the story! Nothing else required.

The bottom line is this is a great film to look at, the characters are classic, the morals are there, the music is catchy, the effects are superb and the finale is touching. But it didn't make me want to see it again. Like walking through a museum, it's more of a gallery of experiences than an actual "ride", despite the glass elevator is pretty cool.