Change Your Image
dimokogan
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Still a great movie
Having just rewatched 'Spider-Man' and 'Spider-Man' (it's been a while), I can confirm that this is still one of the best comic book movies ever made. Like with the first Spider-Man film, it does have its problems, but they are much less glaring and much more forgivable than the first movie.
Ultimately, what this movie got right that the first one didn't, was that it understood that for a comic book movie to work, it has to have a great villain story. And the one in the first movie was... lacking, to say the least.
Here, we have Alfred Molina as a brilliant scientist who Peter admires. Similar to Peter's relationship to Norman in the first movie, except here the stakes are way higher and much deeper than the first movie.
Doc Ock, so proud of his science project which he designed to change the world, is all of a sudden challenged with the inevitable destruction of his dreams when his wife dies and the mechanical arms that he designed take over his mind.
This element alone builds a much more psychologically complex narrative that fits a guy like Raimi, who was used to making much darker films before 'Spider-Man.' When I rewatched 'Spider-Man,' it definitely felt like a Raimi film in terms of its humor and character development, but some of the darker elements that he's known were missing--particularly because the villain was wearing a Power Ranger mask.
Here, the darker psychological elements are in full display, particularly in the insane hospital scene where Doc Ock kills the entire staff and proceeds to hide out in the warehouse from 'Darkman.'
But what about the rest of the film?
Well, the stakes for the other characters are just as high, and just as complex.
In the first movie, Peter Parker was basically a nerd caricature getting nuggies from Flash Thompson and his gang.
Here, he's a college student who's struggling financially, and he's dealing with his broken friendship with Harry, and his strained relationship with Mary Jane.
His life is such a mess, in fact, that he decides to stop being Spider-Man altogether... Which was a storyline explored in the comics, but imagine actually making a Hollywood superhero action film, where the hero isn't even the hero for a good portion of the movie? Must have taken quite some balls in 2004.
If the movie has any problems, it's that the pacing is sometimes a little off, and some of the action scenes (even moreso than the first movie, for some reason) seem a little dated now. But aside from that, it's basically still as perfect as I remember it. You know a superhero movie is a good movie for adults when some of the most impactful 'action' sequences aren't just Spidey fighting Doc Ock on a rooftop, but when Harry slaps his friend for feeling betrayed, or when Mary Jane tells Peter that she's disappointed that he didn't come to her play.
Speaking of which, my main critique of MJ in the first movie was that it seemed like she was swinging from one boyfriend to the next, which didn't make her all that likable. Here, they figured out a much better balance with her character. She's a successful actress who's engaged to an astronaut, which from the point of view of the audience, is an interesting development. On one hand, we feel like she's completely betraying her love for Peter by running away with J. Jonah Jameson's son. On the other hand, we understand where she's coming from due to the fact that Peter is basically emotionally absent, and she's trying to move on with her life.
James Franco, who I liked in the first movie, is definitely much more alive as an actor in the second film. As the new head of Oscorp, he's trying his hardest to rebuild his father's legacy, and we do feel his struggle and pains and disappointments as everything seems to blow up (literally) in his face.
It's crazy how in only two years, the story, direction, and acting became so much more mature for Spider-Man. The first one felt like this lighthearted action romp, but the second one is an intense drama that just happens to be an action movie. It has a little something for everyone, but the most important part is, after all these years, I feel like no scene was really wasted. This was truly one of Sam Raimi's greatest movies (if not overall greatest).
Spider-Man (2002)
Still good, but has its problems
It has been a while since I watched the first two Sam Raimi Spider-Man films. Arguably the X-Men and Spider-Man films basically revived comic book films in an era where Hollywood was still recovering from 'Batman and Robin.' So I have to give the utmost credit to Raimi and crew for making superheroes cool in the mainstream again.
With that said, I'm not as crazy about the first Spider-Man movie when I rewatch it. The effects have aged alright, but in a lot of ways, the film is somewhat of a mess.
In terms of making an origin story for Spidey, it does alright. It introduces Parker as a dweebish science wiz, establishes the weird rich kid Harry is his best friend, and also shows us that the neighbor who is basically clueless about Peter's existence is his ultimate crush.
In the first 20 minutes of this movie, it felt like I was watching an episode of 'Beverly Hills 90210.' Granted, I have read all of the early Spider-Man comics, so I do remember that the dialogue and high school clichés weren't exactly Shakespearean in their inventiveness. Seeing Flash Thompson and his crew of airhead friends pick on poor Peter felt true to what the character would experience, but once again, these bullies also felt like poorly developed clichés that probably could have been cut out of the final product.
Once Peter puts on his initial costume and wrestles Macho Man Randy Savage--I mean Bonesaw--the movie does start becoming likable. New York City becomes alive as its own character, and scenes of Spider-Man swinging from the skyline were probably really inspiring in 2002.
Some of the deviations of the source material, however, did not help this film. Green Goblin's costume looks like crap. His abilities and glider are cool, but I don't know what's up with that mask. Granted, I guess they couldn't figure out a better way to create a mask that actually showed facial expression, but it is a shame that especially with an actor like Dafoe, his expressions and acting would all just go to waste anytime he has that mask on
I also wasn't crazy about the lack of webshooters. The reason they worked in the comics was that they showcased Peter's inventiveness, and lso provided a more plausible explanation for where the web came actually from than. (I mean, if the web came from his wrists, according to the movie, why wouldn't it come from other parts of his body?)
Mary Jane swinging between four different boyfriends (since she doesn't know Spider-Man and Parker are the same guy) doesn't do much for her likability in this film. In the second movie, it's one thing when she's only interested in two men. Four is kind of pushing it.
So I've listed my share of critiques, but here's what the movie does right:
- Willem Dafoe is a phenomenal actor, and the scenes where he isn't in the stupid Goblin costume do showcase his talent, which is very much alive in this film.
- James Franco, while still early in showcasing his true acting chops, does a good ob of being the rich kid who's wrestling between making his father proud but trying to keep his girlfriend happy.
- Some of the fight scenes, while not as good as the second film, do provide for interesting visual pieces, particularly the parade scene and the final epic showdown between Gobby and Spidey.
- J. K. Simmons, like always, never disappoints with his hilarious performance as the unscrupulous Jameson.
The movie is fun to watch, but the screenplay, overall, needs work. Far beyond screwing up aspects that made the original comics work, some of the dialogue (particularly Peter's scene with MJ in the hospital) is really bad. Goblin's speech to Spider-Man also sounds like a first draft of Batman talking to the Joker in the Dark Knight--and I mean that in the worst way possible.
And oh boy, are there more unplausible elements to the film that are worth addressing, such as:
- How the hell did Mary Jane not find it weird that Spider-Man knew her name when he never met her?
- How did Harry not instantly figure out that his dad was the Green Goblin when there was no better explanation for why Norman died and Spider-Man just happened to find his body--or that the Green Goblin was also coincidentally never seen after Norman died?
- And with that point mentioned above, how did Harry or any of the people who witnessed Peter's fight with Flash Thompson not instantly figure out that Peter was Spider-Man when he inexplicably does a backwards double back flip, and then proceeds to knock out Flash Thompson despite evidently never lifting even a dumbbell in his entire life?
But yeah, the movie is fun, like watching a cartoon is fun. For 2002, it may as well have been a comic book masterpiece. As a kid, I remember watching Spider-Man swing through the New York CIty skyline and thinking, "This is so freaking cool."
But the movie's plot as a whole? Needs serious work. Goblin was one of Spider-Man's key villains, but they did kind of ruin him with the costume.
Thank God they made a sequel to this.
Escape from L.A. (1996)
A worthy follow-up
Most people are right: this is the lesser of the two 'Escape' films, but that was destined to be considering how much time passed after the original, and how much the world had changed.
'Escape from New York' was made during a much more uncertain period in American history. We still didn't know how soon the Cold War would end, and we were in a recession. Hollywood movies were also entering the '80s action era. 'Escape from New York' arguably defined that era, but it was no Arnold Schwarzenegger popcorn flick. It was a serious social dystopian film comparable to novels like '1984' and 'Brave New World.'
In 1996, we saw a sequel during the Clinton era where Hollywood was starting to clearly cater to children more with video game films like 'Mortal Kombat.' We were also entering the era of CGI, so there was a lack of organic originality in set design that made movies like 'Escape from New York' so classic.
Despite this, I think most of the plot works. It's a rehash of the first movie. Same evil government putting Snake on a mission, albeit with less time, with that same promise to kill him if he doesn't complete the mission.
Some of the action scenes are less-than-stellar. The villain this time around (unlike Hayes' classic Duke role) may as well have been from last year's 'Mortal Kombat.' But we do have some performances from actors like Steve Buscemi that do add to the movie's quirky humor. And some of the ladies this time around aren't bad either (the first one unfortunately dies before we get to see a potential romance evolve, but that's just day-to-day life for Snake Plissken).
What struck me about the film is, despite most people agreeing that it's a somewhat disappointing sequel, it has a much more fitting ending. The ending of the original fit Snake's character well, but it didn't give us the climax we desired. Here, not only does Snake get to be a free man, but he gets his revenge on all the powers that used him for what seems to be the majority of his life. It is truly the satisfying conclusion we desired from an 'Escape from' movie.
Many people could skip this sequel and not miss much, but for die-hard fans of the original, it's worth watching. The lack of Lee Van Cleef, Donald Pleasence, and other great actors that added something special to Snake's world in the first film are absent here. But the supporting cast is not terrible. And Kurt Russell is as sharp here as he was in the first film, and even sharper in some places-especially the ending.
The Killer (2023)
Fincher has seen better times
There is a certain class of directors who I personally think peaked in the '90s with two great films, but never quite kept their momentum in the 21st century. I would put Fincher in that class. Two others that come to mind are Quentin Tarantino and M. Night Shyamalan.
Although some critics would definitely spar with me, I can't watch 'The Social Network' or 'Zodiac' and think either of them can match the better moments of 'Fight Club' or 'Se7en.' Same with comparing 'Kill Bill' or 'Django' to 'Pulp FIction' or 'Reservoir Dogs,' or just about anything Shyamalan made after 'Unbreakable' to that or 'Sixth Sense.'
Here we have a prime example of Fincher being Fincher with nothing new to offer to the world. Same retread of dark existentialist themes. Sharp cinematography and visual editing as always, but absolutely no substance behind them. An empty shell of a character played by Fassbender also fails to draw us in for the film's entire run time.
Not that it doesn't have its moments. I gave it a 5 because it's not a terrible movie, but it has many elements of a terrible movie and few of even a good movie. The fight scene with the large hispanic guy felt like a scene from a Spider-Man film (one of the recent ones, to be exact), it was so over-the-top. And while the movie continues with its senseless violence, we're supposed to be convinced that the killer played by Fassbender has a good reason to commit his actions. While the reason makes sense to him, we are less than convinced it's worth making a movie about.
Punchline (1988)
The ultimate stand-up comedy movie
Some people probably remember 'Punchline' as one of Tom Hanks' weakest films, or just a dumb cheesy '80s comedy. But for anyone who ever tried stand-up in their lives, this might be the most realistic depiction of what doing stand-up is like.
Unlike the documentary 'Comedian,' which portrays the process of coming up with bits, 'Punchline' delves more into the human emotions of being a stand-up comedian.
Oftentimes when we think of comedians, we think of legends like Richard Pryor or George Carlin, or people who went on to do SNL or feature length films. Meanwhile, in clubs all across America, most comics are more like the protagonists depicted in this film. They are either struggling up-and-comers who may or may not become famous--like Steven Gold--or regular housewives who are trying to balance their show business aspirations with their homelife--like Sally Field's Lilah.
'Punchline' is a work of fiction that never strays into fantasy. How many modern rom-coms do we see where the characters are lonely, but eventually find their perfect match and live happily ever after? Here we have a young man who falls hopelessly in love with a married woman, but she can't possibly leave her husband to be with him. It's an unusual love story by Hollywood standards, but in real life situations like this probably happen all the time.
'Punchline' depicts the complexities of life very well. Steven Gold is a great comic, but he can't forego his medical studies as a practical back-up plan. Lilah loves her family, but she's willing to sabotage social engagements and time with her husband and kids so that she can pursue her dreams on stage.
As someone who did stand-up in New York City for several years, I can say that the world this movie depicts feels very real to me. Granted, in the '80s it was easier to get stage time in front of real audiences, but aside from that, everything checks out. The roster of comics in this movie is a screwed up bunch of misfits who are clearly unable to function well in day-to-day life, so they meet in secluded locker rooms and sour-smelling bars and night clubs for their chance to perform in front of a bunch of drunks in suits who are more likely to laugh at the comics than with them.
I love this movie, and never change my opinion on it every time I see it. Tom Hanks and Sally Field perfectly represent the ins and outs of show business. It's so fascinating that in an age where stand-up is more alive than ever, there's still something about the digital age and Netflix specials that don't have the same organic feel to them that older stand-up did. 'Punchline' captures that old organic stand-up feeling really well.
And on one hand, seeing some of those cheesy '80s comics in this movie will make you glad we're not living in the '80s anymore. On the other hand, there was a certain charm there that many modern comedians aren't quite able to replicate. Glad someone was able to capture it before it evaded our scope.
The 40 Year Old Virgin (2005)
The bright spot of Apatow's film career
There's no denying that this movie was a comedy milestone at the time of its release. It catapulted Steve Carell to star level, launched Seth Rogen's career, and cemented Apatow as a film director.
As a lifelong comedy fan, I never dislike this film anytime I rewatch it. It works on several levels, offers big laughs, and showcases some impressive performances from its actors.
The flipside with 'The 40-Year-Old Virgin,' despite all of its entertainment value, it also had a very negative effect on the comedy world. Rogen, although clearly in his best element in this movie, began to be touted as a big Hollywood star shortly after the success of this film (and its follow-up 'Knocked Up'). He was good in weird side roles, but he has zero star charisma, and it's unfortunate that so many producers and directors thought he did just because he was good in this movie.
This movie also spawned 'the Apatow crew,' the troupe of actors who regularly collaborate with Apatow on his films. Three of the obvious ones from this film that appear in other Apatow films are Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, and Paul Rudd. I'm not knocking the talents of any of these people, but they are no Frat Pack. In terms of the comedy movie timeline, '40-Year-Old Virgin' effectively replaced the Frat Pack, for better or worse, but I believe it ultimately offered a less funny troupe of actors than Ben Stiller, the Wilson brothers, and Will Ferrell.
Apatow also came from working on shows like 'Freaks and Geeks,' which I believe was much more clever, darker, and psychologically profound than anything happening in this film. In terms of mainstream appeal, 'The 40-Year-Old Virgin' works, but it's not as funny as a Frat Pack movie, and not as deep as even the worst episode of 'Freaks and Geeks.' Once Andy's three co-workers learn that he's a virgin, the movie descends into predictable Hollywood comedy territory, as they get into club hijinks, speed dating, waxing Andy's chest, and eventually finding the love of his life.
Which is yet another complaint I have about this film. If being an adult virgin is so tragic-comic, and the movie tries to psychon-alyze Andy with some of the scenes from his past, why does it so easily slip into typical romantic comedy fare once Catherine Keener is introduced?
Also, I'm not a big fan of the didactic element of most of Apatow's films that thankfully doesn't exist in his earlier stuff like 'Freaks and Geeks' (likely because Paul Feig had more creative control on that).
For instance, '40-Year-Old Virgin' started a trend of 'let's fix this character' movies, where the effective solution is usually pretty obvious (at least in 'Virgin' and 'Knocked Up') to everyone except the main character. So the main character then has to go through a hurdle in order to see real change and self-improvement in himself.
Compare this to truly classic comedies like 'Happy Gilmore' or 'Wedding Crashers,' where there is a change that occurs in the main characters, but they're ultimately not that different when the movie ends.
Whereas in '40-Year-Old Virgin,' Andy goes from being a middle-aged virgin to a married step-dad, and Seth Rogen's character in 'Knocked Up' goes from unemployed slacker to responsible father and husband.
We get it: not everyone should be a permanent virgin or slacker in the real world. It's just when that message is so egregiously beat upon the head of the viewers, we get the feeling we're watching an episode of Oprah instead of a movie that's supposed to make us laugh.
Which, don't get me wrong, this movie is very funny. The performances are great, the chemistry between the actors work, and the writing....
Well, let's just say that element can use work too. I'm not a fan of the self-aware, ironic, hip dialogue that was later employed in films like 'Juno.' This movie does not go overboard with it, but that's another aspect I don't like about some of the characters in Apatow comedies. They act like they're too aware that they're in a movie.
Whereas in 'Zoolander,' the humor comes from the fact that all of the characters not only take their world seriously, but are about two times as funny because they don't suspect that there's anything funny about their world.
I like 'The 40-Year-Old Virgin.' I like most Apatow movies. With anything positive, unless it's a 10/10 classic, there is always a negative. This movie launched several careers, but ultimately started trends in comedy movies that arguably killed the genre in the long run.
Joker (2019)
Leaves a lot to be desired
Being a hardcore Batman fan my entire life, when I heard this movie was coming out, I was clearly intrigued along with half the world. When I heard Joaquin Phoenix was cast as the Joker, I didn't think he exactly seemed like the best fit... but then again neither did Ledger. So I reserved my judgment.
The first time I saw this movie, I remember sitting in the theater, listening to Joaquin's awkward laugh, and thinking to myself, "What is this crap? Is this the Joker movie we've all been waiting for?" Then as the movie continued, I noticed Philips did find an interesting balance between sadness, tragedy, and gallows humor. Occasionally, it worked and occasionally it didn't.
The movie's biggest problem was that it never really found a lane. It was a comic book movie based on an infamous character, but it was also trying to be a study on mental illness and an homage to Scorsese's 'angry man' films ('Taxi Driver' and 'King of Comedy', to be precise). It didn't really know what it wanted to be sometimes, which is oftentimes the hallmark of a bad movie. But this isn't an altogether bad movie.
Once it got to the end, Philips did seem to bring his message home, and we understood that all along it was actually a complex movie (up until that point, it was more of a complex mess) about what can happen to some of society's underdogs. Although, I still felt like the message was a little muddy and unclear. At times, especially at the very end of the movie, it feels like Philips is almost glorifying or giving a voice to society's losers. Which then makes me ask, what's the message exactly? Are we supposed to understand the scourges of society better in hopes that they have a better life, but then if they don't receive a better life, then society deserves what's coming to them?
Okay. Not exactly sure this was what Nolan was trying to say with his version of the Joker, but Nolan was clearly a much more focused and talented director.
It's funny because after rewatching 'Taxi Driver' recently, I began to notice that 'Joker,' like 'Taxi Driver,' sometimes struggled to follow the jumbled mess of events of an unreliable narrator. The difference is that through the very unusual series of events in Travis Bickle's life, there was ultimately a commentary on society once that movie ends and the media sees Bickle as a hero. There's also an interesting discrepancy between how we view him and the people in his world view him.
At the end of 'Joker,' Arthur is seen as a hero by some of the people in the movie, but how do we see him? Maybe Philips leaves that open to interpretation because he wants us to decide. But as the audience we're placed in a situation where we don't want to. Which, ironically, makes a movie called 'Joker' not the most fun movie to watch.
Synecdoche, New York (2008)
Pretentious, yet occasionally tolerable
If there's anything I learned from watching this movie, it's that Charlie Kaufman should not be allowed to direct. As a screenwriter, he wrote some very interesting movies, but something told me that as soon as he'd get behind a camera, he'd get way up his own ass with pretentious artistry. And boy, was I not wrong.
The funny thing, even though I didn't like this movie too much, I could relate to it. I did not see it when it came out. I saw it in fact, years later, when I was actually acting in (and occasionally assistant directing) community theater plays in Upstate New York. I had no idea it was based in Schenectady, so close to where I was also doing theater. So when I see the first part of the movie literally takes place in a shoddy house, and its 'hero,' Caden, is some downtrodden schmuck director who can't catch a break, I just thought to myself, 'Yep, they got that part right, at least.'
Personal connections aside, the movie proceeds to get straight up its own artistic colon once Caden gets a grant to become a hotshot director in New York City. He moves to New York City, and proceeds to direct an ongoing play about his life that has no beginning, middle, or ending.
This is where I honestly had to ask, what was the point of making this film, really? Even to write it? Didn't Kaufman already say everything he needed to say about 'the illusion of reality' with 'Adaptation,' 'Eternal Sunshine,' and 'Being John Malkovich'? Honestly, it's kind of overkill at this point. And that's an understatement.
Philip Seymour Hoffman, true to form, plays a desperate sad sack we feel sorry for. I like all of his performances, and this one is no different. Despite the fact that he's challenged with a really bad screenplay, he stays true to form and never makes us respect Caden even in the least. In many ways, this was probably Hoffman's worst character, although I blame that entirely on Kaufman. The acting is spot-on, but writing-wise, we can't always understand whether we're supposed to root for Caden for his dreams, or think he's a self-aggrandizing blowhard because he's clearly just using his artistic 'gift' to sleep with younger women and dazzle the critics. I guess, in this sense, he's probably somewhat based on Kaufman, who I can't imagine is the most fun person to have a conversation with in real life. He's a great screenwriter, but please Hollywood, keep him away from the camera. Thanks.
Jack Goes Boating (2010)
Maybe it worked better as a play?
After viewing Hoffman's only directorial work, I was a little perplexed why he chose to direct a story with writing barely above the level of a soap opera. I know he acted in the original play, so I'm guessing that based on my own experiences watching and acting in plays, some of the dialogue and some of the situations simply worked better on stage. But to choose to even direct this seemed a little tone-deaf to me, because the movie's script simply lacks any kind of substance that would make it interesting as a movie.
Hoffman plays Jack, a socially inept limo driver who spends some of his evenings in the company of good friends, Clyde and Lucy--two people that frankly seem like they're in a completely different world sometimes from Jack and his eventual girlfriend, Connie.
In a movie as bad as this, Hoffman's directing actually surpasses his acting. Jack is like a stilted parody of some of his most emotionally deadened characters from films like 'Happiness' and 'Love Liza.' Hoffman also looks as bloated as ever in this movie, despite the fact that he's supposed to be a good swimmer. He also somehow attracts a woman despite having the social skills of Rain Man.
But Connie is no prize either. She is super messed up, almost robotic, and clearly has intimacy issues. I guess while watching the movie, we're supposed to be somewhat touched that two screwed up people found each other, but the love is less tender and more forced and mechanical. The love scenes are actually the highlight of the film, sadly enough, but if they were in a good movie, they would probably ruin that movie.
What else is there to say about a movie that barely works? Clyde and Lucy are almost annoying in every scene that they're in. They're having their own relationship issues, and apparently they're both cheating on each other. But once their marital conflict grows tense, there's no release that makes us care any deeper about their conflict.
The directing is fine, and not really the worst part about this movie. The fact that it's surprisingly well-directed besides being a terrible movie is probably the only reason I give this a 2 and not a 1. For a first-time director, Hoffman does show aptitude with the camera. None of the scenes are too awkwardly-filmed, and I think that had he a better script to work, he could have been a very passable director. Although he does nothing interesting with the camera visually, I believe he did learn a few things from theater directing which he does well enough here.
But in all other areas, such as making this movie actually interesting to watch, only God could have helped him, and God was clearly absent.
Love Liza (2002)
A good quaint little film
Several years before Hoffman slam-dunked it with 'Capote,' he was not known as much of a leading man. This was his first official leading role, which does make it a historical footnote for anyone who considers themselves to be a fan of this great actor.
Unsurprising for anyone who saw Hoffman in 'Happiness,' he once again plays a major sad sack loser. Even worse, he's barely staying alive. After the death of his wife, he begins sniffing gas fumes, and thereafter begins to alienate himself from his friends and loved ones.
But as sad as the events of the film are, we can't help but laugh at some of the scenes, as Hoffman delivers a tragicomic performance about one man's self-destruction.
There really isn't a plot, or even a point, to much of the movie. But it is somehow endlessly entertaining. Had anyone else starred in the production, it may have not worked as well. This really is mostly a vehicle for Hoffman's acting. If you liked 'Happiness,' just imagine the same kind of character he played there, but for an entire movie. It sometimes does not work as well as it did there, but it works well enough to justify the running time.
Overall, an interesting watch, but probably not as interesting for non-diehard PSH fans.
Scent of a Woman (1992)
Gets better with every rewatch
'Scent of a Woman' is a timeless classic that can teach us a lot about life at any stage that we are in. It is about two characters who are struggling, and although the severity of the struggle is clearly different for both of them, it's this struggle that ultimately connects them and teaches them a few important lessons.
Col. Frank Slade, on the surface, is not the most likable film character when we first meet him. He is a drunken, misanthropic grouch with clear personality flaws. His language is obscene and overly direct, and his manner is not pleasant. But he speaks with the commanding tone of a man who served in the military. We see right away that he has a high IQ and has a natural perception into people's characters. But ultimately, he is the polar opposite of young Charlie, who is sensitive, reserved, and soft-spoken.
As we travel with Frank and Charlie in this two-and-a-half-hour adventure, we learn some of Frank's hidden talents that continually endear us to him. We learn that despite his seemingly brutal nature, he is actually an aesthete who can appreciate the smell of a woman's perfume and accurately guess the brand that she uses. We learn that he can tango and drive a Ferrari. Ultimately, we learn that despite his frank and sometimes off-putting nature, he can also be charismatic, respectful, and complimentary.
The ending of the movie is unexpected, but we learn that in our darkest moments, we can find hope once we get past the hurdle. Although the struggle of a young man facing expulsion from private school is not the same struggle of a blind ex-colonel in the midst of an existential crisis, we learn that both men find reasons to live through their friendship. 'Scent of a Woman' is a well-made, emotionally driven film that always teaches me something about life every time I see it.
The Waterboy (1998)
Not Sandler's best
Although 'The Waterboy' certainly has enough funny and quotable moments to make for a decent comedy at times, overall it doesn't have quite the charm of Sandler's most memorable films.
Sandler is known for playing manchildren and misfits, so this film mostly carries in that formula. Except in this case, Bobby Boucher is so much on the slow side that we don't have as much to identify with him.
Take 'Happy Gilmore,' another sports movie starring Sandler. Happy is not very likable from the movie's introduction, but his goals are clear. Once he decides he needs to play golf to win his gandma's house back, we're immediately on his side.
Here, it's not that we're not on the side of our stuttering main character--we're just not fully aware of what that side even means to him.
Henry Winkler, who is pretty good in this movie, recruits Bobby to play football after seeing how effective his tackle is. We get that Bobby would rather be a football star than be an abused waterboy. But considering that we're rooting for a slow, socially inept, possibly even mentally challenged mama's boy, we're not entirely convinced that he's playing football 100% at his own free will.
This isn't Happy Gilmore who foregoes playing hockey to be a golf star. Bobby is literally just trying to fit in and be normal. And if those are the stakes, they're not high enough for us to want to see him play football.
His mother, played by Kathy Bates, is really just a devilish woman who we don't like in the slightest. Even when she lowers her protective shield on Bobby, we don't entirely forgive her for essentially ruining his life with her overprotectiveness.
Fairuza Balk as Vicki Vallencourt is alluring, but is Sandler even really chasing her in this movie? Unlike in most of his other movies, he's not really trying to charm the girl. He's just so inept at life that he ends up with her, which also doesn't allow the film to set up any sort of tension or climax, as far as the romance goes.
If Bobby was a person in real life, we might root for him. Maybe the biggest issue inherent is that Sandler plays him so much like an idiot, that we don't really believe it's for real.
And this is the same man who convincingly played a grown person who went back to elementary school, so it's not saying anything bad about Sandler as an actor overall. This is unfortunately is just not the right script for any actor to be in.
George Carlin: You Are All Diseased (1999)
Carlin at his best
George Carlin wanted to be a movie star like Danny Kaye. As we saw him take on the helm of Lenny Bruce in the '90s, we often don't consider that as a much younger person he dreamed of being more of a physical comedian on the silver screen, making people laugh with his facial expressions and body movements.
By the time this special was released, he's really more of a mad jaded ex-hippie walking up to you on the street and telling you everything that's wrong with American society. Some people were turned off by all the anger. "What happened to the classic Carlin?" they asked.
I'd argue, however, that this is Carlin at his funniest. His opening on airport security is full of many hysterical hypotheticals and meanderings that will sometimes remind you more of the kind of humor you see in the Three Stooges or the Marx Brothers than you do in most stand-up specials.
Carlin is less preachy here than in 'Jammin' in New York' and 'Back in Town,' which is good. The special ends on religion, but most of it is more just general things that piss him off. I think Carlin is at his best when he does that kind of humor, personally, which is why this and 'Complaints and Grievances' rank among my two personal favorite Carlin specials.
If you don't like a bitter old man ranting about things, then you probably won't like this special. If you're a diehard comedy fan, you might appreciate Carlin's takes on seemingly random topics. If you still have PTSD from the Corona-era, his bit on germs will be a hoot. But whoever you are, as Carlin would say, go eff yourself.
Vice Principals (2016)
Season 1 a hit, season 2 not so much
This was my first Danny McBride show. I watched almost the entire first season of before watching the entirety of 'Eastbound and Down,' and then went back to finish all of 'Vice Principals.'
Season 1 works as a dark comedy about an administrative power struggle between three people. When I got to season 2, I realized the reason why season 1 worked so well was because of Dr. Belinda Brown. She is the perfect target for the two vice principals' antics, which sets up most of the comedy of season 1.
Since she's not in most of season 2, I felt the show took a bit of a downward spiral. Gamby spends much of the season trying to find his shooter. But throughout this search, there's little to actually engage us for most of the season. Some of the new characters introduced, like Nash, leave much to be desired. The fact that it takes so long for Gamby and Snodgrass to get back together again is kind of weird, because he spent most of season 1 trying to get her, and succeeded. Here, it felt like someone pushed the reset button in a bad way, which made most of the next season not so enjoyable.
The season finale, however, is strong. Danny McBride shows are weird in that the quality of the season finale will be polar opposite to the rest of the show. In this case, season 1 of Vice Principals is mostly good, but the season finale leaves much to be desired. Season 2, on the other hand, leaves much to be desired, but the season 2 finale is strong.
Unfortunately, I can't recommend only watching season 1, because the story of season 2 does conclude the show. Some people say season 2 was even better than season 1, but I definitely felt a decline in storytelling quality with the absence of Belinda Brown, which put a spike in the show's quality, and impacted its overall vision.
Get Out (2017)
Fulfills expectations
When this movie was released in theaters, I initially avoided it because I stopped watching horror movies by that point, and a horror movie made by that guy from 'Key and Peele' just didn't seem like my cup of tea. But after a friend of mine told me that it had some deeper social and political implications, I decided to give it a go.
I was not let down. This really is more of a satire that you might find on Comedy Central, but it's marketed as a horror movie. In fact, I would even say it's 80% funny. Scenes where white people pander to the black main character by saying things like "I voted for Barack Obama" have to be some of the funniest moments in movie history.
There is an uneasy feeling throughout, however, and the last 20 minutes or so do cement this as a horror flick. In the final scenes where Kaluuya's character escapes, I felt like Peele gave him superhuman strength or something. He's literally just tearing through the white folks' home like Hercules--which on one hand, is satisfying to audiences, but on the other hand is somewhat unrealistic, even in the scope of a supernatural horror film.
This isn't an easy movie to watch. Its satire will make white people feel uncomfortable. Like really uncomfortable. As in, this movie will make you not proud to be white at all--which I guess is Peele's intent.
Peele's vision as a filmmaker is strong, but his characters largely feel like caricatures. Which I guess is the point, but even in a weird satirical horror film it helps to have characters you can genuinely root for.
The problem here might be due to casting. Kaluuya is an okay actor, but he doesn't have any leading man charisma whatsoever. The rest of the cast, likewise, fulfills their role as the white devils well, but don't really have any standout moments as
villains. This is simply because the cast is really not that strong, and the writing doesn't give them much more room to breathe as anything beyond being the bad white people.
Lil Rel Howery provides much needed comic relief, making us wish there were more scenes with him in it. I really wish Peele stopped making horror movies, because his natural gift is still comedy. Imagine a movie starring Lil Rel Howery as a TSA agent? Now that would be entertainment.
The Usual Suspects (1995)
One of Spacey's best performances
Movies like this will make you yearn for the golden age of cinema that was the '90s, where seemingly Hollywood was just releasing instant classic after instant classic.
This was sadly one of those movies that I overlooked when I was younger. In my haze of binging Netflix DVD rentals as a teen, I remember watching the first 20 minutes of this and turning it off, not knowing that I was missing out on probably one of the most intelligently-written films ever produced.
Granted, it's nonlinear structure might be somewhat confusing, but the movie isn't as complicated as some people say it is. The movie essentially unwraps in a series of interesting scenes related to a heist. As Spacey's character Verbal narrates all these recollections in his life to Agent Kujan (Chazz Palminteri), we learn more and more about the mysterious figure behind the madness, Keyser Söze. The only question we all have is: who is Keyser Söze?
The funny thing is, I already knew who Söze was when I sat down with the intention to watch this film to its full conclusion, but that didn't detract me from appreciating the ending whatsoever. Nor did it stop me from appreciating the sharp screenwriting, excellent direction, and mesmerizing performance by Spacey, who rivals his role in Seven, which I previously thought was the top acting in his career.
This is one of those classics you want to rewatch as soon as it's finished, just because you're so blown away by the time it's all finished that you want to re-examine the pieces and figure out how the filmmakers were able to pull one over you so cleverly. Highly recommended.
Pee-wee's Big Adventure (1985)
So many classic moments
I was never really a fan of any other Pee-wee incarnation except for this one. I never understood 'Pee-wee's Playhouse,' and I certainly didn't think any other Pee-wee film came close to this.
That's because, to me, Pee-wee only really works through the vision of Tim Burton.
From the wacky breakfast scene to the hitchhiking journey with Large Marge (her scene will make you think you're watching a horror movie, especially as a kid), this movie has so many classic moments that it's hard not to like. Considering it has one of the dumbest, most absurd plots of most films that made it to the silver screen, Burton does a great job navigating us through what could have otherwise been a giant mess with his visual camerawork and great sense of comedic timing.
I personally think Burton and Reubens should have collaborated on more projects together. The fact that they never made another Pee-wee movie was a tragically missed opportunity. Reubens, who passed away recently, did hit a few rough patches in his career that almost destroyed the Pee-wee character permanently. But as I look back on this comedy classic, he arguably could have put Pee-wee to rest the year this came out, and I wouldn't have minded in the least.
Halloween Ends (2022)
Not the worst of the David Gordon Green trilogy
I personally didn't understand why anyone liked Halloween 2018. Maybe people were just so hyped for a new Halloween, they didn't realize that it ultimately didn't improve a whole lot on Zombie's remake. Its sequel, 'Halloween Kills,' was also just an unnecessary gorefest.
This one actually does have some new ideas, though. As poorly as they're executed, we do have to give it some credit for trying to pass on the mask to a new character (even though diehard fans of the franchise know that character should have been Jamie Lloyd from Halloween 4).
Laurie is more likable here than in the last two movies. She's not a basketcase like in Halloween 2018, and she's also not sitting around in a hospital mumbling to herself like she did in 'Halloween Kills.'
When she initially met Corey, we could have almost imagined an entirely different movie. But then once Corey meets Michael Myers, they take the obvious path of making the weird kid with a tragic background the next Haddonfield killer.
The murders themselves were not my cup of tea. It seems like since the Zombie movies, every entry in the franchise is endlessly fascinated with gory depictions one after the next. I personally think that goes against all the mystery and suspense that the 1978 Halloween got right, but try getting that message across in the 21st century.
While the ending delivers a well-choreographed showdown, it's ultimately predictable. After 13 Halloween films, we're not given anything new that we haven't already seen a million times.
I liked it more than Green's first two films, but not by a lot. It has a few good ideas that are poorly executed, but at least it tried a little harder. I'll give it credit for that.
Halloween II (1981)
Great follow-up to a horror classic
I'm guessing critics didn't take too kindly to this movie because at the time that it came out, there were so many Halloween knock-offs that the expectations were probably higher than anything the first real Michael Myers sequel could deliver. But if you watch it immediately after the first movie, you'll notice there are two things they did really well.
For one thing, it takes place immediately after the events of the first Halloween. As a horror sequel, it could have gone an entirely different direction, but because it honors the first movie by basically continuing its story, we know that alone makes it legitimate.
The second thing they did well is that even though Michael Myers is played by a different actor, he is just as menacing as he was in the first film, if not moreso. No one can beat Nick Castle--his interpretation of a masked killer basically influenced every future horror movie villain for years to come. But Dick Warlock actually does one-up him in several scenes. By being less in the shadows and more out in the open as he stalks around the hospital looking for Lorie, we almost get a more Terminator-esque vibe from him.
Some people say some of the murders were too brutal, including the infamous jacuzzi scene. I'd argue that if we're talking about a man who literally killed his sister when he was a child, nothing is too brutal coming from him. The hospital setting is perfect for Michael Myers to unleash his madness. And as for anyone who complains about most of the characters in the hospital were too one-dimensional, I would argue that so were most of the characters in the first flick. Let's be honest... aside from Laurie, Loomis, and Michael Myers, was anyone close to memorable in the first two movies?
Eastbound & Down (2009)
One of the best shows ever made
My introduction to 'Eastbound' was kind of weird. A friend of mine showed me 'Vice Principals,' and while I liked it, I got bored before I even finished the first season. Then, I finally got around to watching 'Eastbound' and got hooked after the first episode. Not only are Kenny Powers and Stevie Janowski two of the best characters in TV, but the comedy writing of the show is just as good if not better than the average episode of 'Curb' or 'Arrested Development.'
I did think season 2 was definitely the weakest season of the show, but still more watchable than most stuff on TV these days. And while the season finales from seasons 1 - 3 will blow you away, I was not fully satisfied by the season 4 finale. I'll go as far as to say that it might be my least favorite episode of the entire show... but you be the judge. The season 4 finale and most of season 2 are the only things keeping me from giving the show a perfect 10.
And by the way, after getting back into 'Vice Principals,' I do maintain that it actually is also another great show worth watching. Just not as great as 'Eastbound.'
The Cable Guy (1996)
A misunderstood classic
Growing up in the '90s, there were few comedy stars as big as Jim Carrey. I distinctly remember going over a family friend's house and being told about his strange performance in this movie, and then shortly afterward going to Blockbuster with my parents and asking them to rent 'The Cable Guy.'
Even as a kid, I remember it being a well-made film. Ben Stiller has a keen eye for satire, as shown in his later effort 'Zoolander.' 'The Cable Guy' works both as a satire on television and a tale of loneliness.
As a kid, I kind of felt sorry for Chip Douglas. As an adult, I see his character as a very unsettling study in mental illness. The movie works because we know that the world does have very troubled people like Chip who can basically ruin an innocent person's life on a whim. Stiller directs that tension to a fitting climax, which ultimately leaves us with a very uncomfortable feeling that makes it kind of obvious why this film didn't really play well to those expecting another 'Ace Ventura' or 'The Mask.'
I don't think this is the best Carrey movie, but it's definitely up there, and it gives you an early peak into what would later develop into a set of very mature dramatic chops for him in works like 'The Truman Show' and 'Man on the Moon.' Ben Stiller fans (and alt comedy fans in general) can also glee in what's essentially an all-star cameo pack of people who would eventually become stars or permanent staples in the comedy world.