Misses the Point

Once again, the tease is better than the pay-off.

2008-01-21T09:33:00.000-05:00

Movie:
Rating:

Review: Matt Reeves' "Cloverfield" takes a low-budget filmmaking approach and merges it with a high-budget concept. The result is occasionally effective, but ultimately left me feeling cold. Reacting to the movie, I found myself not particularly involved with what happened to these characters. With a few minor exceptions, the movie never felt inauthentic, and yet I was never frightened.

All of you must know the concept by now. It's "found footage" of a monster attacking Manhattan. Using exclusively no-name (but good-looking) actors, Reeves and producer J.J. Abrams add to the movie's credibility - these people never feel likes stars in a high-concept movie. An amateur films the action and has little regard for cinematography or a complete picture. The movie employs a "shaky-cam" that is often disorienting. Viewers who were bothered by "The Blair Witch Projects" camera work would be wise to avoid this movie. Still, the urgency and amateurish quality of footage again makes the movie feel "real." It also adds a little suspense because, at least until the end, we are denied a good glimpse of the monster.

The story: Jason (and his girlfriend Lily) are throwing a going-away party for his brother, Rob. Their friend Hud is asked to film the party. He reluctantly does, but eventually grows fond of the camera, fancying himself as a journalist even after the large unwelcome guest arrives. Hud is a surrogate for the audience. He's obnoxious, demands information, and eavesdrops on private conversations between Rob and his ex, Beth. We watch as Hud haplessly tries to charm Marlene. We watch as a wounded Rob says cruel things to Beth before she angrily leaves. Some have criticized these scenes as too long of a prologue, but I think they are crucial. By watching Hud embarrassingly strike out, we gain sympathy for him (and tolerate his later behavior). If we did not see Rob's transparent feelings for Beth, they would seem more foolhardy than they already are. Then all hell breaks loose.

The group eventually decides that they must journey to Beth's building and save her. Of course, terror ensues along the way. We catch brief glimpses of the monster and (SPOILER ALERT) the insects that it sheds. Some sequences are more effective than others. Climbing into a dilapidated skyscraper, we watch the characters struggle along the floor. This heightens the audience's sense of unease and vertigo, and is one of the better uses of the hand-held camera.

On the other hand, the tunnel sequence, widely noted as the most frightening, is ineffective. I think this is because in order to properly build suspense, the director's camera must be one step ahead of the action. For example, consider the scene in "Halloween" where Laurie thinks Michael is dead, but we see him rise again before she does. That scene generates suspense because we see the danger before Laurie. But because a character holds the camera in "Cloverfield," we understand situations as quickly as the characters do, and there is relatively little opportunity to generate terror. Matt Reeves uses the technique well, but has one hand tied behind his back during crucial moments.

My disappointment with "Cloverfield" might be a result of unreasonably high expectations. I had read too many early reviews that spoke of its unrelenting terror. I had wondered idly what the monster was like. While watching it, I felt unmoved. When the monster was finally revealed, it was less frightening than I had previously thought, lending credence to the theory that the audience's imagination is more evocative than any special effect. Still, it provided a nice alternative from the large-scale monster attack that has dominated horror. I just wish I had left the theater more shaken than I was.

Shave and a slit-throat - two bits.

2008-01-12T12:40:00.000-05:00

Movie:
Rating:

Review: Note: I've only recently gotten over my prejudice of musicals, and have never seen a Sondheim production before. So I therefore apologize if any of the following observations are systemic of his work and appear completely obvious to those who are familiar with musical theater.

Tim Burton's adaptation of "Sweeney Todd" uses atmosphere and song to make an entertaining examination of the macabre. Make no mistake: the murders are bloody, the characters are vile, and their motivations are twisted. Because those involved in the movie are immensely talented, audiences can easily stomach the sinister story. Left in the hands of someone who does not understand the movie's tone, the misanthropy and gore would have been almost intolerable.

The movie's strongest quality is its look. Tim Burton has always been to make movies that drip with atmosphere ("Sleepy Hollow, "Beetle Juice," "Batman"), and on those terms, "Sweeney Todd" is his finest achievment. He's drained the London streets of color (except for splashes of red, of course). Even a sun-lit dream sequence looks drab and gray. The sets are intimate and ominous. Depp begins the movie by singing about the sorry state of London - the art direction and cinematography confirm his belief. It looks like a Dickensian nightmare, and is utterly captivating.

While the movie looks great, its biggest weakness are its songs. The lyrics are often clever and music plays non-stop, but the numbers are not catchy. I'm not sure if the same can be said of Sondheim's works in general, but as I left the theater, I was not humming any tunes. This is not to say that the songs were awful - there were just no stand-outs.

Not much happens in "Sweeney Todd." Without songs, the movie could have been easily told in twenty minutes. In addition to being entertaining, the songs act like soliloquies - they provide interesting insight into the minds of truly evil people. Johnny Depp's Sweeney is resolutely single-minded in his rage. Accented by harsh black circles, his piercing eyes are utterly devoid of joy or remorse. He simply wants revenge. Depp's singing isn't particularly showy - he sings efficiently and coldly, a decision which helps further the character development. He has a scowl and delivery that closely resembles a punk singer. Helena Bonham Carter's Mrs. Lovett, on the other hand, is gleefully immoral. Her voice sparkles with wit and depravity while also masking hidden desires. Supporting characters, such as the boy and the movie's young couple, have sweet, idealistic-sounding voices. But with such sinister subject matter, their songs seem all the more hopeless. Alan Rickman, as the judge, adds to his list of great villains.

For me, the most surprising element of the movie was its violence. The throat-slittings are stylized but the camera does not cut away from them - we see the messy business and gallons of blood. When bodies hit the floor of Mrs. Lovett's shop, the make an dull thud that is morbidly funny. Despite the initial shock of the murders, I think Burton made a wise choice. It would have been a mistake to lessen the violence because "Sweeney Todd" is just as much a horror movie as it is a musical. For someone who has always loved the former and only began to appreciate the latter, the movie was a treat.

An alternative to torture porn

2008-01-08T10:40:00.000-05:00

Movie:
Rating:

Review: Juan Antonio Bayona’s “The Orphanage” is an excellent guide on how to build dread. Unlike the recent crop of American horror movies which rely too heavily on gore and shock, “The Orphanage” understands that what viewers don’t see is far more frightening than what they do. Comparisons have been made to last year’s “Pan’s Labyrinth,” and they’re not entirely off the mark (the fulcrum of both is a child’s hyperactive imagination). “The Orphanage” isn’t as ambitious or innovative as the popular Guillermo Del Toro feature, but nonetheless provides a suspenseful movie-going experience.

Laura (Belén Rueda), now in her mid thirties, returns to the orphanage of her youth with hopes of jumpstarting a home for disabled children. Accompanying her is Carlos, her pragmatic husband, and Simón, her son with an abundant imagination. The first scenes are ominous and set up some unnerving coincidences. Laura soon invites families of handicapped children for an open-house event. In the midst of this party and some creepy events, Simón disappears. The rest of the movie is Laura’s quest to recover her son.

It becomes clear that Laura can only find Simón once she accepts that supernatural forces are at play. Of course, Carlos regards his wife with sympathy, but then those feelings give way to annoyance. He simply wants his wife to leave the orphanage and acknowledge her son’s death. Laura nonetheless becomes more convinced that Simón is alive, and must be found by reliving her childhood memories. This leads to several suspenseful sequences. Two in particular, one involving a séance and the other involving a childhood game, gather an almost-unbearable level of tension. Sound design and camerawork are particularly effective here. The groans and creaks of the old orphanage are far more evocative than any monster the directors could present. Also, the movie looks great. Shots of the orphanage and its surrounding rocky beach are beautiful yet ominous. Like most atmospheric horror, the movie features lots of deep greens and blues.

Some parts of the movie drag. Horror aficionados will recognize the scenes where the husband doubts the ravings of his increasingly unstable wife. There are too many of those scenes. Yet the performances are uniformly strong. By cutting about twenty minutes from the middle section, however, the movie would have been more effective. Despite these misgivings, "The Orphanage" has a satisfying conclusion. And I can’t help but admire the quality of the direction and the movie’s desire to remain an ambiguous. All the bizarre scenes are subjective - no other character sees the ghosts Laura does. Viewers will leave the theater debating whether she was visited by ghosts or she went insane.

“The Orphanage” is a satisfying picture, but not a superlative one. Still, I am always grateful when a movie successfully manipulates me – even if I am keenly aware of the director’s tricks.

There will be praise.

2008-01-02T10:49:00.000-05:00

Movie:
Rating:

Review: What a strange, astonishing movie. Paul Thomas Anderson’s “There Will Be Blood” is the best he’s ever made. The first shot sets the tone. We see a harsh, beautiful landscape and hear a rush of strings that grow increasingly loud and discordant. Such a shot, I think, is intended to make the audience ill-at-ease. Like the rest of the movie, the introduction is beautiful yet unnerving.

“There Will Be Blood” tells the story of Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis), a misanthropic oil man who desires nothing but success. Money seems almost incidental – Plainview instead wants to ensure that others fail. With the exception of a few guttural phrases, the movie’s first 15 minutes are completely without dialog. We instead watch Plainview and others silently toil underground, and get a sense of Plainview’s unwavering will. Eventually a freak accident kills one of his workers, so Plainview takes care of his son, raising him as one of his own.

The majority of the movie revolves takes place in 1911. Paul Sunday (Paul Dano) informs Plainview that his family has oil just below the surface of the land. Plainview visits the spot, begins drilling for oil, and eventually sets up a pipeline to the coast. Along the way, he encounters several hurdles and finds an adversary in Paul’s twin brother, Eli. The two men prove to be equally devious, humiliating one another in ways that are both cruel and weirdly funny.

Without exception, the performances are flawless. Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance is fascinating. Even when charming land-owners, we see the hatred simmering beneath. As Plainview interacts with people, we watch his face contort with pain and loathing, attacking those around him verbally and sometimes physically. Paul Dano, who I thought gave a decent performance in “Little Miss Sunshine,” does a great job here. His character is a preacher, and Dano does a good job of presenting a faux-pious façade. Even Dillon Feasier, who portrays Plainview’s son, shows depth with his surprisingly adult expressions.

Like his previous work, Anderson’s movie has virtuouso camerawork, and characters that can be both loathsome and sympathetic. Some sequences in particular, such as Plainview’s response to a derrick fire, are completely stunning. Anderson has always oozed talent, but his previous movies are unlike “There Will Be Blood.” His previous movies “Boogie Nights” and “Mangolia” are sprawling and seem over-flowing with ideas, but this one demonstrates a consistent mastery of tone and pace. The movie is a crescendo of tension. “There Will Be Blood” also has richer thematic content. Through the arc of Daniel Plainview, Anderson examines issues of capitalism vs. family, and the shortcomings of rigid individuality. Through the arc of Eli Sunday, Anderson examines issues of church vs. capitalism, as well as the duplicitous nature of religious figures.

All the tension and character development culminates in the final scene. The acting is mercilessly intense. The scene ends with such fury that many critics describe it as over-the-top, but I think it’s perfectly in-step with the rest of the movie. It’s both thematically and character driven. As we watch Sunday and Plainview interact, we see the clash of their natures, of religion and individualism, and of how overwhelming greed distorts all. Don't miss it.

Top Ten of 2007

2007-12-21T10:58:00.000-05:00

So, as my thousands of readers have definitely noticed, I haven’t added a new post since October 2007. This is by no means a result of my laziness. It’s just extraordinarily difficult to find Netflix reviews that are hilariously off the mark. Yet I found the blog enormously enjoyable to write.

Keeping that in mind, coupled with the fact that I have a fair amount of free time at my job, I’ve decided to expand the scope of Misses the Point. Starting in 2008, I’ll be writing short reviews of every movie I see in theaters (reviewing every movie I rent would be too time-consuming). I will, however, write about other movies I find particularly striking, or ideas/arguments I have that are movie-related. Whenever I find a spectacularly bad review, I'll be sure to write about it.

To give you an idea of what’s in store, I’m presenting my first annual Top Ten list. I saw many movies this year (quite possibly more than any other year in my life). Many of them were entertaining and thought-provoking, so coming up with a list was quite the challenge. I don’t know about others that do this, but positions 3-10 on my list are pretty arbitrary. I mean, what makes number 8 better than number 9? Keeping that in mind, on with the list:

10. Superbad. This has been a strong year for comedies, and Superbad made me laugh more than any movie I’ve seen this year. Michael Cera and Jonah Hill had fantastic chemistry, and their deliveries made sure that the jokes never grew stale. It certainly helped that I saw this movie with two friends who share my infantile sense of humor. Now when are they going to make a coffee table book of the dick drawings?

9. Helvetica. Yes, this is a documentary about a font. What starts out as a history of the now ubiquitous typeface quickly becomes a history of 20th century design. Thoughtful viewers will notice how the differing design philosophies (an esoteric topic) nevertheless infiltrate our daily lives. Given how common Helvetica is in our world, the font was an excellent entry point for the discussion it raises. It’s available from Netflix on Watch It Now, so I highly recommend you check it out.

8. The Lives of Others. What can I say about this movie that hasn’t been said already? Oh, I liked it better than Pan’s Labyrinth. So there.

7. La Vie En Rose. I was surprised that I found this portrayal of Edith Piaf so moving. The biopics of accomplished musicians always seemed pretty ordinary. After all, Walk Hard takes its inspiration from such clichés. Yet Marion Cotillard gives a great performance, the songs are wonderful, and some sequences literally took my breath away. Julie Christie will probably win Best Actress this March, and that’s bullshit.

6. No End in Sight. I hate political documentaries. Hate them. They’re so slanted that any compelling argument is cast aside in favor of filmmaker’s agenda. Comparatively speaking, No End in Sight takes an objective stance, and points out specifically how Iraq was so mismanaged. Such an approach is far more compelling than the schlock that Michael Moore produces. This is the only movie I’ve ever seen that produced tears of anger.

5. 12:08 East of Bucharest. Full disclosure here: this movie has a unique appeal to me. My family is Romanian, and I’m the first one born in the United States. I don’t speak the language (long story). Therefore, seeing a Romanian comedy illuminated a great deal about my family’s idiosyncrasies. I was given an opportunity to see how my relatives’ quirks are systemic of Romanians in general. That being said, the movie is genuinely funny. It plays like a cross between The Office, Anchorman, and This is Spinal Tap.

4. Atonement. When I read the book, I thought it was unfilmable. So much relies on issues of subjectivity vs. objectivity. The book’s scope is massive. The book's peculiar frame make it so that you don’t really get to know any of the characters. Through Joe Wright’s effortless direction, he remained true to the book, and made a movie that’s both romantic and devastating. Also, the long tracking shot rivals the action sequences found in Children of Men.

3. Black Book. The top three spots will illustrate that I’m a sucker for moral ambiguity. This movie, directed by Paul “Showgirls” Verhoeven, has ambiguity up the wazzoo. It’s is about a Jewish woman who falls involve with the Nazi officer that she tries to deceive. With thrilling set pieces and a compelling story, viewers will easily be caught up in the narrative. At the same time, however, this movie does a good job of illustrating the futility of war, and how it becomes a larger-than-life, chaotic force. Plus, how often do you get a scene of a woman dyeing her pubic hair?

2. No Country for Old Men. Again, what can I say about this movie that hasn’t been said already? Oh, people who don’t like the ending are dumb.

1. Gone Baby Gone. I feel that it’s almost cheating to pick a Boston-based crime saga as my favorite for the second year in a row. This movie has truly flawed but sympathetic characters, suspenseful sequences, fantastic twists, and a doozy of an ending. It’s entertaining yet raises important questions of class and nature vs. nurture. People who don’t like this movie haven’t thought about it long enough. The final sequence creates one of the most fascinating dilemmas I’ve ever seen. When you see it, think about which side you agree with, and what the implications of your choice are.

So there it is. That this list is subject to revision because I haven't seen There Will Be Blood yet. Be sure to comment and let me know just how I’m a fucking idiot. Or just save your snarky comments for my all-new 2008 content. Happy holidays!

"Dateline needs more castration."

2007-10-12T11:10:00.000-04:00

Movie:
Rating:

Review: "Every now and then a movie comes along that really makes you feel good seeing the bad guy get it. Forget the justice system, just give the sick pedophile a fatal dose of his own medicine. Beyond the exceptional performances of Patrick Wilson and Ellen Page is a rush of good feeling that only comes with this kind of vigilante justice. Two thumbs up!"

How it misses the point: David Slade's "Hard Candy" is the story of a teenager and the pedophile that she tortures. The movie never provides a past for either character, and so the man's culpability is never absolutely certain. The girl's past and motivations are similarly murky. Slade only presents us with how these people interact. The girl puts the older man through a harrowing ordeal, thereby shifting the audience's sympathies and increasing feelings of discomfort. Does this man deserve what happens to him? Isn't the girl guilty of horrible crimes? Who is the "bad guy" here? "Hard Candy" is an intense movie, and it provides no easy answers.

Revenge movies function on the premise that the vigilante is absolutely just. There must be no doubt the bad guys deserve their comeuppance, and the revenge scenes must be cathartic for the audience. "Hard Candy," on the other hand, dares you to pity a pervert and admonish a teenager. With such ambiguity, the reviewer clearly misses the point. "Hard Candy" is not simply a revenge tale - it's far more ambitious and interesting than that. Maybe the reviewer was abused at a young age. Clearly he/she is too dumb or too damaged to think about the issues that the movie raises.

With a warped sense of justice and apparent hard-on for torture, it's easy to see how someone could mistake "Hard Candy" for a feature-length episode of "To Catch a Predator."

I'm so tempted to Godwin this post.

2007-10-11T10:35:00.000-04:00

Movie:
Rating:

Review: "The characters were cute. It was the kind of movie that made you like the people in it. If you don't like sad movies though, best not to watch. My room mate liked it a lot, it is better than some 'so-called' gay movies. At least the love between the gay boy and the st8 boy was not totally unreciprocated."

How it misses the point: Larry Clark's "Bully" is about how a group of young losers conspire to murder their friend. The friend, the titular "Bully," is truly a loathsome bastard, but few will agree that his nasty qualities justify the awful circumstances of his death. In this movie, murder so casually considered that it's disturbing. Clark criticizes the stupefying banality of these characters, and presents a dismal portrait of America's youth.

No character in this movie is likable by any metric. What does it therefore say about the reviewer that he finds these characters "cute"? Does he share qualities with them? Do they remind him of his circle of friends? Part of the movie's strength is that its characters can be found in most suburbs, so such comparisons are not much of a stretch. The relationship of the bully and his friend (the one to which the reviewer alludes) certainly has homosexual overtones, but only in terms of dominance, not lust.

With such sympathy for such contemptible people, I hope "Bully" didn't give the reviewer any ideas.

"Ignorance is strength!"

2007-10-09T14:24:00.000-04:00

Movie:
Rating:

Review: "I hate this movie so much. It might be because 1984 is my favorite book or maybe because sony owns the rights to both movies & because of this steaming pile you can no longer rent 1984 or find it on DVD. I bought a copy for $10 at Best Buy in 2003, lost it then went on a manhunt for a copy to only find bootleg on e-bay. Why you may ask? It's because it's a good movie and sony didn't want people to compare. If you gave this movie anything more than 2 stars than you haven't seen a copy of 1984. Crap, even the leader of London played Winston Smith in 1984, I made it 30 minutes with this movie and I was livid. HOW CAN YOU RIP OFF SUCH AN AMAZING BOOK?!"

How it misses the point: James McTeigue's "V for Vendetta," an adaptation of Alan Moore's graphic novel, is about how a superhuman revolutionary overthrows a tyrannical government. It successfully mashes anarchism with comic book heroics, creating a potent mix of entertainment and ideas.

Dystopias are hardly anything new in pop culture. Because it's required reading for most high schoolers, "1984" is the easiest one for many to identify. Yes, it shares some similarities with "V for Vendetta," but those similarities are also true of other movies such as "Brazil," "12 Monkeys," and "Children of Men." I just checked and the reviewer is right: the "1984" movie adaptation isn't readily currently available on DVD. Its scarcity, however, does not diminish the worth of "V For Vendetta."

Look, buddy, I know that "1984" is probably the only book you've ever read, and I can understand that you're proud of that. With hundreds of pages and big words, books can be tough to slog through, and I for one still feel a sense of accomplishment whenever I finish one. But come on, you seriously think Sony is part of a massive conspiracy to make the "1984" a forgotten classic? Please. You should broaden your horizons and direct your two minutes hate elsewhere.

"People who chew loudly should kill themselves."

2007-10-05T13:42:00.000-04:00

Movie:
Rating:

Review: "If you are turned off by mouth sounds (smacking, chomping, crunching, etc.), don't see this movie. The eating scenes are like torture. It's about as pleasant as listening to someone scratch on a chalkboard for two to three excruciating minutes. And even more annoyingly, the disgusting sounds don't match up to what's happening... You hear crunching after she swallows, and smacking when her mouth is closed. Now I'm no director, nor do I claim to know a whole lot about film... but for me the sounds were over-the-top and gross, and the mismatchiness felt sloppy. Then again, I also think people who chew with their mouths open should be arrested."

How it misses the point: "Day Night Day Night" is the account of an ethnically ambiguous suicide bomber's preparation for her Times Square mission. She stays alone in an apartment, awaiting instructions from masked terrorists. She is given a backpack filled with nails and explosives. The audience is never given any clues about the terrorist's agenda, or what motivates the young girl. It's a heavy movie.

With sparse direction and no background music, director Julia Loktev creates tension by increasing the volume of ambient noise. Not only does her choice elevate the movie's suspense, but the loud chewing shows how this young girl might view every moment with unusual significance. After all, with only a few hours left on Earth, even eating an egg roll becomes important. The above reviewer, so repulsed by the director's decision, completely misses the point of a pensive movie that considers important subject matter.

It's rare for such a serious movie to receive such shallow criticism.

Too dumb for subtlety

2007-10-04T14:25:00.000-04:00

Movie:
Rating:

Review: "If you're looking for a romantic comedy, this isn't it. I know the misleading trailers would have you believe it is, but it couldn't be further from the truth. Mike White must have had an agenda when making this movie. It felt like a 90min. public service announcement for PETA. Shannons character ended up turning into the crazy lonely cat lady you hear about, only its with dogs this time. Peter Sargaards character was really interesting, but after he drops a bombshell on Molly Shannons character the movie never touchs the subject again. Totally unfullfilling movie. Don't be mislead by this trailer!"

How it misses the point: Mike White's "Year of the Dog" is about a lonely woman who, after the untimely death of her dog, is forced beyond the confines of her meager existence. Seeking solace in men, she only finds disappointment. Eventually the woman hides her loneliness by becoming an outspoken animal rights activist, and her growing zealotry begins to alienate her friends.

"Year of the Dog" has a few laughs, but mostly the movie works best as a gentle satire of people who look for fulfillment in the wrong places. Lacking sight gags and verbal wit, White finds humor in the sharpness of his observations. On this level, the movie succeeds (and the reviewer misses the point). More troubling, however, is the belief that the movie is a PETA rallying cry. The woman's propaganda is not convincing. Looking deeper, we see how her cause masks her pain. A subtle character study such as this requires careful attention - something which the reviewer seems utterly incapable of achieving.

Now I wonder if he thinks "American History X" is nothing but a public service announcement for the Neo-nazi movement.

"And I bet My Lai was the feel-good event of the year!"

2007-10-03T13:16:00.000-04:00

Movie:
Rating:

Review: "Platoon is an awesome movie that is a very exciting action movie as well as compelling drama. Very hard hitting images that really bring intensity to the movie and a lot of suspense as well."

How it misses the point: Oliver Stone's "Platoon" presents a grueling grunt's-eye view of the Vietnam War. He eschews war movie convention by having ambiguous characters, confusing battles, and no heroics. Through his trademark camera work, Stone draws no clear battle lines; he abandons suspense for confusion. The result is horrifying, emotionally draining experience.

Action movies glamorize violence, or give visceral thrills. The above reviewer misses the point because "Platoon" is simply not an action movie. Because we have no clear sense of Charlie's position or the platoon's strategy, our uncertainty does not provoke excitement. Instead we are given chaos. Moreover, "Platoon" lacks a villain. We vaguely understand the enemy is in the jungle. The enemy, however, is not a "bad guy" with dastardly motivations. He is a faceless death that Stone makes no attempt to understand. If action movies are meant to get hearts racing, "Platoon" is meant to induce nausea.

Since the reviewer had such a fun time watching "Platoon," he probably would have loved to join our forces in Vietnam. I'm sure that within two weeks Barnes would have molded him into a sociopath.

"And I seem to remember breaking your face."

2007-10-02T14:54:00.000-04:00

Loyal readers,

I apologize for the lapse in my posts over the last two days. As today's title should indicate, I had a nasty fall and required many stitches. Because it's difficult to type while holding an ice pack to a swollen face, there was no blogging to be had. Rest assured that starting tomorrow I will resume my public service and point out how you all have terrible opinions.

Until then, if anyone asks, I got into a bar fight.

Best,
Alan

Chad in real life

2007-09-28T10:41:00.000-04:00

Movie:
Rating:

Review: "Boys will be boys and hilarity ensues when these guys 'punk' a deaf girl. Funny stuff!!"

How it misses the point: Neil LaBute's "In the Company of Men" is about two misanthropic men who pretend to fall in love with a vulnerable woman. Elevating the plan above a mere prank, their ultimate goal is to "emotionally destroy" her, thereby vindicating prior romantic misadventures. It's one of my favorite movies, and I have the inexplicable desire make my friends watch it. They almost always hate it, but they never forget the movie.

The above review is disturbing. Yes, the movie has moments of dark humor, but the casual dismissal of their behavior is inexcusable. "Boys will be boys" does not even skim the surface of the dark motives that drive these two evil men. Their victim is not merely "punked." She is the victim of cold malevolence. While the men may view their actions as a joke, the movie demands the viewer to look beneath the surface of what transpires on screen. "In the Company of Men" is an important movie because it hints that that men so vile could also be so pervasive.

I guess LaBute meant to warn us about the reviewer.

Only if you first apologize for being an idiot

2007-09-27T11:17:00.000-04:00

Movie:
Rating:

Review: "This movie was so bad - all those involved in the making of it owes me an apology! So slow for the first hour or more, the mumbling actors caused me to turn the sound up three times and still were hard to understand - and no, there's no problem with my hearing. Really, this is NOT a horror movie as many think. It's a poor psychological thriller - and I use the term thriller loosely. Do not waste your time!"

How it misses the point: William Friedkin's "Bug" is the story of how obsession can transfer from the insane to the lonely. Escalating dread does not spring form "GOTCHA!" scares or the gore on screen. Instead, we watch as a sane woman willfully adopts the paranoid delusions of crazed man. Even as the situation becomes more dangerous, the woman never questions the rantings of her companion. We're not frightened by this couple, we're frightened for this couple. Despite its occasional disgusting moment, "Bug" is pure, unrelenting psychological horror.

It's necessary to establish a rapport between these two characters before the tensions builds. The reviewer has no tolerance for such things as "character" and "exposition," so he is bored by the development that occurs in the movie's first hour. Perhaps because of his familiarity with the director, the reviewer wanted more exploitive grotesqueries - that kind that dominate "The Exorcist." I saw this movie in the theater and had no problem understanding the characters (especially towards the end as their screams amplified).

This guy should just shut up and wait for the next "Saw" sequel.

I'm sure his relatives are pretending.

2007-09-26T09:33:00.000-04:00

Movie:
Rating:

Review: "Unrealistic. The patient would not be eager to move into a facility. No reliable facility would prohibit visits. No visiting spouse the least bit knowledgeable about dementia would read such confusing text to a confused dementia patient. No reliable facility would have the tv tuned in to news of the Iraq war. These and other implausible details and contrivances made it hard to find the movie poignant. I speak from years of experience dealing with dementia in two relatives. It might be a good movie for an ignorant viewer, but it's not believable for somewhat who knows what dementia and dementia facilities are really like."

How it misses the point: Sarah Polley's "Away From Her" is a moving account of how an aging couple copes with Alzheimer's. It's touching because the characters are given time to breathe and develop, so the audience is given a better understanding of what informs their decisions.

Not all dementia facilities are equal. The reviewer may be correct that the policies portrayed in the movie do not regularly occur, but any inaccuracies do not detract from the movie's message. It's still heart-wrenching to watch the helpless husband watch his wife crumble and bond with another man. Who cares if he chooses to read Yeats to her instead of something less complex? Such choices do not make sense for the reviewer and his brain-dead relatives. They do, however, make sense for Grant and Fiona.

"And that Norm guy should really be put out of his misery, too"

2007-09-25T11:33:00.000-04:00

Movie:
Rating:

Review: "I agree with the other reviewer. Kirstie Allie is obese. Obese people are lazy. They should never be rewarded with an acting job. If all fatsos would stay at home and slowly perish....the world would be a much kinder place."

How it misses the point: It's a rare thing to see a sitcom review segue into support of genocide. Now I am as intolerant of the physically repulsive as the next guy, but I don't think loathing fat people should really interfere with one's appreciation of a mediocre television show. More importantly, Kirstie Alley wasn't overweight at the conclusion of "Cheers." If this reviewer had criticized the short-lived "Fat Actress" instead, he might have a stronger point.

"What self-respecting director keeps beautiful women off the toilet?"

2007-09-24T14:09:00.000-04:00

Movie:
Rating:

Review: "Dear God! Awful! I had hopes, and they were dashed. Horribly cast; inane, cliche plot and script; the translated subtitles were even inaccurate. Penelope Cruz is gorgeous, and the actresses who played her sister and her daughter were homely and did not remeotely resemble Ms. Cruz. But for the cute scene with Penelope on the toilet, I'd have given it ZERO stars. What a waste..."

How it misses the point: Almodovar’s “Volver” is about how three generations of women react to corpses and ghosts. Like most of Almodovar’s work, the movie defies easy description because of abrupt tone shifts in addition to the juxtaposition of surrealism and melodrama. His movies flaunt clichés, a fact which undermines the credibility of the reviewer, who seems to wish that “Volver” was more pornographic.

What hopes did the above reviewer have? More scenes of Penelope Cruz on the toilet? More women resembling her? Perhaps the reviewer wanted the movie to devolve into a freaky incest-ridden lesbian love fest. Either way, without properly modulated expectations, the review misses the point. He should just rent “Abre los ojos” and watch Penelope’s topless scene over and over again.

And for the record, Netflix doesn’t allow users to give viewers zero stars.

Ironic or moronic?

2007-09-22T20:00:00.000-04:00

Movie:
Rating:

Review: "This movie was excellent until the moment near the end at which point the director/ writers decide to 'chicken out' so to speak and take the safe 'feel good' route. A film on a tragic character such as Harold Crick should end appropriately and not ignore everything that makes a story genuine for the sake of helping neurotic middle aged women leave the theater with a warm heart instead of actually being prompted think about the nature of life. You can argue that Harold Crick wasn't a tragic hero, but you'd be wrong. From a literary standpoint he was, and the director/ writer of this film clearly know little about what makes literature great and worth considering as a statement on our lives. At best this film reminded me of why I love and value books so much more than film. Drivel."

How it misses the point: Marc Foster's "Stranger Than Fiction" is a thoughtful fantasy about a man named Harold Crick who discovers that he's a character in a novel. The novelist also soon discovers that Harold Crick is real, and the movie leads to an ethical dilemma that the novelist and Crick must face. How the novelist and the character compromise is both satisfying and touching. When the above reviewer alludes to "chickening out," he refers to the compromise.

I'm not sure if the above reviewer is serious. He misses the movie's message so spectacularly, I'm almost certain it's deliberate. Dustin Hoffman's character, a literature professor, raises the exact point the reviewer does (albeit in a more articulate way). The reviewer must either not have been paying attention during this scene, or simply thinks he's smarter than the movie is. His objection is akin to complaining that Phil Connors should have never woken up on February third. By suggesting that the ending exists only to appease middle aged women, he not only comes off as an idiot, but also a condescending asshole.

I'm at a loss. Do you think he's joking?

Since when did horses play fetch?

2007-09-21T09:58:00.001-04:00

Movie:
Rating:

Review: "I have never been so moved to vomit! Although I am glad to learn that beastiality is finally a felony in Washington state because of this tragedy... I am so disgusted that it happened and has the potential to happen again. What is wrong with people?! Can't we show love to our pets merely by taking them for walks and playing fetch?"

How it misses the point: Robinson Devor’s “Zoo” is a pensive, melancholy documentary about people who fuck horses. It centers on the infamous “Mr. Hands,” a man whose equine escapades resulted in internal bleeding and eventually death. Through dramatizations and voiceovers, the movie portrays horse-fuckers (or “zoos,” as they prefer to be called) as sensitive and misunderstood. They say things like, “It’s an intense connection with another being” and, “We cannot talk with them about art and music, but our love goes deeper than that.” A strong case is made that horses enjoy fucking people. And the movie ends with a horse trainer conceding that she can begin to understand what motivates zoos.

The above review misses the point because the documentary is critical of those who just point and gawk at behavior they do not understand. Occasional clips from local news stations heighten our understanding of how the zoos are demonized, and the above reviewer falls into the exact same trap. It’s as if he/she watched the movie and paid zero attention to its content. I’m not totally convinced that horse-fuckers are just like you and me, but I can see how they’re misconstrued as cruel.

While you may not approve of his proclivities, watching "Zoo" will help you realize that there is more to this horse-fucker than serious deep dicking.

"Those lousy micks need to learn how to speak freakin' English"

2007-09-20T09:13:00.001-04:00

Movie:
Rating:

Review: "There is so much yelling in this film, nearly every scene, that it becomes a chore to sit through. Given the fact that the accents are so strong and the words so difficult to understand, the yelling begins to take on the quality of dogs barking - they are trying to communicate something but you will never know what they are saying, only that it is loud and irritating."

How it misses the point: Ken Loach's "The Wind That Shakes the Barley" is a thrilling account of the early 20th century struggle for Irish independence, and how conflicting ideologies eventually led to families being torn apart. Sure, the characters are Irish and have thick accents, but complaining that they're unintelligible is to miss the point. These freedom fighters were passionate about the cause, and they didn't care if their stirring rhetoric was understood by Americans.

Note: The movie is close-captioned for those who equate Irish brogue with barking dogs. Then again, this reviewer probably hates to read.

"This is madness! This lacks verisimilitude!"

2007-09-19T14:18:00.001-04:00

Movie:
Rating:

Review: "I would give this abominable waste of film negative stars if it were possible. I looked forward to this film because I am fond of ancient history. While I did not expect a documentary, I thought the orcs (immortals)and rock trolls (not sure who they were supposed to be)were just a bit out of place. That is just a bit of the long list of why I want the part of my life back that I wasted on this film."

How it misses the point: Zack Snyder's "300" is a stylized, hyper-violent interpretation of the Battle of Thermopylae. Sure, there are giants and various otherworldly creatures, but the point of the movie is not its accuracy. It's to watch attractive men penetrate long blades into their enemies. Oh, and to admire Gerard Butler's amazing abs.