W
WAKING LIFE (****1/2)- existentialism never looked as trippy as it does in ‘Waking Life’. This is a movie which explores long conversations about weighty topics like life, death, and the world of dreams, and one main character’s struggle to figure out what it all means. This might be interesting on its own, but what makes this movie truly memorable is the bizarre and often beautiful way it is captured on film. You see, the filmmakers origionally videotaped live people acting out the scenes (many of which seem almost improvised) and then gave the tape to a team of animators, who each painted over the origional film, effectivley making it an extremley realistic animated movie. Characters cough, blink, scratch their heads, and do any number of mundane movments which are hadly ever captured in animated features, giving the entire piece a feeling of distorted reality (like a dream…). What’s more, each of the animators have their own styles of art, meaning that some scenes are lavishly painted, while others are little more than sparse outlines, creating a mezmerizing effect. It’s a daring film that, I hope, marks a revolution in animated features. My only problem with the movie (notice how there’s only four and a HALF stars?) is that, in the beginning, it gets to be a bit monotonous, moving from one long winded oration to the next, with seemingly no plot at all. Stick through it, though, and you’ll be pleased to see the second half picking up more of a story. This movie can be a bit hard to find (as films so unconventional as this usually are), but do yourself the favor and search it out. It’ll be worth your time.
WARGAMES (****)-oh, that wacky Matthew Broderick, always breaking into the government's National Defence System computer and unwittingly insighting World War Three. Kids in the eighties, man, what could you do with them? Anyway, this is Mr. Broderick's first major role in a movie, as far as I know, and it wasn't a bad way to start. He sort of plays the Ferris Beuler character, only not as funny, and more into computers. Ok, maybe it isn't Ferris. Maybe he's just a dork who loves video games and can break out of high security holding establishments using household items. Things were like that back in 1983. Now you might as well just give up if the government abducts you and takes you to a secret underground base in the middle of Colorado. Anyway, I would definatley suggest this movie to... anyone. It's a good movie.
WE WERE SOLDIERS (***)- a gung-ho war flick starring that bravest of hearts, Mel Gibson, as a military commander in the first battle between U.S. troops and the Viet Cong army. Has anyone else noticed that Hollywood is unabashedly cashing in on the patriotism of post-September 11th Americans by pummeling us with a barrage of war movies? Check out “Black Hawk Down”, “Hart’s War”, the forthcoming “Windtalkers”, and now this one if you don’t believe me. It wouldn’t be so bad if these films were worth even half of the seven bucks we pay to see them, but unfortunatley they all seem to turn out just like “We Were Soldiers”: a lot of explosions and gunshots strung together with a thin, hokey plot. And “Soldiers” even adds another degrading element: a subplot involving the military wives as they band together to tackle tough challenges like “where to buy laundry detergent”. So if it’s so bad, then why the three stars? Well, because, for what it is, it really isn’t that bad. It’s got all the special effects and cheesy lines you expect when you walk into the theater. It’s got the napalm and the helicopters you probably wanted to see when you decided to go watch this movie. In short, for a straight war movie, it dosen’t fail. I just wish there had been more there to think about. The movie never touches controversial subjects like draft-dodging or drug use which were so prevelant at the time of the Vietnam War, and even the issue of racism is practically laughed off with a line about a woman thinking that she can’t wash her dark-colored laundry at a laundromat with a sign in the window that says “No Blacks”. Hardy har har. If you’re in the mood for a brainless, Vietnam-themed action film, this is for you. Otherwise, check out “Platoon”, “Apocalypse Now”, or “Full Metal Jacket”.
WHAT WOMEN WANT (**1/2)-I guess it was only a matter of time before Mel Gibson got suckered into the whole "man acting like woman" shtick. Robin Williams, Dustin Hoffman, they've been down the same road. The thing that's different with their movies, though, is that it *made sense* for them to act like women. In this movie, Mel Gibson waxes his legs, paints his nails, wears pany hose, and takes aerobics classes apparently without reason. Ok, ok, the first time he was "drunk" so it *kind* of made sense, but the second time he does it absolutely does not advance the plot at all. It bugs me when movies do that. Call me humorless, call me what you will, I just don't dig it. Anyway, this movie is about a successful advertisment executive (played by Mel Gibson) who electrocutes himself and then suddenly has the ability to hear what women are thinking. There's romance and humor and drama, but all of it is pretty mediocre. I don't know. Nothing really impressed me about the film, and a lot of stuff was left unexplained (ie: the psychiatrist who discoveres his secret. What happened to her??? She was in one scene, and then just dissappeared). Personally, I wouldn't want to see this movie more than once.
THE WHOLE NINE YARDS(***)- I just saw this movie the other day. It's not bad, but it's not really that great either. I mean, there were some funny parts, but I wasn't really blown away by anything. A few interesting plot twists, and most of the the acting isn't half bad either (Bruce Willis is great as a mob hit-man). Despite all this, however, the film is no more than mediocre.
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S ROMEO+JULIET (**1/2)- this is the new one with Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Daines. It's not as good as the older one. It is, however, much more creative and "artsy". See, if you don't know, they "updated" the story of Romeo and Juliet, but kept the same language. This led to some interesting changes. For example, in the first scene of the movie, a gas station explodes. Later, Mercutio dresses in drag and does a little dance. Also, the traditional "balcony scene" now takes place in a swimming pool. Oh yeah, and they use guns instead of sowards. Sounds cool, right? Well, it would be if the acting didn't suck monkeys. Claire Danes and "Leo" speak their lines as if they have no idea what they are saying. Claire, especially, makes the most unappealing Juliet I have ever seen (and I've seen quite a few, let me tell you). It's so bad that you are almost glad when they finally die at the end. Pretty much everyone in the movie is lame, other than the guy who plays Friar Lawrence and the woman who plays the Nurse. Oh, and Mr. Capulet isn't too bad either. Other than that, though, the acting is quite bad. Another thing I didn't like was the camera work. I mean, I suppose it's kind of interesting, but it's also very disorienting. They do this whole "fast movment" thing, where it's like parts of the film are being sped up, in pretty random places. It's the kind of thing that would be better in a music video than a Shakesperian tragedy. But enough about what I didn't like. The sets were pretty cool, especially the whole "abandoned carnival on the beach" thing. I was into it. Also, the soundtrack had some pretty good songs on it, including a few by one of my favorite bands, Radiohead. In fact, it had one Radiohead song which I had never heard before... hmm... I'll have to check that out. Wait, what was I talking about? Oh, yeah, the movie. It wasn't really very good. If you want a "Romeo and Juliet", go for the older one.
WINDTALKERS (***1/2)- for me, the best part of going to see this movie occured as I was leaving the theater. Walking back to my car, I happened to overhear the the young couple in front of me discussing "Windtalkers". I didn't hear much, but what I did hear, and this is true, is the guy say, completley seriously, "That was the first one, right? World War II?" The girl, equally as serious, responded, "No, I think they had World War I first." It just dosen't get much better than that. But, back to the film. Yes, "Windtalkers" does take place during the second world war, and yes, that means it was after the first world war. It stars Adam Beach (you might remember him from the movie Smoke Signals) as Ben, a Navajo "code talker" who is able to transmit military messages in his native tounge, a language so complex that it is being used as an unbreakable code against the Japanese, and Nicolas Cage as the marine assigned to "protect the code at all costs". What this means, essentially, is that if Ben is captured by the enemy, Joe (Cage's character) will have to kill him before he reveals the code. The relationship between Joe and Ben is the focus of the film, but, of course, there's also plenty of action sequences thanks to the direction of John Woo. These battles are graphic and tense, but are relativley light compared to that "other" World War II flick, Saving Private Ryan. I'm not sure exactly why this is, but I'm guessing a lot of it has to do with the camera work; where "Ryan" gave us a soldier's eye view of the carnage, thanks to shaky, hand-held shots, Windtalkers takes a longer, more detatched view, making the film seem more entertaining than disturbing. Which is good. I don't think Windtalkers was ever meant to be anything but entertaining, and this is it's problem; while we are given the rather twisted character of Joe (he's haunted by the memories of friends he lost in battle) and the strong-willed character of Ben, they never seem like anything more than characters. Joe has no past and no future... he's more action figure than human being, although you can tell that Cage was digging deep in his performance. Ben is a good guy, and Beach portrays him as such, but... the movie lacks soul. It's entertaining, and it's well-acted, but there's just no substance behind it. Perhaps that's why it will make millions as a summer blockbuster.
On a personal note... the Christian Slater character, named "Ox", says at one point that he was raised in Oxnard, California (hence his name). Since I was seeing this movie in Ventura, which is but a few minutes from Oxnard, the audience broke out into applause. I like it when stuff like that happens. You can tell why Slater's character seems to happy-go-lucky among the dirt and carnage of battle, though... if I was from Oxnard, I'd probably see it as an improvment too! Also, check out the "racist" character. Wasn't he in Peral Harbor? I guess this explains why he has so much anamosity toward the Japanese.
THE WIZARD(**)- this was a movie that came out in either the late eighties, or very early ninteys. I forget exactly. It was about this kid who was pshycologically messed up, but really good at video games. It had Fred "Wonder Years" Savage, and Christian "Face Off" Slater. The most memorable line is "California!" as moaned by the little kid. Oh yeah, there's also a girl in this movie who lives in a trailer in the desert. Not to be confused with the girl in Con Air.
homeboys don't cry
Free Web Building Help
Angelfire HTML Library
htmlGEAR - free polls, guestbooks, and more!
Email: dumbsweater@aol.com