Hellboy

Guillermo del Toro, USA, 2004
2.5 out of 4 stars

I decided to watch del Toro’s first adaptation of Mike Mignola’s comic book almost entirely because, probably owing to the success of Pan’s Labyrinth, he had been able to release another one. I figured that, if possible, I should try to avoid seeing the sequel first, and I would also try to see if I’d really be interested in paying $5-$10 for it. Well, I’ve read a few of the early issues of Mignola’s series, focused around a demon raised by humans who work for the government, along with his other paranormal colleagues, and I like the idea although I’ve never been blown away enough by it to seek out the whole series. One thing you notice in del Toro’s version is that there is basically no attempt to emulate the shadowy, impressionistic quality of Mignola’s art (perhaps this just wasn’t possible). Hellboy himself is after all bright red, and there was no willingness to alter his appearance into something more film-friendly or shadow-friendly (as they did in, say, the X-Men films, with the black uniforms replacing the bright costumes of the comics). Fidelity seems to be the bywords here, and it seems to have unfortunately been a limiting factor in the film’s success. The scenes added back in for the director’s cut may well have been worthwhile, but the augmentation probably should have been accompanied by some reduction.

Another hindrance seems to have been a disregard for pacing and an unwillingness to excise or trim languid, less-than-engrossing scenes. The “Nazi mysticism” opening is actually quite interesting, albeit campy, but the film starts to stumble as soon as del Toro moves us to the present day, and continues to kind of amble along after that. The fight scenes, when we get to them, are fun to watch and involving, but hindered here by the lack of variety, as Hellboy fights the exact same monster on at least three different locations.

Hellboy himself, as played by Ron Perlman, has a strong if overly laconic presence. Doug Jones complements him well as Abe Sapien, but most of the time Perlman is playing against his neophyte handler, John Meyers. Rupert Evans plays the ultimately pointless, but unduly-emphasized role of the would-be audience identification character with almost no spine or wit, and not that much intelligence either. I’m not sure if the studio forced del Toro to include a “regular guy” figure (for the first part of the film, he almost seems to be the main character!) but even if they did, they still could have done better than this (and there is at least one more interesting “regular guy” character present here). I should also mention that the archvillain, Rasputin (yes, that Rasputin) gets more and more ridiculous as his scenes get longer and you have to actually listen to him.

All that said, this very imperfect attempt made me want to see del Toro take another shot at doing it right this time, particularly in light, of course, of Pan’s Labyrinth. I am heartened by reports I have read indicating that there are many more monsters in the sequel, as I am by indications on IMDB that Evans is not returning (and in fact seems not to have made it in Hollywood at all). I do suspect, though, that seeing this film first may not actually have been necessary, as I’m sure the sequel was made with full knowledge that the original was not a great success.

Source: Sony director's cut DVD
18 Jul, 12:00 PM

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Tim Burton, USA / UK, 2007
2.5 out of 4 stars

The sad thing is, I enjoyed most of this movie, particularly its atmosphere (sure it’s the same as the other Burton films, at least aside from the blood, but Burton still does a good job at pulling you in as always) with two major reservations. The first of these was, of course, that the performances of Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter were definitely not good enough to justify their casting in light of their insufficient vocal talents. It’s slightly unfair to lump them together, as Carter, as much as I like her, is significantly worse than Depp. Either way, it’s a shame, as the songs were really awesome and the orchestration in particular does its best to prop up these singers, allowing you to overlook their faults as much as possible.

My second problem with the film was that it seemed to be dragging on a bit, and this was only compounded when it took a turn that I had trouble following. You see, the title character undergoes a pretty complete shift in modus operandi something like three-quarters of the way through the film. I don’t know if this worked better in the musical, but in the film, I really felt like the transition was just unsatisfying and incoherent, and from there on out, I had a lot more trouble “relating” to the action, as it were. Although I might not like the musical any better, I suspect that I’m just not impressed with Burton’s psychology or his social conscience, as he usually operates on the surface and this work asks for a greater insight into Todd’s mentality than Burton can ultimately provide us. Or maybe the premise just doesn’t work for me in the first place.

Source: Paramount 35mm print
3 Jan, 1:50 PM

The Great Debaters

Denzel Washington, USA, 2007
2.5 out of 4 stars

There are a lot of unflattering things I could say about this movie, and believe me, I will say them. Much of it seems over-familiar, such as the love triangle, the pubescent fantasies, and even the general whiff of what some critics call “underdog uplift.” It’s definitely weighed down too heavily with conventionality, something my compatriots and I were quick to blame on the fact that it comes out of Oprah Winfrey’s production company.

So, it’s not entirely a good film, but nonetheless, I found that as it went on, my reservations about the often ham-handed execution were increasingly overridden by my interest in the story itself, because if aspects of it are too familiar, there’s something about the overall thrust that seems worth telling in a sociopolitical sense. That is to say, this movie should have been better, but it still may indeed be good for you, or at least for someone, and it doesn’t entirely lack complexity either.

The subject here is a debate team at a black college in 1930s Texas, coached by a leftist agitator type played by the director. One can’t help but feel that one is being patronized a bit by how their debates transpire – we are given to understand that they do not get to choose the position they will take on an issue, but, mysteriously, they are nonetheless always depicted as taking positions consistent with civil rights and leftist thoughts in general, while their black (at least initially) opponents always sound like Clarence Thomas or worse.

Clearly, the filmmakers aren’t really comfortable with the idea of “debating.” I would assume that if the position is not chosen by the debaters, they must occasionally have had to defend unpalatable positions, but that’s apparently too complex for this film. That said, I couldn’t help but feel after a while that there was something, dare I say it, uplifting about seeing these young people triumphing through showing their verbal prowess and speaking truth-to-power, and of course, uplift is the more important goal for the filmmakers.

Aside from that, I felt that there was some real insight in some of the formulations the film puts across regarding racial injustice at the time, specifically considering the sometimes-contradictory intersections between poverty and race. It also doesn’t shy away from the horrific nature of phenomena such as lynching, something that is in itself valuable for any historically-illiterate young person (this being almost a redundant statement). Finally, I really appreciated how the relationships were put across, as there seemed to be some interesting things being said about black masculinity, specifically regarding how relationships are strained by the pressures of racism, but ultimately preserved out of mutual understanding and the not-uncritical support of women.

Source: MGM 35mm print
2 Jan, 3:40 PM

The Golden Compass

Chris Weitz, USA / UK, 2007
2.5 out of 4 stars

I was disappointed when the bad reviews started coming in for this would-be blockbuster adaptation of one of my teenage self's favorite fantasy books, so I steeled myself for a sub-par product well before I finally went to see it with my folks (who also once enjoyed the book). The result was that I enjoyed it enough, but I was consistently looking for imperfections, to the extent that I may have noticed faults that would have escaped my attention if I hadn't been preconditioned to expect them.

That said, this movie certainly reminded me how difficult it is to set up an entire fantasy world and an exciting adventure story all at once in a feature-length film, and while Peter Jackson certainly figured out how to do it, comedy director Chris Weitz is no Peter Jackson, to say the least. It's no surprise to say he lacks vision, and that both he and the studio that hired him (and once hired Jackson) should have known better. Nor is there any of the loose interpretative genius evidenced by, say, Alfonso Cuarón. Particularly during the first half or so of the film, there are far too many awkwardly paced sequences of short, abrupt scenes in which the exact amount of information necessary to keep things going is dispensed in a stilted manner. The actors are for the most part good; Nicole Kidman does vamp it up a bit too much as the villain, but that is pretty much the character. Meanwhile, child protagonist Dakota Blue Richards acts at times as if she doesn't believe she's in peril, she is never overly cute and displays the right degree of sass at all times.

And in fact, once we get through most of the setup, the movie gains some focus as it narrows down to the journey of Lyra, Richards's character, as she tries to fulfill a promise while chasing half-understood magical-scientific revelations from her "uncle." The big fight scene is a bit murky but still feels triumphant. The ending, though, is only a revelation in that they seem to have kept the actual ending for the opening of the next film, if there will be one. Fans of the book will be left wondering how much of this controversial scene will be changed when and if it is adapted for the screen. Speaking of the next one, I can only hope they get a more talented director, because if Weitz faltered here, he's going to crash and burn when adapting the somewhat sparse and dreary events of book two (of which I'm no longer assured of its quality after all these years).

Source: New Line 35mm print
21 Dec, 1:05 PM

Ali G Indahouse

Mark Mylod, UK / France / Germany, 2002
2.5 out of 4 stars

I was enjoying myself during the larger part of this movie’s running time, so I figured that I would give it a good rating. However, as I sat down to review it, I increasingly felt defeated by the film in my attempt to assess its quality, as if the idea of “quality” didn’t really apply to a film like this. It’s a lot easier when you’re just repelled by an often-disgusting, plotless film just as this, in which case you can dismiss it as dreck or whatever. I started to wonder if I even wanted to continue “reviewing” films here, considering that movie-watching is taking up less of my time lately, but some kind words from friends encouraged me to continue on, reviewing this film quite a while after the fact.

So, is this a good movie? No, although neither is it an awful film. Perhaps this is splitting hairs, but it’s possible to enjoy a movie even though it is not very good, although I will say that if the whole film had been funny, I probably would rate it higher. I think it starts off fairly strong, particularly in the south-central Los Angeles fantasy scene, and in the scenes in Ali G’s hometown of Staines. It starts to show the cracks around the time Ali makes it to Parliament, and, strangely, becomes less and less funny as it tries to put together a plot near the end. Everything is capped off with a protracted closing sequence that isn’t even remotely amusing.

You see, unlike Borat, here Sacha Baron Cohen is interacting with actors throughout, and there is not even an attempt to feign a “documentary” aesthetic. This frees sensitive souls such as myself from any need to feel sorry for the people he harasses, but it also robs the film of any pretensions of “outsider commentary” (and perhaps one could observe that said pretensions are exposed from the get-go by the reminder that Baron Cohen started his career by harassing his own countrymen). This just seems like the kind of movie a former cast member of Saturday Night Live would make, if slightly-more-inspired film than those efforts. And finally, Baron Cohen sure seems to put the truth to David Sedaris’ assertion that straight people spend too much time thinking about gay sex (I don’t even know if his “interest” is homophobic or not, it’s too weird to even be sure).

Source: Cinemax on demand
25 May, 9:17 PM

Volver

Pedro Almodóvar, Spain, 2006
2.5 out of 4 stars

Certainly, Almodóvar retains his interesting, bright visual style, although it doesn’t seem quite as distinctive overall. And he continues spotlighting the generational traumas and triumphs of women and whatnot. Yet despite all that, this film fell fall short of the only other one I’ve seen by him, All About My Mother. There is much here that should be involving, but I felt strangely uninvolved for the most part. Despite the serious issues at play, the plot is structured in a manner that felt either like a sitcom or a soap opera, I’m not quite sure which. It’s also all over the map; threads get dropped or deemphasized at will, leaving me unsure as to what I was really supposed to be paying attention to.

If I’ve been vague about what happens in this film so far, it’s because anything that is really important happens after a good 30 minutes is past, which is generally my vague cut-off point for giving away plot details (this rather conservative spoilerphobe policy is a direct response to all those TV and film trailers, not to mention TV listing and DVD box covers, that carelessly tell you everything that’s gonna happen). To give you some kind of hint, though, just let me tell you the apparent use of magical realism was one of the more interesting things about the film, and I felt more than a bit let down once I realized how this element was actually being put to use. That might just be my fault, and perhaps I just wasn’t in the mood for this film, but as it is, I did not enjoy it very much.

Source: Sony DVD
13 May, 9:27 PM

Spider-Man 3

Sam Raimi, USA, 2007
2.5 out of 4 stars

So rumor has it that this film, at $250 million, surpasses Cleopatra as the most expensive movie ever made (adjusted for inflation, obviously), and while this might be an obvious angle on the latest in the spider-franchise (and one should try one’s hardest not to judge the film on the basis of what is said in the entertainment press), I can’t help but feel like they could have saved about $100 million and made a better film in the process. The third film, at 140 minutes, manages to seem both over-crowded and overly languorous.

You see, certain scenes from the second film, such as the first skyscraper fight with Dr. Octopus, or the climactic train scene, still stick with me, even though I only saw it once. Yet although the special effects are plenty bombastic and impressive here, I don’t think I will remember anything very specific about this movie even a few months later.

Actually, that’s not entirely true. I will remember Raimi’s really peculiar decision as to how to dramatize “evil Spidey.” My friend called him Emo-Spidey, whereas as the ridiculous montage of him strutting and prancing on the street continued, I was more inclined to view him as Metro-Spidey. No matter how you slice it, these scenes really take you out of the movie and into some truly bizarre, retro-musical pastiche, in which Maguire actually voices the words “dig on this” in a non-ironic manner. Huh?!?

There are other problems, mind you. The film is hyperviolent in the most disingenuous of ways; death only counts when the filmmakers want it to, to the extent that the same bomb exploding at the same range will produce entirely different results at different times. Emotionally, the film cheats as well, actually giving MJ a good reason to be mad at Pete early on, but then, about halfway through, drastically obscuring the issues at hand as if it is too distracted to really close the can of worms that it has opened.

You know, I did enjoy it, more or less. It’s just fortunate that I was expecting it to be a bit of a trainwreck thanks to what I have read. See it as long as you are expecting another installment in the cycle, but don’t go expecting any kind of culmination for the trilogy. The studio is already thinking about number four; let’s hope they learn to scale back for once.

Source: Sony 35mm print
5 May, 9 PM

Primer

Shane Carruth, USA, 2004
2.5 out of 4 stars

Who's up for some indie, low budget realist scifi adventure? Okay, perhaps "adventure" might not be the right word for a rather low key film about a couple of tech workers who try to invent things in their garage until one day, they stumble upon a reality-bending device. I might well be being too easy on this one, simply because it was so difficult to understand what was happening that I ultimately decided that I shouldn't hold my lack of comprehension against it. It seems clever and sort of dark, but it also seems a bit like the Sundance version of any number of Star Trek episodes I could name. Like another film I've seen recently, it's also 77 minutes, and it seems pretty clear that it's not any longer than the filmmaker could afford to make. I think that it's somewhat possible that some of the missing pieces of information here are actually a result of running out of money, and instead are made into a virtue by creating a "mindbender," but maybe it really is just difficult to understand. I usually try to avoid reading any websites about a film until after I've written these, but in this case, I'm looking at some stuff that explains how this is all about science and how really no one gets it after the first viewing. I guess I am not much of a science guy or a repeat-viewing guy, so I am willing to consider that it might be a masterpiece after watching it 50 times, but there are other films to watch, after all.

Source: Warner DVD
25 March, 7:53 PM

Babel

Alejandro González Iñárritu, USA / Mexico, 2006
2.5 out of 4 stars

I liked this film, but it didn’t really work and it was not a success. The subject of the film is an attack upon two American tourists, played by Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett, but neither actor is really the “star” of the piece; if anything, the film revolves around them while marginalizing them as subjects, in order to focus more on subjects that are more typically marginalized; in this case, families in Morocco, Mexico, and Japan who go through trauma as a result of what has happened. Actually, scratch Japan off that list, because the story that takes place there, while arresting, has only a shallow connection at best to the rest of the story. This would be fine, were it not that the other stories are very closely interconnected, and that there doesn’t even seem to be a thematic connection in this case.

I think that there is a clear and useful message in this film, and I do like how Iñárritu showcases the people on the outskirts that suffer as a result of the trials of the privileged, rather than making the white folks the POV characters, as would occur in a single-narrative film. Nonetheless, I couldn’t help but feel like he was making all these stories as one film because no one would give him funding for any one of them by itself; I would think that this has to be the explanation for the Japan story, but I have heard that at least one of his earlier films is a bit like this as well, although not on such an international scale. I do think that there needs to be some real questions asked as to whether this hodgepodge narrative, fused with the Hollywood “message” picture, really works, especially as it is becoming an annual occurrence.

Source: Paramount 35mm print
30 December, 4:10 PM

Marie Antoinette

Sofia Coppola, France / USA / Japan, 2006
2.5 out of 4 stars

It’s certainly very pretty, but it’s hard to know what to think about the film besides that. I do have to admit that I was a little tired going into it, but it did seem rather long despite only being two hours. It also tends to be a film with long stretches of inactivity and then a large number of key events telescoped, by shorthand, into a few brief scene; while I don’t doubt that this was deliberate, it makes for a strange viewing experience. It’s also hard not to shake the feeling that Kirsten Dunst just isn’t up for it, even when “it” is just a party girl from 300 years ago (in fact, I’m not sure that being shallow helps one play a shallow character, and the point of the Marie character here does seem to be that she didn’t start out shallow). After a while, it seems like too much of an uphill battle to continually try to take these “it-girls,” selected for some level of stardom solely based on looks, and thrust them into a leading role in an arty pic, hoping that they will rise to the occasion. Why don’t we just take a cue from the Brits and actually garner actresses for the A-list that can act really damn well?? As it is, there are hardly any such persons to turn to when a director like Sofia Coppola needs to get a marketable star for a piece like this. I’m not convinced that a “weightier” actress would have saved this, but it would have at least helped.

Source: Sony 35mm print
29 October, 9:35 PM

Secrets & Lies

Mike Leigh, UK / France, 1996
Two and a half stars

I felt really absorbed by this film for most of its running time. It seemed to be a really chilling display of emotional squalor, like the director was really dragging me through the mud of human misery, and all this despite the fact that most of the characters are fairly mediocre in their tragic-ness. While I realize that that is the point, ultimately this film can only disappoint by not really going for the jugular. It’s really almost like the director said, “oh, wouldn’t it be interesting and challenging if this happened” and then went ahead and put it on screen without trying that hard to make it interesting. Furthermore, there is a kind of optimism that creeps in towards the end that complete undermines the entire tone of the film up until that point, making one wonder what good the film is if not as some kind of coherent philosophical viewpoint. I think the performances are good – Brenda Blethyn is hard to listen to, but then, that helps us understand why some of her relatives are so hard on her – but they are not really used towards some greater purpose. The whole affair is largely underwhelming.

Source: Fox DVD
16 October, 10:22 PM

Reality Bites

Ben Stiller, USA, 1994
2.5 out of 4 stars

Winona Ryder stars, generally exhibiting her desirableness and her lack of talent. Ethan Hawke is her co-star, playing the scuzzy asshole who gets the girl even though I sometimes wished he didn’t, and concurrently found it very probable that he did. Director and secondary love interest Ben Stiller is the most interesting case though, as he plays a viable if hapless foil to Hawke in perhaps the only human performance I’ve ever seen him deliver (as opposed to his current career, which consists entirely of encouraging the audience to enjoy bad things happening to him). This is particularly fascinating because within the overall film, Stiller the director uses his own character more as a symbol of a lifestyle and ideology than as an important participant in the plot.

Actually, the long stretches of the film in which Stiller disappears seem to enable the two-headed nature of the film, as it lunges between the romance plot and the career plot. While these wouldn’t seem to be particularly contradictory, the film uses his presence or absence to dismiss one plot, almost out of hand, in order to focus on the other, which leads to a resolution that actually seems to ignore what the movie was about… well, at least half of the time.

All that said, Reality Bites is an interesting time capsule of a film, if wildly uneven, and it does contain some genuinely great character moments. My favorite of these is Stiller’s speech about Yorick, the only time when the film doesn’t try to convince us that Hawke has one-upped him.

Source: Universal anniversary DVD
24 September, 7:21 PM

Thank You for Smoking

Jason Reitman, USA, 2005
2.5 out of 4 stars

To no one's surprise, I wasn't able to get this one written until quite a while after having actually watched it, so it will be slight, to say the least. This is the first movie in a while that I can remember watching from start to finish on an airplane. It was certainly an effort, as I had to hold the headphones to my ears to understand what was being said. Luckily, since this was British Airways, no censorship was employed, meaning that there was both sex and bad language. What was the most curious was the way in which they chose to deal with screen ratio. Some scenes were in widescreen, but then others were cut off at the sides. The weirdest thing was when this transition occurred in the middle of a given scene!

Okay, as for the movie itself, I'm not even sure if it could be classified as satire. It features a rather engaging antihero, the tobacco lobbyist, who faces enemies that are largely bufoonish. As our sympathy is continually placed with the lobbyist, we start to wonder who is being lambasted, exactly. There does actually seem to be a larger point that the filmmakers want to make about the system, but I'm not entirely sure if pays off. The humor is wry, although not as dark as it could be. Most of the enjoyment comes just from watching the man work and not caring if it's "right."

Source: Jaguar airplane video
17 August, 4:45 PM

The Devil Wears Prada

David Frankel, USA, 2006
2.5 out of 4 stars

This is one of those movies that seems solid and entertaining, then starts to crumble a bit when you think about it afterwards; however, it still holds up for the most part, and the main purpose of a movie is to keep you interested while you’re watching, after all. The first problem is the title, which also implies that Meryl Streep is the main role, rather than protagonist Anne Hathaway who is, in fact, effectively plays an interesting character rather than just a sounding board for another virtuoso Streep performance (which isn’t to say that Streep isn’t good, either).

The main problems mostly lie in how Andy, Hathaway’s charcter, deals with her dilemma; should she stay true to herself or fall into the fashion world? This isn’t as lame as it sounds on paper, especially since they managed to convey some sense of the aforementioned fashion world’s glamour to someone like me who by default reviles every aspect of it. This, however, might mean that I sympathized more with her plight than someone who, say, never had any qualms about “fitting in” at all costs. However, the weakness of the detractors seems to sap this film’s moral clarity, as does its eventual mutation from a series of critiques of a whole industry to a mere interpersonal conflict; of course this is inevitable in Hollywood film, but the way this happens in this movie decidedly muddies up and changes the entire issue at hand. Of course, a film like this wants to have it both ways, but one hopes at the very least that when several characters describe a size 4 as “fat,” the filmmaker means to attack that perspective. A lack of clarity on this issue is a lot more unforgivable. All that said, I did find it to be compelling and well-played.

Source: Fox 35mm print
6 July, 7:00 PM

The Untouchables

Brian De Palma, USA, 1987
2.5 out of 4 stars

Perhaps I was just frustrated because this film brings up some ideological issues, but then turns out to be largely visual. Or perhaps I don’t respond well to the cloying nostalgic music and acting, even. There was certainly one really strong sequence, taking place in a train station in the final half-hour of the film that actually really bored me at first. I think perhaps that some of what Brian De Palma tried to do for suspense struck me as indicating lack of momentum. Certainly at the beginning of the scene, I found myself largely wondering what I was supposed to think was going on, and I’m not even sure if that was deliberate. It probably contributes to the thrill when the confrontation does ensue, but maybe there’s a smoother way to do that, especially when regarding the particularly lethargic.

Certainly, the colors are very rich, and there are some masterful shots, which all shows a good level of artistry. Maybe I just expect my action to be too fast, or maybe this is really more of the Disney version of cops vs. mafia, ambiguous morals and hardcore violence aside. Of course, Costner’s inevitable woodenness doesn’t help much.

Source: Paramount special edition DVD
19 June, 7:56 PM

Mission: Impossible III

J.J. Abrams, USA, 2006
2.5 out of 4 stars

What a funny film. For one thing, when you’ve got Ving Rhames asking Tom Cruise, “so did you sleep with your little sister,” one can’t help but like the filmmakers are playing some weird games with the whole Cruise/Holmes unpleasantness (for the record, Cruise never answers the question). There are a whole host of problems with this film, most of which revolve around the notion that Cruise is primarily motivated by these two women whom we hardly ever see on screen, and in the case of the more clearly romantic relationship, what we do see inspires little more than a feeling that it’d be better if we got back to the action.

And yet… maybe the “motivation” bit worked as well as it was supposed to, because after some long stretches of boredom in the first half, I found myself a bit more caught up the closer we got to the end. I don’t really know if that was because of the story, or just because the setpieces were more exciting. What I did find fascinating was that someone thought you could actually wring some suspense from “will Tom Cruise be successfully resuscitated?” I mean, seriously guys? Of course, one can always hope to be proved wrong!

Source: Paramount 35mm print
19 May, 8 PM

The Intruder

(L'intrus)
Claire Denis, France, 2004
2.5 out of 4 stars

Well shucks, I tried to like it, and at least I succeeded in not hating it and in getting something out of it (whereas several walked out of the theater during this “festival” screening). That said, filmmaker Claire Denis clearly wasn’t willing to meet me halfway. This film is clearly inaccessible by design. Not only do you not quite know what things mean, you don’t even know why things are happening or even what is happening. In fact, you’re not even sure what thematic ballpark we’re supposed to be in. Entire sequences and characters are introduced with no rhyme or reason. And while there are plenty of films I’ve seen lately that have similar obstacles to enjoyment, there is often enough beauty or artfulness that those concerns don’t ruin the experience. Denis, however, prefers to assail the viewer with images that fail to even appeal to the viewer in any aesthetically comprehensible manner. I’m not saying it’s crap. I’m just saying it’s not for me, or for most people, and that there’s nothing wrong with that.

Source: Wellspring 35mm print
9 May, 7:43 PM

Superman

Richard Donner, UK, 1978
Two and a half stars

I know this film is generally well-regarded, but I can’t help but think that this is because of what it was at the time, rather than how well it stands up now. I’m sure it was quite revolutionary to have a film come out that showed a superhero as an adult, best indicated by the scene where he goes flying with Lois and makes the Peter Pan comment. I’m sure this went a long way to erasing all those “bam, pow” notions that the television adaptation of that other DC property put into the heads of non-comics fans. And even though the effects aren’t perfect, it’s fun to see Superman pick up helicopters. In fact I’d say all the parts where he is flying are probably the best

Nevertheless, most of this movie doesn’t work. The adaptation of Superman’s origin is really weak. If you know me, you know I’m not saying that because it’s “not faithful.” It’s actually quite similar to Batman Begins in that they took bits and pieces from everywhere, but making that comparison shows you how far they fell short here. The Marlon Brando floating head thing is no substitute for his parents actually playing some part in his decision to become a superhero. In fact, we don’t even see any kind of decision! It’s really astonishing how many things are conveyed in sloppy shorthand considering how long the film is, at least in this director’s cut.

That would of course be because the film spends too long with its stunt-casting. Hackman’s Luthor is atrocious, absolutely unforgivable (especially his “comic” sidekicks). And the aforementioned Brando head (as well as the Brando on Krypton prologue) is pretty rotten too. I do like the portrayal of Clark Kent for the most part; it’s overdone, but there’s a point to it. Overall though, the plot is very shoddy, and not really up to Superman’s standards. Here’s looking forward to the next installment!

Source: Warner DVD
27 March, 9:25 PM

Forty Shades of Blue

Ira Sachs, USA, 2005
2.5 out of 4 stars

A nice effort but mostly moribund. Certainly lacks the beauty, or even the emotional resonance, of something like In the Mood for Love, although maybe this stuff just works better (for me) in subtitles.

Source: Capital DVD
26 February, 10:15 PM

Bubba Ho-Tep

Don Coscarelli, USA, 2002
2.5 out of 4 stars

It’s really a bad sign when you see a 90 minute film and you feel like it should have been at least 30 minutes shorter! It makes you realize that a real disservice has been done to the medium of film with the ghettoization of shorts. I’m no better, as when I look up a festival listings, I have no interest in shorts either! While Brokeback Mountain suffered from trying to stretch out a short story with new material, I get the feeling this film tried to be too faithful to what was there, and there just wasn’t enough for a feature. Bruce Campbell’s voice-over narration is largely inane, and you only get into some good bad-assedness near the very end.

Source: MGM DVD
24 Februrary, 9:20 PM