robelanator's DVDs > DVD reviews by robelanator

Ugh.

Posted : 1 year, 4 months ago on 3 July 2008 11:21 (A review of War (Widescreen Edition))

I rated this a 6, and it's all for Jet Li's awesome (as always) action sequences. But even that modest rating might be too high considering the absolute awfulness of the script.

I cannot stress "awful" enough, here. From the so-cliche-it-hurts plot (dueling-crime-families, a la "Yojimbo" and "A Fistful of Dollars", melded with a tired cop-avenging-his-partner's-murder story), to the hamfisted dialogue, to the mindblowingly retarded "twist" ending, "War" is a magnificent failure.

But the action is solid, stylishly staged and photographed, and if you're a Jet Li or Stratham fan then "War" is still worth watching. Just go into this one with low expectations (even by action movie standards)... and perhaps switch the audio to Spanish or whatever for the last 15 minutes so you're not distracted by the ridiculous ending.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Romantic comedy for geeks.

Posted : 1 year, 4 months ago on 2 July 2008 02:43 (A review of Free Enterprise: Love Long & Party (Five Year Mission Two-Disc Extended Edition))

"Free Enterprise" is a rather conventionally plotted romantic comedy. But instead of well-groomed, successful men (eg, George Clooney) or profane slacker-stoners (eg, any Judd Apatow character), the male protagonists in "Free Enterprise" are a group of super-geeks living in LA who idolize Star Trek's Captain James T. Kirk and possess a seemingly endless knowledge of sci-fi trivia. They spend their days working unglamorous industry jobs, awkwardly courting women, roaming the toy stores and comic shops of the city looking for rare collectibles, and, of course, quoting Star Wars and Star Trek at every opportunity.

When one of the guys, a financially irresponsible mooch and unlikely Lothario named Rob, meets the woman of his (and every geek's) dreams in Claire, can he manage to keep her? Will their relationship undermine his friendship with his geeky cadre? Meanwhile, Rob's best friend, Mark, will soon be turning 30, and visions of Logan's Run haunt his dreams.

A chance meeting with their idol, William Shatner (playing himself, self-effacingly), at bookstore turns into a night of drinks, and eventually a friendship. Shatner is dealing with his own woman problems, and also mulling over a one-man musical version of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar".

Shatner, by the way, is hilarious. He gets some of the best lines in the movie. He's not a preening arrogant jerk like he's sometimes made out to be, nor is he the bold leader of the Captain Kirk mold. He's just an endearing goofball with a crazy dream.

Whether or not you find this film funny will depend heavily on your own knowledge of sci-fi. If you find the idea of grown men obsessing over a 30-year old television show hopelessly pathetic, then the movie will probably induce more groans than laughs. If, however, you too can instantly name a 5-letter Star Wars planet that begins with the the letter "E", you'll probably find the film hilarious.

Filmed in 1997, released theatrically and then quickly to a barebones DVD in 1999, the independent feature film "Free Enterprise", written by Mark Altman and Robert Burnett and directed by Burnett, was re-released by Anchor Bay in a 2-disc special edition in 2006. In this edition, the running time of the film is extended by 6 minutes and audio commentaries by the writers and stars (including William Shatner) were added, in addition to a making-of documentary and deleted scenes.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

eye-poppingly gorgeous

Posted : 1 year, 4 months ago on 23 June 2008 10:37 (A review of Curse of the Golden Flower)

Love triangles, political intrigue, murder, coups, battles big and small, Zhang Yimou's "Curse of the Golden Flower" has it all-- maybe too much, actually.

If you've seen Zhang Yimou's other films in the genre, "Hero" and "House of Flying Daggers" then you know what to expect. Stunning photography, sets, and costumes, a plot full of twists and turns, crosses and double-crosses, and, of course, a bit of kung fu thrown in for good measure.

"Curse of the Golden Flower" is by far the prettiest of his films. Every scene inside the Forbidden City is an explosion of gorgeous color. Every character is decked out from head to toe in intricate costumes of silk and gold.

There are less action scenes than in "Hero" and "House of Flying Daggers", but the final action sequence is bigger than anything that appeared in the first two, and easily rivals the beautiful chaos of the Spartan/Persian battles in "300".

But don't let all these visual delights distract you from the subtitles. The story is quite complex, with literally every named character in the film having his or her own independent backstory and agenda, each of them key to understanding the events that preceded and follow.

This is a dense film, and I'm guessing a second viewing would be required by many to either understand the whole of complex story or the fully appreciate the visual artistry, or both.

But this density is also a liability. So many characters must split the 2 hour run time that it's hard for any one of them to be fully fleshed out.

Strongly recommended.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

lesser Brooks

Posted : 1 year, 11 months ago on 26 November 2007 01:22 (A review of High Anxiety)

"High Anxiety" is fun for a Hitchcock geek, much less so for those unfamiliar with the Master's work.

The film's standalone gags are very hit and miss, and often hobbled by Mel's presence. He's a good writer, but a not a great performer-- certainly not lead role material. It's no wonder his best films ("The Producers", "Blazing Saddles", and "Young Frankenstein") all have Mel more behind the camera rather than in front of it.

Another thing that's off is the timing of the gags. It's been said that brevity is the soul of wit, and too many jokes are just too drawn out, either in concept or simply due to a lack of good editing.

What makes the film worthwhile is its spoofs of Hitchcock films, from "Psycho" to "Birds" to "North by Northwest" to "Vertigo" (though, strangely, there's no use of the famous Vertigo effect, caused by zooming the camera in while physically pulling the camera back).

If you're a huge Hitchcock fan or a Mel Brooks completist then you'll probably want to own this. Others should rent it if they're curious, but it's hard for me to recommend it.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Awful.

Posted : 1 year, 11 months ago on 26 November 2007 11:17 (A review of I'll Sleep When I'm Dead)

I picked up this DVD because its director, Mike Hodges, also directed the awesome revenge thriller "Get Carter" (1971) with Michael Caine. "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" starring Clive Owens has an almost identical premise: badass gangster comes to town to avenge his brother's murder.

Unfortunately, unlike "Get Carter", there's very little actual revenge here. Instead, we get 2 hours of our protagonist moping around the countryside and then the city having stilted conversations with flat characters (most of whom end up having absolutely nothing to do with the plot) before anything happens. Then the movie ends.

Look, I don't mind "moody" and "contemplative" films-- heck, I'll happily sit through a 3-hour Tarkovsky flick-- but the subjects and characters have to be interesting to make it work and that's unfortunately where "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" fails.

I blame the screenwriting. Characters don't converse as much as they deliver longwinded speeches to the each other. The plotting is poor, as well. There's a big backstory that never gets a satisfactory explanation, and numerous subplots that never get resolved.

Bottom line: If you're looking for an action-packed thriller, this ain't it. If you're looking for an interesting meditation on revenge, this ain't it either.

Avoid.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

a bore but for Brooks

Posted : 2 years, 2 months ago on 14 August 2007 02:48 (A review of Prix de Beaute)

Louise Brooks is now rightfully considered one of THE great early film actresses for her work on two German silent films directed by D.W. Pabst, "Pandora's Box" and "Diary of a Lost Girl," but in her own time she was a Hollywood reject due to her reputation for being "difficult" to work with while the critics panned her acting as being too inexpressive. After returning to America she spent a few years slumming it in B-westerns before quiting film and moving to New York. There she labored away in obscurity as a sales clerk, among other menial jobs, for decades until her films were critically "rediscovered." Later in life, she found a niche as gifted essayist and a collection of her works titled "Lulu in Hollywood" is still in print.

Prix de Beaute is a film that D.W. Pabst had adapted for Brooks, but due to his scheduling conflicts he was unable to direct and produce it himself. Instead, Augusto Genina took over the project, which is a shame, because the story would've been infinitely more compelling had it been filmed with Pabst's expressionist aesthetic and obvious appreciation for and understanding of how to capture Brooks' natural animal magnetism.

Genina's photography is, by contrast, pretty conventional. Worse, his direction of Brooks leaves her looking sapped of energy and more confused than conflicted in several key scenes. Perhaps most damning is the fact that even though Brooks spends much of her time in the film walking about in a bathing suit she never strikes the viewer as being a particularly erotic figure, especially when compared to her performances in the two aforementioned Pabst films.

All that said, with so few Louise Brooks films around today this will still be a must-see for her dedicated fans, but for those not already caught up in her spell "Pandora's Box" is a much, much better place to start falling in love with Lulu.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Ho-hum

Posted : 2 years, 2 months ago on 14 August 2007 12:00 (A review of The Fog (Special Edition))

This would make a great "horror" movie for kids. There is very little gore, but plenty of cheap scares as the eponymous Fog provides a suitably creepy cover for the pirate ghosts to stalk and strike out at our protagonists.

Unfortunately, teens and grown-ups will likely be left wanting because the plot is waaay too simple (it's all laid out in two expository scenes near the beginning). Worse, the characters are absolutely devoid of any sort of compelling backstories, arcs, traits, hidden or overt agendas, or anything else that might lead the viewer to care one way or another if they live or die.

The DVD transfer is pretty bad, too. Most of the time the picture is grainy and colors washed out. The surround sound mix wasn't notable either; nothing would be lost by watching it on a standard two-speaker setup.

Buy this if you're a John Carpenter completist, otherwise check out Carpenter's remake of The Thing instead.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Art, a blank canvas, or both?

Posted : 2 years, 4 months ago on 27 June 2007 11:34 (A review of Stalker)

Last night I watched Stalker, Tarkovsky's other sci-fi film (the first being Solaris) and the one that probably killed him (unbeknownst to the cast and crew, the area it was filmed was filled with toxic waste and, as a result, many of them, including Tarkovsky, ended up dying of cancer soon thereafter). Here's yet another DVD I'm sad I let sit on my shelf unwatched for so long.

Stalker is infamous for being "challenging" due it's long takes, slow pans, sparse and enigmatic dialog, and impenetrable symbolism (which Tarkovsky himself famously denied was intentional). It's been described by many critics as a meditation on faith and the lack thereof in our world of cynical secular modernity.

Certainly there is something to that considering the plot, a dangerous pilgrimage by three "wretched" souls seeking redemption at a place of miracles, but I'm not sure how much of this meditation really exists within the film itself. Because this arthouse style of filmmaking thrives on a less-is-more method of storytelling, we tend to imagine for ourselves far more going on than we are actually shown by the filmmakers. Is that really art, or is it just a placeholder for inserting our own assumptions, thoughts, and experiences?

But then it's more than a placeholder, it's a catalyst for thought - not just about figuring out the film, but also about figuring out oneself. In that way, I suppose it is a work of art, after all, but only insofar as one is willing to embrace it as such. Like another reviewer said, how much you take from Stalker depends mostly on how much you bring to it. Whether you find it boring and tedious or fascinating and captivating says as much about you as it does about the film.

Should art convey meaning in and of itself, or should it involve the audience in determining its meaning? I used to be a strong proponent of the former view. For the longest time modern art struck me as lazy precisely because it often seemed to demand more from the audience than than from the artist. But Stalker, in particular, is anything but lazy filmmaking. On the contrary, the scenes are clearly carefully and masterfully composed and edited. One might argue it's still lazy for an artist either leave unclear or purposely obscure the meaning of his or her work, but if the intention is to make one *think* rather than just *consume* (and Tarkovsky makes his disdain for the latter pretty clear in Writer's speech in Stalker) then isn't such obfuscation necessary? After all, a conclusion given to one is not nearly as powerful as a conclusion reached for oneself. In that case, the artist, like the stalker in the film, is there to guide travelers seeking revelation down the proper path, but it's the travelers themselves who must cross over the threshold of intense self-examination into revelation.

Philosophical wankery aside, Stalker is definitely worth seeing if you can give it your full attention for its three-hour run time. Even if the story leaves you cold, the cinematography and lighting are striking and beautiful, and the acting fantastic, especially from the man playing the eponymous Stalker.

1 comments, Reply to this entry

A great looking ensemble noir film.

Posted : 2 years, 6 months ago on 27 April 2007 11:00 (A review of The Asphalt Jungle)

The good stuff:

Plenty of great characters here! You have the old, accomplished fat-cat sleezey defense lawyer, the unflappably cordial German criminal mastermind, the tough-guy with just enough heart to make you root for him, the safecracking family man, the disfugured wheel man, and the weasily bookie, all of whom come together to pull off the heist of the century. But a double cross and several strokes of bad luck threaten to destroy the lives of every one of them.

Even the minor characters are fascinating. The crooked cop, the tough-on-crime police commissioner, the violent private eye, the down-on-her-luck dancer girlfriend, the bedridden wife. Finally, be prepared for a very young looking Marilyn Monroe (she was 23 playing 17 or 18) who will make you feel like a dirty old man for lusting after her-- and I'm only 27!

The camera work is, of course, top notch. It's John Huston, here, folks! And you can't beat the quintessential noir atmosphere of dark, dilapidated, urban landscapes, every filthy corner teeming with corruption.

The bad stuff:

Sterling Hayden and Jean Hagen really chew up the scenery. Their scenes together are cringe inducing.

The sound is pretty unremarkable.

Bottom-line:

If you like noir, this is a must-see.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

An odd little thing...

Posted : 2 years, 7 months ago on 12 April 2007 08:21 (A review of Alphaville - Criterion Collection)

The blurb on the Criterion insert calls Jean Luc Godard's "Alphaville" a "sci-fi film without the special effects," detective noir satire, and "poetry," among other things. I admit I'm still a bit baffled by what it is I watched last night. The plot was simple enough, your basic Star Trek "emotionless computer rules the world in a brual fashion and can only be defeated by overloading it with the illogical" story, but it was told in such a roundabout way-- the main character, an intergalactic spy with a private-eye look and attitude, is often seen literally walking in circles. This is also the big potential turnoff for those without patience or an open mind. It seems to conform to just about every negative stereotype Americans have about French art-house films and if you're already of the mind that obtuse storytelling is more "pretentious" than interesting, "Alphaville" probably won't change your mind.

0 comments, Reply to this entry