Milk opens with the title character Harvey Milk (Sean Penn) giving his final manifesto into a tape recorder. Milk is an activist for the San Francisco gay community and the first openly gay elected official in a major American city. The film revolves around his arrival in San Francisco to being the first gay man that could be compared to Boss Tweed in New York or Mayor Dayley in Chicago. It's an uphill battle, as can be expected.
Gus Van Sant goes a long way to redemption for that horrible mistake known as Psycho with this film. He presents Milk in a documentary style, intercutting between the actors and the real news events. There is a massive attention to detail in this film. Don't believe me? Watch the closing credits.Van Sant isn't sympathetic to Milk all of the time in this picture, though. There are certain parts that almost show Milk as a power hungry politician more than the community activist fresh of the train from New York City.
Sean Penn is magnificent as Harvey Milk. Penn is continuing to prove that he has the qualities of this generations Marlon Brando, a talent that can go from winning an Oscar for playing a hardened Boston crime lord (Mystic River) to playing a gay activist in this film. While watching Milk I tried to harken back to that role in Mystic River and couldn't. Sean Penn becomes his roles and wears them like a comfortable coat. He continues to be one of the premiere actors of the last 10+ years.
The rest of the cast is as magnificent as Penn. James Franco plays Milk's lover Scott who would follow Milk to the ends of the Earth until it proves too much. Emile Hirsch trashes his Spped racer garb and relishes in the role of "trick" turned activist Cleve Jones. A great turn for Hirsch. Alison Pill is also great as Anne Kroenenberg, the savvy campaign manager that becomes the glue that holds the entire thing together. And once again Josh Brolin delivers another stellar performance as Dan White, a fellow city supervisor that believes his career is going down the tubes because of Harvey Milk.
The film represents an era in American history that rivals the massive civil rights demonstrations a decade before. To see what these people were going through in what has been considered the most liberal city in America makes a person cringe. This is America for Christ's sakes. You have legislation being past to eliminate job protections for gay people, and the infamous move to have all gay school teachers and their supporters fired. What the hell was up with this country? And everyone thought that Harvey and his crew were the freaks, these people pushing for these reforms were pissing on the American flag while hanging a swastika. What Milk does is represent that era when we were still a little touchy on the entire homosexual issue. It's another one of those stories about hope and how perseverance can get you to your goals, even if you do have to give up a little bit of your soul in the process.
From the people that brought you American Graffiti...
Yes, the same people that brought you American Graffiti brought us Howard the Duck. Howard the Duck, that legendary bomb that caused George Lucas to sell a little company he owned called Pixar (yes THAT Pixar. Could you imagine his power if he still had it?). Between this, Superman III and IV, The Punisher (Dolph), and Captain America comic book adaptations were set back ten years.
Basic plot: Duck is sucked from his planet to Earth, meets Beverly (Lea Thompson), who leads Howard to a lab assistant (Oscar winner Tim Robbins- I bet he wished this never had a DVD release), who leads Howard to a real scientist (Jeffrey Jones) who ends up sucking a dark overlord who wants to take over the world. Yowza. Even the cop from CSI is in this. Not William Petersen.
Now I've seen worse movies.Not many, but I have seen worse. It's hard to attack plot holes, overacting, and such when you're dealing with a talking duck. It's a nice '80's time capsule, mainly for Lea Thompson's hair and the Thomas Dolby soundtrack. Holy shit, John Barry did the score for this! I thought it sounded like a recycled A View To A Kill soundtrack. No wonder.
Yeah, we can all bash Howard the Duck (and future generations will). It has to be done. When a monumental dud is released we all have to look at why. Of course with Howard the Duck we already have our answer to that now don't we.
Steve Martin returns as an impersonation of Peter Sellers playing Insp. Clouseau in Pink Panther 2, whose title is as dry as the first film. Couldn' t they have called it ___________ of the Pink Panther? Who knows?
This time a master thief called the Tornado is stealing priceless artifacts which inevitably leads to the theft of the Pink Panther diamond. A dream team of detectives (Andy Garcia, Alfred Molina, Yuki Matzuzaki, and Aishwarya Rai) are dispatched with the bumbling Clouseau to find the treasures.
I will admit to liking this film more than the previous installment. It harkens back to the original, superior films. There were some parts that didn't work, but in the end it was an OK family comedy. It has problems, such as John Cleese as Chief Inspector Dreyfuss. I'm not bashing Cleese because he was totally suited for the role and blew away Kevin Kline. This is a typical Cleese role. The problem was that he didn't have a French accent. He had the John Cleese accent. And I know damn well he can do a French accent because of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Come on John, say "I fat in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your sister smelt of elderberries!"
In the end this is geared toward children and kids will enjoy its pratfalls and such, missing the cringeworthy moments and plot holes. The funny thing is that kids don't really take to Seller Panther films. As I said, it beats the last film and is a tolerable thing to see when nothing else is on.
Most historical dramas are inaccurate as hell. Honestly, would you pay to watch someones ho-hum life for two hours, even if there was a little excitement thrown in. Hollywood has to take a few liberties. With Bonnie and Clyde you get a few of those to jazz it up a bit. The film is about a girl named Bonnie Parker (Faye Dunaway) who stumbles on a boy named Clyde Barrow (Warren Beatty) attempting to steal her mothers car. Well, we all know what happens when (semi) good girls meet bad boys- she runs off with him and the crime spree begins. They move up from stealing cars and holding up grocery stores to robbing banks and capturing the public eye; obsessing for the public eye. Along the way they pick up a driver named C. W. Moss (Michael Pollard) and drag Clyde's brother (a brilliant Gene Hackman) and his wife (Estelle Parsons) into the melee.
You know how Bonnie and Clyde is going to end. The film is watching a raging fire that's about to burn itself out and will be just a pile of dead embers in a few hours. It's the characters destiny. Making it a tougher film to make, but director Arthur Penn is able to give us a film that is half news reel and half documentary. Instead of hardened criminals lusting for blood you get people with personalities. This is probably Warren Beatty's best role of his career as he gives Clyde depth and accomplishes a hard feat: we forget that it's Warren Beatty. We believe it's Clyde Barrow. Faye Dunaway does the same. She's transformed into that girl from a Texas, yet there's still that glamour on the screen. Gene Hackman is one of the driving forces in the middle of the film. His portrayal of Buck Barrow is of a jovial figure, yet with a heavy heart that he and his wife have been drug into this mess. An early masterpiece from Hackman.
Bonnie and Clyde is an enjoyable ride to the end of the wick so to speak. Violent beyond its years (considering it was released before the ratings system) it doesn't glorify its violence. There is actual regret over the dead that was unusual in films at that point. The film was ahead of it.s time and remains a great classic.
Based upon the first volume of Stephanie Meyer's vampire saga Twilight is one of those eternal love stories that tries to be a modern day Gone with the Wind or Titanic but is drowned in its own pop culture excesses and laughable dialogue. The film is about Bella (Kristen Stewart) who goes to live with her father in Forks, Washington. She's the new kid in school and you expect her not to fit in, yet she does quite quickly which is shocking for a story such as this. She ends up in biology class having to share a lab table with pale Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) who performs a super freak out and disappears for a few days. Even though Edward is an asshole to Bella she becomes more and more intrigued (furthering the film stereotype that girls like to be treated like dirt, even when the guy's a vampire). As the film progresses what you figured would happen happens- the two fall into vampire love, yet Edward must fight the urge to treat her like a Big Mac.
I can't say anything about the book having never read it and having no desire to do so. I did see this film and found that the story was kind of blah. You know blah. Like eating an over cooked piece of steak or biting the neck of an old lady. It just doesn't go down well. There are just so many problem with the script it shrieks out to me as "Rushed!". Things that I don't understand, such as if the family of vampires named the Cullens have been around for so long why do the kids bother going to school? They stay secluded to themselves anyway. What's the point, other than writing the book and/or script. The script also introduces characters just to be slaughtered by the evil vampires (whose own existence in this film and/or book is only there to give an antagonist and cause some tension during the last thrity minutes) so that we can have some kind of emotional bound as an audience with the victim. We don't. We can't because they were only on screen for forty-five seconds. Things like that bother me, but the one line that was laughable was:
"You're like my own brand of heroin."
I'm sorry, but that line made me cringe and giggle at the same time it was so damn hokey.
The direction feels like direct to video schlock. Yeah, Catherine Hardwicke gives us some nice views of the Pacific Northwest but otherwise it's Direction for Dummies time. Slow motion for aesthetics is one thing, but doing it because it's hip on MTV just sucks.
And that's what Twilight is when it's all in the can- product hand crafted for pop culture. Who cares if the movies good, teenage girls and their mothers will flock to the theater to see it and wait in line at Wal Mart for the DVD's. Guys will have to go because their girlfriends will be dying for it. This is a masterpiece of gothic literature or film making, it's a masterpiece of merchandising. It's Hot Topic Star Wars, kids.
I will admit to being entertained by the film. That's about all I can say about it. It held by interest for two hours. I'll probably forget about until the next movie comes out and there will be one because it's out in paperback and this one made $$$. $$$ makes the world go round and the cameras roll.
Married Life is about a middle aged man named Harry Allen (Chris Cooper) who has fallen in love with a younger woman named Kay (Rachel McAdams) and decides to leave his wife Pat (Patricia Clarkson). He discusses all of this with his friend Richard and even introduces his friend to his lover. This is where things get a little complicated. Richard has fallen in love with Kay. Meanwhile Harry realizes that his wife is so fragile that she would be humiliated beyond belief by an abandonment. So Harry decides to kill her. Are you following me so far?
This is one of those ensemble cast pieces that you see from time to time that is banking more on its cast than its script or direction. Cooper, McAdams, and Clarkson are great in their roles giving us performances that anyone would be proud of if they had been in another movie. After Brosnan had abandoned James Bond with The Matador I was hoping he would continue to shun that suave, womanizing exterior and try something different than what he's been doing since Remington Steele. I was disappointed. Brosnan plays Richard as a Jame Bond that Roger Moore would even say was too old to be seducing the young Kay. You could say the same thing about Cooper's Harry, but in that instance it was more mutual. Richard is merely a wolf that Brosnan plays by pulling a paint by numbers acting style that stifles the other actors. He tends to overact in some scenes and be barely visible in others.
The script is a horrible piece that flows like a plugged toilet. Basic plot twists and basic reactions are the name of the game in this film with no one acting the way an actual human being would act in the same circumstances. I expect to have reality bullshitted to me in something like Alice in Wonderland, but when you're showing a quaint little town in the lake 1940's we have to have some real reactions not something to further the story along. The direction is mediocre at best and horrible at worst. Sergio Leone could get away with a close up to give the audience tension.Ira Sachs, who also wrote the screenplay, gives us wonderful views of the casts nostrils. Yes, if lighted correctly I could have seen Christ Coppers sinuses. Wonderful.
I wonder why this thing was even called Married Life. The title doesn't fit to well. I would have called this film Crap. Pure crap. The only thing that's saving it from the dreaded half star is Cooper, McAdams, and Clarkson, whose acting save what this picture would have been. But saving this film would have been the equivalent of trying to bale out the Titanic with a measuring cup.
The kids have this thing they do late at night on the weekends called Road Tripping. You go out in your vehicle and drive around all night drinking and smoking dope. Apparently it's a good old time, yet I don't know how safe it actually is. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a film about the ultimate road trip to Sin City with an unlimited supply of booze, drugs, and bullshit as two guys plot a collision course to disaster.
The film, base on Hunter S. Thompson's book, is the story of Raoul Duke (Johnny Depp) which is actually Thompson's interpretation of himself and his attorney Dr. Gonzo (Benicio del Toro) as they travel to Las Vegas for an article assigned to Raoul Duke. They load up their car an embark on a journey fueled by drugs and booze causing a normal working trip to Vegas to become a hallucinatory nightmare and a comment on the post hippie era in the United States.
Both Depp and del Toro fill their roles as we see them spiral out of control, hell they're already out of control when we meet them in the desert. Depp fills Thompson's shoes as an over the top drug hogging maniac that has temporary moments of clarity and comment on how Las Vegas has become a microcosm of American life. The pair are great at playing lunatics binging on the contents of their little brown briefcase.
The film is a really masterpiece in the way it's shot. Terry Gilliam, who is no stranger to odd films, creates a drugged out atmosphere that pulls you into the chemical haze, yet leaves the audience to realize how ridiculous Las Vegas actually was in that era. Pink encrusted rooms and acrobats on the gaming floor are not hallucinations- they're the real thing, even though it seems totally out of place in the situation.
The thing about Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is that it isn't just a film about road tripping. In between the the freak outs and stealing towels and soap the film really becomes a commentary about how the generation that felt that they changed the world in the 1960's somehow got derailed in the 1970's. The whole idea of freeing ones mind in the flower power era suddenly becomes excessive in the decade of excess. The film is more a commentary on what went wrong when the decade rolled over. When you really look at it Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas isn't as strange a tale as it seems. It's just enhanced a bit.
