Change Your Image
PKD-2
Reviews
Barton Fink (1991)
Misunderstood
When i first saw Barton Fink, it blew me away with its creativity, originality and attention to detail - both visual and in terms of story. Seeing it again, I remembered why I loved it so much. Another user said it was "overrated" and compared it to Gladiator and Titanic in that respect.
Barton Fink does not belong in the same universe as either of those films. They are both pop entertainment - designed to give you a few hours of entertainment with characters you want to root for in situations of peril. Its like comparing Fellini's 8 1/2 with Three's Company - it just doesn't work. That's not to say that both are not worthy of praise, but rather that they serve different functions.
The function of Barton Fink is not simply to make you laugh, cry and say it was better than "Cats". It provokes you as the audience. It asks you to come along for a ride of absurdities and bizarre characters - and the payoff is great.
This is still one of my favorite movies and a source of creative inspiration for me. It makes no compromises and presents a very unique and original vision. In the summer of 2001, where movies look more an more like they are produced, written and directed by marketing departments, Barton Fink is a reminder of the glorious highs that film can achieve.
Sex and the City (1998)
Moral decay? Promiscuity? Bullsh**!!
Hmmmm...how many movies/TV shows can we talk about that deal with the male urge to get laid?
Lets talk about Swingers for one - here is a show where most of the characters are basically out to get "digits" - was that a sign of moral decay? hardly...
And yet, when it is women who are shown being promiscuous and treating men like sexual objects, all of a sudden, the world is in trouble.
Well, it is in trouble as long as sexist atitudes like that remain - anyone who has questioned the "moral center" of this show - ask yourselves how many times you have been entertained by the escapades of men looking for meaningless and trivial sex.
Lets start with one of the most popular sitcoms in history - Cheers - Sam is a womanizing lech - lets look at Seinfeld - where Jerry picks up and dumnps women for the most superficial of reasons - or how about Friends?
And these shows are on in PRIME TIME.
In my estimation, the only thing different about Sex and the City is that it shows the stuff that the prime-time network shows only allude to and it allows the characters to speak using real terms instead of being forced to use innuendo and euphamisms.
On a recent episode of That 70's Show, Eric goes to an adult film. Later, he tries a "move" he learned at the film on his girlfriend Donna - when she reacts (shocked), it is very clear that Eric was behind her and that his head was "below the equator".
So we can pretty much figure out what Eric was doing.
So why is it different when we see Samatha's lover giving her a rimmer or when she says "My god, he licked my anus!!"
This show has its problems - for one, that it was based on the collected stories of an author drawing on years of experiences and now has to cram that many experiences into a calendar year - with the comic result that these women basically often come across as dock-whores.
But don;t tell me that this has anything to do with moral decay.
Family Guy (1999)
Family Guy coming back - Friends has lost a viewer
Just read today that the Family Guy is being resurrected and will go head to head (and lose) with Friends. I guess they were thinking that its best to put a cheap, animated show into a timeslot they will never win.
anyway, I am so happy this show is back. Lots of people compared it to the Simpsons, but the humour is completely different - not that the Simpsons has much humour anymore.
Welcome Back!!
Memento (2000)
Get people to see this movie - IT WAS GREAT
There is no reason why this film shouldn;t have a wider release - get people to see it and get it some publicity.
I was reminded of Paul's (Will Smith) momologue in Six Degrees of Separation about imagination - that it does not need to be confined to the realm of science fiction - well HERE is a film with REAL inagination - one that uses its premise to tell a unique story and to put us into the mindset of the protagonist.
Lots of people will debate some of the finer points of the story and the ending/beginning leaves a lot of questions (although, in the context of the story, could you expect any REAL certainty in the resolution?) - but the point was that it WORKED - here was a film that could easily have turned into an exercise a la TIME CODE, but instead, made the structure a key component of the storytelling.
Performances were great - Guy Pearce was the right man for this role - abloe to convince you that he understands even though he has no clue what you are talking about.
THIS IS THE KIND OF MOVIE WE WANT TO HAVE MADE - it stretches the boundaries of cinema and shows us how to make entertaining and valuable cinema through creativity and innovation, rather than through millions in special effects.
Breakfast of Champions (1999)
This is not what you think it is
I have been reading these comments and it seems to me that this is indicative of the problem with the film-going public today. How can you NOT know about Breakfast of Champions? How could you expect a standard Hollywood movie? Someone here said that Willis should have spent his time making Die Hard 4 - Well, budy, I got news for ya - YOU SHOULDN't HAVE RENTED THIS MOVIE!!! Do a little research and you would havce known that this movie was based on a fairly subversive piece of literature, that it is completely non-linear - oh yeah - and ThAT IT WAS BAD!!
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)
Love it or hate it.
I have read through ALL the User Comments and have come to one conclusion. You will either love or hate this film. No in between whatsoever. I happened to love it. So did all my friends and my girlfriend, so I know I am not nuts. I think that certain people connect with this film and some (many?) don't. Its like slpastick or romantic comedies. Some love em, some hate em.
I'm sure that experience with drugs helps. However, I believe that it is something more to do with the ability to appreciate film on a level above plot. Like Koyanisquatsi (I'm sure I misspelled that) or Baraka, this film is about images and impressions, not story. If you can't appreciate it, that is your loss. If you want suspense or plot twists, see "The Usual Suspects" or some such film (which I also loved).
As Duke says to the hitchiker, you need "true grit" to appreciate this film. And thankfully, I am "chock full of that, man!"
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
Great, yet disappointing at the same time
After seeing Ep. I for the second time, I have formed the opinion that it is, in fact, an entertaining movie. A classic? Hardly. But put it up against almost any recent Hollywood movie and it can compete. The problem is only that it can't compete against Star Wars. But don't forget one thing. Star Wars (Ep. IV) was produced without necessarily knowing whether sequels would follow. As such, it is a complete story unto itself. Ep. I is simply a set-up. Its true value will not be known until after all three have been released. My only real substantive complaint is that the writing was fairly lame. Hopefully Lucas will put quality over secrecy and allow some more people to see and edit the script.
South Park (1997)
Get over it!
Look, I love South Park. I think it is one of the most original shows to come along in a long time. However, let's get a couple of things straight.
1) It is not, nor will it ever be, nor does it attempt to be The Simpsons. The Simpsons will likely have a legacy similar to that of the Flintstones in that it will be remembered long after those of us who grew up watching it have tuned it out (you know, like when we die). South Park was never intended as a serious venture. It was only contemplated as such after the original short had gained so much popularity. Trey Parker describes himself primarily as a filmmaker (hence the speed with which the movie is being released)
2) I don't understand why the vulgarity of South Park offends so many people. The only reason I can think of is that kids are watching it. I think the most telling point about the vulgarity was made in the Time Magazine article about the show. A young child (around 10) was asked whether he was bothered by the vulgarity. He responded by saying that nothing on the show was anything he hadn't heard his father say. Vulgarity is all around us in movies, TV and radio (Howard Stern anyone?).
3) Am I the only person who has noticed that the Simpsons really sucks this year?
4) Name 5 sitcoms that are more original and entertaining that are currently on TV.
5) By the way, Terence and Philip are not riffs on Beavis and Butthead. They are a response to TV critics who have clainmed that South Park is "nothing but fart jokes".
However, for me, the bottom line is this. I hate the show "Touched by and Angel" To me, it represents everything horrible about TV. Yet, I am not about to go onto its web space here and decry its horriblenss. I respect Trey and Matt for making a show based only on what they think is funny and if we like it, great. If you don't like it, that's fine. All I have to say is "Screw you guys, I'm goin' home!"
Orgazmo (1997)
Get a grip!
Having seen this movie at the Toronto International Film Festival, before I had even heard of South Park or Trey Parker, and without any hype, I have to say that I, and the entire audience (albeit, an audience at a midnight screening) were howling with laughter all the way through.
This tells me that the people who didn't like the movie went in with some kind of expectation about what they were about to see. And, in most cases, that expectation was probably ill founded. You probably expect to see some "SOmething About Mary" rip off, or something in the Jim Carrey genre (pre-Truman Show).
What makes Orgazmo funny is that it pulls no punches and maintains no pretensions. It works hard to make you laugh and does not expend a moment of energy on anything else.
The difficulty is that Trey Parker is a complete original. He is also very young and without much experience. What we are seeing in him and his partner Matt Stone, is the evolution of a comic genius. Maybe they don't know how to write convincing characters, or how to make a full 90 minute film work entirely, but they have a unique and distinctive brand of humour.
Orgazmo is far from perfect and belongs in the low-budget/indie category, but don't let anyone tell you that this movie isn't funny. It just might not be "your kind of humour"