A mathematical genius who goes nuts over the mysteries of transcendental numbers in the world. Wonderful for math and physics geeks!
Reviews
8 Reviews
X-Men
(2000)
A total betrayal of comic fans
13 June 2020
The movie took elements of the X-Men and rewrote them into a cringeworthy movie. So much of it is not in the comics prior to the release of the movie, and then it contaminated the comics themselves - bad on Marvel. Playing up the Wolverine-Jean romantic tension, stripping Rogue of her villainous history with Carol Danvers (and her super strength and flight ability), making Bobby Drake a student of Scott and Jean, giving Toad a prehensile tongue and adhesive spitting... beside that, the immensely dorky helmet they made Ian McKellen wear, and making Wolverine pretty much the center of attention all were a Hollywood sales job and a betrayal of true fans.
Rent
(2005)
Great musical, so-so movie
15 November 2006
I was lucky to win a drawing for cheap front-row seats to a showing of Rent in New York in 1999 or 2000. Absolutely masterful musical, though I always felt that the latter half was rushed.
The movie version... a disappointment. In the musical, the curtain dropping could accomplish so much that the rapid visual scene changes, trying to fit in a panoply of images, sadly could not. The movie... a little over-produced, filling in too much detail that in the sparse theatric set was occupied by the audience's imagination.
One of the biggest disappointments in the film was the loss of the "homeless chorus" in the musical, completely absent in the film. The lines centered on the musical's "...and it's beginning to snow" motif placed so much emphasis on the poor, which was in my eyes quite lacking in the movie.
The movie version... a disappointment. In the musical, the curtain dropping could accomplish so much that the rapid visual scene changes, trying to fit in a panoply of images, sadly could not. The movie... a little over-produced, filling in too much detail that in the sparse theatric set was occupied by the audience's imagination.
One of the biggest disappointments in the film was the loss of the "homeless chorus" in the musical, completely absent in the film. The lines centered on the musical's "...and it's beginning to snow" motif placed so much emphasis on the poor, which was in my eyes quite lacking in the movie.
Perfect plot line, so-so delivery
19 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
As a die-hard, I was there at midnight on opening day. I went in with the Star Wars mania that had consumed my childhood. And I have to say, "Bravo, George! You delivered!" Kinda.
As a piece in the overall Star Wars series, it connects the dots between Episode II and Episode IV very well. Despite Lucas' flat, unengaging dialog, Ian McDiarmid, Hayden Christensen, and Ewen McGregor managed to prove their worth as actors and reflect some genuine humanity in their characters, good or evil. The whole "environment" of the movie -- the mythology of the Lucasworld -- is so well built-up that I found myself forgiving a lot of lumps that Lucas' self-centeredness created in the film. This really is a conclusive movie in bringing the pre-"New Hope" world to a close and ushering in the original trilogy. It's done (mostly) believably and under the compelling pull of Episodes IV-VI, actually managed to evoke some emotional highs and lows. The Lucas universe is so compelling that the movie can't help but pull you along.
Of course, Lucas is a master of special effects, and all I can say is that this film delivers, and delivers very well! Now, the lumps.
First, Lucas' dialog is abysmal. Having grotesquely violated the Jedi way early on, Lucas gives Anakin/Christensen the memorable line, "I should not have done that." Wow! What a way of cutting off ANY actor's ability to imbue their work with emotion! Second, the movie is very unevenly paced and poorly edited. The movie runs 2 hr, 40 min, yet still rushes through Anakin's ultimate conversion into evil devotee of the dark side, willing to do anything Darth Sidious asks. It takes less than 15 minutes in real time for Anakin to go from conflicted youth to rampaging monster. There are a lot of ways that this could have been remedied... by showing how Palpatine was mentally influencing him via the Force, by convincing him that the Jedi were going to kill Padme... whatever! The reason given is not at all compelling, and he comes to accept utterly monstrous acts in a fashion that seems way too easy. A good editor would have tried to keep the focus on Anakin's internal process a little more, and spend more quality movie time on his "conversion." Alas, we're left with a movie that has some parts where the plot doesn't move much, and others where it moves at Jedi speed.
Third, but for pitiful Padme, women in this film are absent. Padme/Amidala's character was a hollow shell. Unlike her daughter in the original trilogy, Padme's character has eroded considerably since Episode I. In that movie, she was a queen -- politically savvy, able to negotiate. In Episode II she was a senator. In Episode III, she's nothing but a helpless, naive, weepy little girl who has no real thoughts of her own. Come on! Would a SENATOR be so easily be taken in by Anakin's second-hand accounts of the Jedi conspiracy and the righteousness of Palpatine? And she just decided to die because she was so sad? Lucas gives us very little material to encourage our suspension of disbelief. Padme didn't have to be this kind of character! Also, the strong women Jedi of previous movies AND the Cartoon Planet's "Clone Wars" were utterly absent.
In summary, Lucas delivered a good film. With some more humility and the help of a good dialog writer and editor, this could have been a great film.
As a piece in the overall Star Wars series, it connects the dots between Episode II and Episode IV very well. Despite Lucas' flat, unengaging dialog, Ian McDiarmid, Hayden Christensen, and Ewen McGregor managed to prove their worth as actors and reflect some genuine humanity in their characters, good or evil. The whole "environment" of the movie -- the mythology of the Lucasworld -- is so well built-up that I found myself forgiving a lot of lumps that Lucas' self-centeredness created in the film. This really is a conclusive movie in bringing the pre-"New Hope" world to a close and ushering in the original trilogy. It's done (mostly) believably and under the compelling pull of Episodes IV-VI, actually managed to evoke some emotional highs and lows. The Lucas universe is so compelling that the movie can't help but pull you along.
Of course, Lucas is a master of special effects, and all I can say is that this film delivers, and delivers very well! Now, the lumps.
First, Lucas' dialog is abysmal. Having grotesquely violated the Jedi way early on, Lucas gives Anakin/Christensen the memorable line, "I should not have done that." Wow! What a way of cutting off ANY actor's ability to imbue their work with emotion! Second, the movie is very unevenly paced and poorly edited. The movie runs 2 hr, 40 min, yet still rushes through Anakin's ultimate conversion into evil devotee of the dark side, willing to do anything Darth Sidious asks. It takes less than 15 minutes in real time for Anakin to go from conflicted youth to rampaging monster. There are a lot of ways that this could have been remedied... by showing how Palpatine was mentally influencing him via the Force, by convincing him that the Jedi were going to kill Padme... whatever! The reason given is not at all compelling, and he comes to accept utterly monstrous acts in a fashion that seems way too easy. A good editor would have tried to keep the focus on Anakin's internal process a little more, and spend more quality movie time on his "conversion." Alas, we're left with a movie that has some parts where the plot doesn't move much, and others where it moves at Jedi speed.
Third, but for pitiful Padme, women in this film are absent. Padme/Amidala's character was a hollow shell. Unlike her daughter in the original trilogy, Padme's character has eroded considerably since Episode I. In that movie, she was a queen -- politically savvy, able to negotiate. In Episode II she was a senator. In Episode III, she's nothing but a helpless, naive, weepy little girl who has no real thoughts of her own. Come on! Would a SENATOR be so easily be taken in by Anakin's second-hand accounts of the Jedi conspiracy and the righteousness of Palpatine? And she just decided to die because she was so sad? Lucas gives us very little material to encourage our suspension of disbelief. Padme didn't have to be this kind of character! Also, the strong women Jedi of previous movies AND the Cartoon Planet's "Clone Wars" were utterly absent.
In summary, Lucas delivered a good film. With some more humility and the help of a good dialog writer and editor, this could have been a great film.
Sin City
(2005)
"Women=T&A" + "men = guns" = nihilism
3 April 2005
I have loved comic books for most of my life, and clearly, the graphics that made Miller thrive as an artist stand out in this one. But this movie should be avoided, for this movie has nothing to offer but flash, and that can be found in plenty of films with better things to say about life (e.g. Spider Man 2, Dances with Wolves, Twilight Saurai).
What are we to learn from this movie? Kill the most people and you'll be worshiped by teenage girls? Heros kill? Women are prostitutes, strippers, or doe-eyed traitors? Conflict can only be resolved through ultraviolence? Prostitution is an empowering choice for women, not one of coercion and desperation?
The characters in this movie cannot be called anything but one-dimensional, with no internal conflict, save perhaps Bruce Willis' "Hardigan" (say it: "Hard Again"). Maybe Rodriguez and Miller needed to insert that name to feel "revitalized." However, nothing in the film can be said to provide any insight into the human condition other than the sad reality that some people would like to think of the world as a nihilist dream where only the Nietzchean superman can score. Think cowboyism without the context of history. Or Schwarzenegger's masterful performance in "Commando." All pretty much the same.
There are better things to do with your money.
What are we to learn from this movie? Kill the most people and you'll be worshiped by teenage girls? Heros kill? Women are prostitutes, strippers, or doe-eyed traitors? Conflict can only be resolved through ultraviolence? Prostitution is an empowering choice for women, not one of coercion and desperation?
The characters in this movie cannot be called anything but one-dimensional, with no internal conflict, save perhaps Bruce Willis' "Hardigan" (say it: "Hard Again"). Maybe Rodriguez and Miller needed to insert that name to feel "revitalized." However, nothing in the film can be said to provide any insight into the human condition other than the sad reality that some people would like to think of the world as a nihilist dream where only the Nietzchean superman can score. Think cowboyism without the context of history. Or Schwarzenegger's masterful performance in "Commando." All pretty much the same.
There are better things to do with your money.
Osama
(2003)
The most perfect torture movie in history
22 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is torture, not just for the main character, but for the audience. It's also perfect in its portrayal of the eradication of hope, light, and everything good in life. Throughout, the viewer hangs on to the edge of hope, thinking that somehow, the courageous Osama will make it after all. But in the end, it becomes apparent that such hope is futile in a situation like that portrayed in the movie (a dystopia, not -- I pray -- a real picture of life anywhere in the world). This movie does an amazing job of conveying the utter brutality of life in a developing country where poverty, fundamentalism, and the struggle for survival dance around each other, only to entrap the residents in a web from which there is apparently no escape. I'm an optimist, but the movie showed me that optimism is easily folly. That being said, I do have faith that people everywhere are capable of more good than many of the characters in this movie.
Bad Education
(2004)
Over-hyped self-flattering, and soulless
22 February 2005
I've traditionally been a fan of Almodovar, particularly in All About My Mother and Talk to Her. I've also heard Flower of My Secret is excellent. However, Bad Education falls flat on its face. I give the acting a 9, but the overall movie gets a 3 because it is so shallow.
Why? There are no characters in this movie, only outlines of stereotypes of certain character types. None of the characters are fully fleshed-out. None of the characters have any depth, but only play out an idea or general impulse that they're supposed to represent. In a sense, the characters are just robots that fulfill one program, and have no internal conflict. Juan, in particular, should be a character whose shattered internal world is explored, but instead Almodovar gives us mechanical stereotype of a character who's screwed up because he's supposed to be. No one I spoke to about this film found any of the characters motivations to be compelling, perhaps except Ignacio and his tragic (though stereotyped) fate.
A critique I find myself making of Almodovar's more recent work is that instead of using sexual identity as an means of exploring deeper character, he simply moves his "non-standard identity" characters around the screen without any compelling internal drama. In a sense, I think he does the characters an injustice by failing to show that they are truly human, and motivated by the same hopes and fears as "normal" people.
Why? There are no characters in this movie, only outlines of stereotypes of certain character types. None of the characters are fully fleshed-out. None of the characters have any depth, but only play out an idea or general impulse that they're supposed to represent. In a sense, the characters are just robots that fulfill one program, and have no internal conflict. Juan, in particular, should be a character whose shattered internal world is explored, but instead Almodovar gives us mechanical stereotype of a character who's screwed up because he's supposed to be. No one I spoke to about this film found any of the characters motivations to be compelling, perhaps except Ignacio and his tragic (though stereotyped) fate.
A critique I find myself making of Almodovar's more recent work is that instead of using sexual identity as an means of exploring deeper character, he simply moves his "non-standard identity" characters around the screen without any compelling internal drama. In a sense, I think he does the characters an injustice by failing to show that they are truly human, and motivated by the same hopes and fears as "normal" people.
The Passion of the Christ
(2004)
Heart-wrenching play on historically dubious sources
12 January 2005
I cried through about half the movie. It really shook me to my core. As I left the theater, a gentleman in his later 50's or early 60's wearing fur and escorting a fur-swathed woman of similar age, must have noted my being upset, even angry, and approached me saying, "reverence." What am I supposed to make of that? Although the depiction of the brutality of Jesus' treatment really rocked me, I definitely left the theater with the idea that the film was trying to define for me the pointlessness and futility of life. The film provided no historically relevant antecedent to explain Jesus' treatment. And I'm religious. The only thing that the subtext implied was that the temple authorities really didn't like him. No Roman source of persecution (Pilate and the guards really were just passive instruments carrying out the stereotyped eschatological role they're purported to have played). Even with the templar persecution, the film left me with only the core doctrine that "Christ, an innocent, died for the sins of the world." But doctrine doesn't engage, or make history. The Gospels were never intended as history (rather, as "good news"). Many historians (heathens that they are and must be for not accepting as literal the written canonical gospels) have come to believe in a different history, supported by historical documentation. First, Pontius Pilate was historically a cruel, heartless proconsul in what was at the time a Roman backwater. Second, Jesus and the Pharisees weren't so far apart in religious practice as the movie depicts: the Pharisees very much encouraged bringing the heart of religious practice into the home and personal life, and away from the temple itself. Jesus provided a life and message more radical than what the Pharisees taught, but in life he was probably much influenced by their teachings. Third, there were many people in pre-70 AD Jerusalem running around claiming to be the messiah, why did the "authorities" despise Jesus so? Fourth, in the economic system of the 1st century AD, the Hebrews were highly impoverished, and the Temple taxed them heavily such that poor farmers mostly supported a garish elite in the temple. Fifth, Jesus wasn't exactly respectful of the temple (Mark 14: 58, etc.) and such behavior could have threatened the economic order of the time. Sixth, the "it's in the blood" theology of modern times is a relatively recent phenomenon, despite citations in Paul's letters to the contrary. The history of religious thinkers, from St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssia, Peter Abelard, and on... don't reflect this late 2nd millennium version of things.
Anyway, there's more to be said about history, but the movie doesn't even rely on the gospels themselves. Instead, it relies on the visions of Anne Katherine Emmerich, who lived fairly recently to fill in some of the historical incompatibilities between the gospels. Overall, the movie does a great job of tugging the heart strings, but may not lead people toward truth.
Anyway, there's more to be said about history, but the movie doesn't even rely on the gospels themselves. Instead, it relies on the visions of Anne Katherine Emmerich, who lived fairly recently to fill in some of the historical incompatibilities between the gospels. Overall, the movie does a great job of tugging the heart strings, but may not lead people toward truth.
Tell Your Friends