Change Your Image
los-chupacabras
Reviews
Backstabbed (2016)
Predictable, but Surprisingly Good Performances
Backstabbed is your typical Lifetime movie fare lifted above the standards of the genre by an excellent performance from Josie Davis (who I didn't recognize right away as the middle sister from "Charles in Charge").
Don't get me wrong. Nothing in this movie is remotely realistic. This is a soapy drama set in the same universe as a mid-90s Rebecca de Mornay thriller. Davis, clearly in on the joke, plays her insane real estate agent character like a manic drag queen. The film is aware this situation is ridiculous and plays with that by making it as over the top as possible.
As a film, I'd give it a 5, mainly for the entertainment factor.
For a Lifetime movie, it deserves around an 7 or 8.
Final score: 6.
13 Reasons Why (2017)
2 or 3 Good and a Bunch of Pedestrian Reasons Why
Thoughts on new Netflix show "13 Reasons Why":
- Better title might have been "2 or 3 Good and a Bunch of Pedestrian Reasons Why"
- If you were hoping this wouldn't glorify suicide as a profound "statement" prep to be disappointed
- Things have sure changed since I was in high school because some of these reasons are things we would have bragged about the next day
- Nice to see a diverse cast...
- ....but since the leads are both lily white Main Guys/Girls who are Too Good for This Cruel Earth, has the unintended(?) side effect of being a story about 2 white milquetoast viewer avatars surrounded by a cast of preposterously hateful minorities
- The Main Guy can't get a date, looking like he does. Okay.
- But some good acting and mild entertainment.
B-
Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011)
Would Have Been Truer to the Story Had It Been a Cartoon
Atlas Shrugged may be the most disingenuous but oddly prosaic movie of the decade. On the surface, it's about exceptional individuals struggling against the tyranny of the masses. But in execution, its a movie about truly unexceptional, dull people whose only redeeming qualities are their Mary Sue-ish magical powers of invention and foresight. The movie's cynical motif invites equally unexceptional viewers to fantasize that they have something so special to offer the world that in a dystopian future, they'd be among those to go on strike.
All that might be forgivable if the movie were at least entertaining. Unfortunately it's not. The fact that so many seem to view this movie as a source of personal enlightenment is just embarrassing. The message is absolutely standard Hollywood fare, dressed up in philosophical sounding language. The core of it is simply the same old "Nothing should stop you from being yourself" message seen in countless, better, Hollywood films. Just don't expect it to be summed up that way in any of the reviews praising this film for its "philosophical" content.
Bowling for Columbine (2002)
The Ultimate Fantasy?
Bowling for Columbine raises some good questions but fails to provide any answers. Unfortunately along the way it also dips into Coulter-esquire screeching that imperils the message it hopes to convey.
Moore claims that the mass media's projections are what fuel American violence. Interesting, then, that his version of America reflects the pat generalizations of Hollywood genre films. America is shown as a dangerous, rotten place brimming with corruption and gun fire. His vision is so relentlessly dark that it could be the set of an action adventure screenplay--one where "the system" doesn't work, the "bad guys" are the source of everyone's problems, and showing bravado will win the day.
This is what makes the high marks coming from European reviewers somewhat intriguing, particularly when it is claimed that this film shows America "as it really is." It may be that parts of this film reflect questions that Europeans wish America would ask of itself, but I suspect at least some of the support comes from confirmations of expectations formed by watching American television and movies. How ironic that many people praising this film might be doing so based on prejudices built by the very media that Moore condemns! Moore's attacks on Charlton Heston, mentioned in some detail in many other reviews, were sickening. Here he is at his worst, deliberately destroying another person's reputation to advance his own agenda. This segment amounts to libel and should have been removed from the film.
Moore also implies that the U.S. has a particular history of strong arm tactics and tries to tie U.S. violence to our foreign policy. True enough that U.S. frequently uses such strategies, but when Moore tries to suggest that this quality is *unique* to the United States, even the smallest bit of objectivity betrays his point. Imagine for a moment the history of Germany, Japan, Italy, or Russia and you will see how flat this argument falls. Even France and Britian do not get off scot free, with major incidents in India and French-Indo China during the 20th century.
Identifying your political affiliation has played a major roll in the reviews on this board, and no doubt some will dismiss me as an American right-wing nut. As it happens, I'm a left-leaning independent who ostensibly should be on Moore's side. But I disagree with his tactics. He strikes me as an egotist whose main objective is advancing his notoriety at the expense of others, and pandering to the lowest common denominator to achieve these goals. I think that while Bowling for Columbine raises many good questions, it ultimately hurt liberals more than it helped because it makes all of their arguments--many of which I agree with--look like arrogant whining. Ultimately, I can't recommend this film.
My rating: 4/10.
On_Line (2002)
Not perfect, but fun (if a little gaudy)
This film recaptures the feel of the indies of the early 90's. The characters are fun and enjoyable, the script quirky. I wouldn't call this the best cinema of 2001, but it is enjoyably iconoclastic. I also think it's more representative of real people than many Hollywood films.
Especially rewarding in this film is the atmosphere. Critics have referred to other, similar movies as "an acid trip," but this film comes closer to a frenetic, detail-laden caffeine overdose, filled with garish colors and the kind of mock drama that inhabits late night chat rooms.
Kudos do have to go out for the soundtrack, which is excellent.
My rating: 7/10. An interesting ride.
Night at the Golden Eagle (2001)
A Film but not a Movie
This film leaves a mark. Don't watch it to be entertained though; what this film sets out to do is show you something unrelentingly grotesque. There is no gloss here, and no hope.
Hollywood has a problem. Frequently we see "powerful movies" about the world's poorest and most down-and-out people. The problem is that in real life, the lives of the poorest and most-down-and out people are often banal and undramatic. The Hollywood answer is to inject redemption into the script in order to mask the stink of reality. The results is the Space Mountain of movies, a tamed-down roller coaster experience that deliberately pulls the punches to retain a family--or at least, a hopeful--atmosphere. There's nothing wrong with this approach as long as we remember that what we're seeing is a projection. The problem becomes when we start to believe our own myths.
Night at the Golden Eagle is a film that shatters some of those myths. These are the lives of people most of us would rather forget, people with no hope, no future, and only shattered dreams to keep them company. It's rightfully disturbing stuff. Anyone looking to be entertained should stay far away, because Night is a film that is guaranteed to leave you feeling dirty.
For all that, it never feels exploitive. Night draws you close to the stench of decay but never cheapens it. There are no false redemptions, no heroes charging in to save the day, not even an "everyman" to ease us into the proceedings, nor are any of the developments glamorized as they might be in a film by Tarantino and his ilk.
This film is not perfect. It is so dank that it is almost overwhelming, and not quite close enough to a documentary to shake the need for plot. However, the sets and costumes are incredible. The acting ranges from fantastic to mediocre but never sinks to the level of a WB horror movie.
Another reviewer mentioned "racist" content in this film and I am slightly inclined to agree, in that movies of this kind so frequently demonstrate the fall of a young white woman as synonymous with her sleeping with a black or Latino man. This is an example of a theme that might not be as jarring were not a prominent feature in at least 4 films released between 1999 and 2002. I first noticed it in Requiem for a Dream and Traffic and am disappointed to see it featured here as well.
My rating: 8/10, but not for everyone.
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
Apocalypse Lite
A truly horrific experience. "The Day After Tomorrow" heralds from the pop-culture school of action-adventure, where the world is threatened again and again by a splashy screen saver.
Things start out, as these films do, with a guilty father. This particular father is guilty because he doesn't spend a lot of time with his son. Don't hang too much on this though, because the movie doesn't. You can substitute basically any reason for a father to feel guilty in any Hollywood picture released in the past 15 years without consequence.
It turns out that the guilty father is a scientist. Not just any scientist, but a brilliant scientist. So brilliant he's one of the only people on the planet to predict an approaching global super storm. But no one will believe him, especially--are you ready for this--a vice president who happens to look *exactly* like Dick Cheney. Not-Dick-Cheney says it would be too costly to fight global warming. This is what is called "dramatic irony," when the audience know something the character's don't. In this case, we know that production company spent hundreds of millions of dollars on CGI effects, but not-Dick-Cheney is in the dark.
Meanwhile the guilt-causing-son travels to New York for no reason other than the directors intend to destroy it. Several obligatory characters are introduced here, including the going-to-be-girlfriend-shortly-after-major-cataclysmic-event.
This is about when the screen saver turns on. Los Angeles and Tokyo are destroyed. The process of Hollywood elimination leaves only New York, which receives its comeuppance in the form of a stealth tidal wave.
Leaving the science behind how a 40+ foot tidal wave invades New York and camps there for 11 days aside, let us consider that the New York metropolitan area has more people per square mile than any city in the U.S, or close to it. As a result you might expect people to leave behind bodies when the city fills with forty feet of water. But nature has a surprise for us: this is the world's first acidic tidal wave, dissolving every dead body it comes in contact with. It is followed shortly after by acidic snow.
So everything gets cold--real cold, but, like vampires, it can't come in unless you invite it. Somewhere in here as well we have the lamest attempt to add drama in a major motion picture for 2004, when some CGI wolves show up to much the guilt-causing son. There's also some bit about the guilty father trudging through the snow to reach his son in New York. His motivation: he's guilty and he "has to do this." Eventually it all ends. Guilty dad shows up not five minutes before rescue helicopters do, making his entire journey less than pointless. I guess it was about "proving yourself." We're assured that everything is okay because even though 2 billion people are dead, the guilty-father and his family made it through, the son got himself a girlfriend, and there are no more screen savers in the budget.
In all of this, I left out the smarmy subplots about a kid with cancer and an ultra corny series, probably paid for by the White House, in which the president is the last person to evacuate the danger zone. It's funny stuff, and a good shot in the arm for anyone who believes the "liberal Hollywood" mantra last seen screeching from Ann Coulter's lips.
In total, this movie is terrible. Even for a disaster film. Watch it for the screen savers, avoid if you're looking for a credible plot, realistic dialog, or inspired acting.
3/10
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Lost Chance
This is a film that grants Spy Kids a run for its money.
Stripped of its position in the Star Wars story arc, Episode 3 would be average Hollywood fair. Given the iconic status Star Wars has carved for itself in Western culture, however, this movie is simply disappointing.
Darth Vader is part of the fabric of our modern mythos. He is a legend. For once the director does not have to make us fear the villain, because we already do. This is coming from someone who is not really a fan of the original series. I am not a Star Wars fanatic, but they are part of my culture, and with that comes a certain amount of respect. It is a sentiment that is sadly not shared by the production team.
The villain in this movie is a McDonald's-Happy-Meal version of his original self. He is no longer a cold, calculating being, but a coldly calculated one. His Empire will not control planets, but malls.
Not everything in this movie is terrible. In fact, far from it. The production values on the whole are good. The effects are excellent (if distracting and overused). What is totally lacking is relevance and emotion. It's sad really. I would have liked to see what a better director could do with this material.
3/10