Change Your Image
ell_wu
Reviews
Committed (2000)
It's not bad, but not fantastic either
This movie has a lot of heart. It really tried. You can tell this movie is really trying to develop their characters more thoroughly and more dramatically. It tries to send a nice message about what it means to really try and believe in something. But there are some elements that kind of detract from it.
Pros: a) despite her somewhat odd temper, I really like Heather Graham's character. Graham's acting aside, Jo by virtue of being the lead, has received the most development and change throughout the movie. And you know what, she's actually kind of likable, if a little hard to empathize with at times. Might be me, but I always found innocence in characters to be a fresh breath of air in our current day society where everybody is as cynical and sarcastic as I am.
b) scene framing was fantastic. The scenes were visually very well done. Maybe it's the lens or something, I don't know. I'm no expert in this sort of thing. but the cinematography in the desert area yielded itself to a sort of surreal semi-dream sequence quality to it, which I felt was very appropriate for this movie. The camera work in the NY set pieces felt rather insular though. Maybe that is what the director was trying to get across, I'm not sure.
Cons:
a) there are too many subplots We have things like the whole incestuous love subplot which to me made no sense what so ever and served no purpose in the story. The same kind of went with Visnjic. So what if he's interested in her? Where is this going? Does he provide something that Luke Wilson's character does not? What about the lesbian couple that Affleck was sleeping with? Frankly, I felt that a lot of the characters could have been better fleshed out, or cut out entirely to devote more time to the main characters.
b) some of the character feels rather artificial and forced This is particularly true of Luke Wilson's character. I mean, why the hell were they even married in the first place? The guy is clearly this wishy-washy, passive-aggressive, indecisive, self-centered man who quite frankly doesn't seem all that emotionally invested in ANY of his relationships in this movie until it is convenient for him. I don't care how much people change, there is only so much suspension of disbelief I can handle before my mind just thinks "bad caricature". The same goes for Visnjic. He's persistent, has a foreign accent, is rugged-looking, has a sensual touch, etc, etc, etc. He's basically your trash-romance novel fantasy stereotype, except REALLY REALLY creepy. What's even weirder is that Graham's character actually ENJOYS this.
c) some of characterizations are actually kind of a turn off. Again, this has to do with how the movie presents their characters. Carl feels basically sub-human in his characterization and has no redeemable qualities. (Which, once again, begs the question why the hell did she marry him in the first place.) Visnjic has got creepy written all over him that it's almost comedic. (it's like Fabio with stalker tendencies) Carmen's reaction towards all the crap that has gone wrong in her life is... very understated too. Oh yeah, and I'm still not sure what purpose does Ruffalo's character serve towards the narrative other than play up the redneck stereotype. (which, depending upon how you look at it, can be pretty offensive)
So, in summing, not bad, not great. If you can ignore some of the more egregious issues, it's not too bad. But you kind of have to keep up your suspension of disbelief a little.
Shrek the Third (2007)
Not bad, but I liked the first two better. This one is more for kids.
Shrek the Third returns to the original formula of subverting fairy tale stereotypes and lampooning fairytale archetypes by crossing them with modern day values.
And it works, just like in the first two movies.
The gags were funny, the animation was again crisp and smooth, the voice actors did a great job, (yes, even Justin Timberlake) and the jokes all have fairly decent timing.
The problem was, the movie was kind of all over the place. In the movie, I counted no less than 4 different subplots, and I felt that in the end, they couldn't figure out how to tie it all together, which caused the ending to be very mickey mouse-ish and somewhat contrived.
We had - shrek's impending fatherhood - arthur's blatant insecurity and social awkwardness - the princesses' defying their damsel in distress archetype - egomaniac prince's transparent plot for vengeance - donkey and puss in boots' new appreciation for each other
that's all good and well, individually. But the problem was this made the movie lack a definitive focus in plot, and since all the characters were having their big revelation and character development happen near the end of the movie, we're not quite sure who the main hero was supposed to be.
I got the distinct feeling that the writers had that problem too, as the role of the hero was now not just shared by say, Shrek and Donkey (first movie) or Shrek/donkey/Fiona/puss-n-boots (boots), but now shrek-donkey-Fiona-puss'n'boots-arthur-AND-princesses. And by the last confrontation, the writers realized that they can't make any one of them the hero that saves the day, so they had them all jump in, just to be instantly trumped by all the villains who jump on stage to take them. But then, by this point, the stakes were stacked so high that there was really no way for the situation to be realistically resolved without this movie edging into some physical violence and stepping into potentially PG-13 zones. So Arthur jumps in, delivers a passionate speech, and suddenly ALL of the villains melt and disarm.
A little too "Saved by the Bell" for me.
Bottom line: This is a good "for kids" movie, since it tries to deliver a positive message in a very explicit, if almost over the top manner. However, the more sophisticated tone and writing of the first two movies were removed from this one as a result of it. And to me, that makes this movie fall more in line with a lot of Disney movies.
The Five People You Meet in Heaven (2004)
Great movie
I have a confession to make. I'm a cynical person. I've been a cynic for a good part of the past decade. Inside me is not a beating heart but lump of coal, ice cold to the touch long since passed from years of apathy...
and then I watched this movie, and now I feel like the friggin' Grinch with a heart 3 times larger.
Honestly though, this movie is a tear jerker, but also a thinker. It really makes you ponder about the after-life, but more importantly, it makes you wonder about your past and what ones life means.
Throughout the film, Jon Voight's character continuously questions and doubts the meaning of his own existence, and whether it was well spent. the conclusion to it while is no surprise, the journey that he must take to rediscover who he was, who he is, what what his life meant was nothing if not awe inspiring.
A quick look at the message board will show that the current highest post count thread in there is "who will be your five people?", perhaps the greatest testament to the power that this film has on lifting the spirit, and the contemplation that this movie invokes.
100 Girls (2000)
"nice guy" misogyny packaged into a teen romantic comedy
Teen comedies in general are pretty silly and stupid. Most of these movies know it and they don't even TRY to take themselves seriously.
At least they're honest about it.
100 Girls, on the other hand, tries to deliver "insight" into sexism and differences the sexes but really just goes out of it's way to show 2 hours of wishful thinking from the perspective of a "nice guy".
Basically, this movie reduces men and women relationships down to such asinine levels it hurts. It first does so by reducing men down to 2 archtypes: Assholes and Nice Guys. Ron and Crick? Assholes, and both are just severely insecure with themselves. And of course, they're so unbelievably misogynist that by comparison, the main character's misogyny almost seems benign.
But let's see what this kid does: He breaks into a women's dorm, invades half of their privacies, vandalizes half of the dorm facilities, and all this because he was looking for that one girl that he might or might not have met. Yeah, if that's not friggin' creepy stalker behavior, I don't know what is.
And of course, all these women are just SWOONING over him. Not a single one finds him utterly creepy. Not one.
OH yeah, and we have strawman of a professor, the feminazi of women's studies. Great. Another caricature born out of ignorance for the studies.
ugh, at least American Pie had the decency not to include a goddamn manifesto in its dialogue.
She's the One (1996)
It's okay, could have been better
The movie is kind of a one-two punch about relationships and the responsibilities of men within the relationships.
It does a fantastic job outlining and fleshing out the female characters. As such, Cameron Diaz and Jennifer Aniston's characters are probably some of the better written and most believable characters in the movie. (In fact, Cameron Diaz stole the show) You really do feel for some of the female casts.
This, however, does not mean it gets a free pass with it's less than stellar characters... Maxine Bahns was... mediocre at best. But the rest of the male characters come across more like caricatures then real people. Mike McGlone is basically what happens if you take every alpha male stereotype, roll it through some dirt, and mix it together. I'd like to say that it's a good concept, but he comes across as just too unbelievable to me. The same can be said about John Mahoney's character, who while not as much of a caricature, can basically be summed with "chauvinistic conservative patriarch who ends up screwing up their son's lives". The only person that is even remotely likable, being Edward Burns character is a little unbelievable at times too. I think the only good moments that Ed Burns has are from the scenes where he's with Cameron Diaz. And in the end, these characters are not written to be people, they were written to be ideas and archetypes to be used for commentary.
However, having said that, some of the dialogue is pretty entertaining and some of the repartee between the characters are fun to listen to.
The thing is though, funny dialogue doesn't give character depth.
Not bad as far as a romantic comedy goes, but definitely not home run movie.
Madea's Family Reunion (2006)
who do I speak to get my two hours back?
My girlfriend got this movie from net flicks on recommendation from her friends and I loathed every moment of it.
The plot was predictable, tone was preachy and condescending, the acting was flat, the script was uncomfortable, clumsily written, and some of the characters seem more like borderline fantasy cut outs than say, real people.
I can understand that this movie wants to send a strong Christian morality message out to it's audience, and that's fine. Heck, I even think the black empowerment message is a pretty nice one. But they deliver it in such a way that it feels like Tyler Perry is constantly underestimating and being condescending to his audience.
In this particular case, I feel that the moral message has taken precedence in this movie over the substance and quality of the writing.
The inclusion of some of the other characters felt also very unnecessary like Cecily Tyson, China Anderson, and Maya Angelou. (Maya Angelou's poetry was a nice touch, but having her in the movie just so she can deliver that bit was unnecessary) These characters could have been condensed into Madea alone and that would have helped develop rapport with the audience. Madea's character is probably one of the more identifiable and ultimately more real characters in the movie. As such, I felt that any messages delivered through her would have been a bit more convincing.
And then there's the whole polar extremes of good and evil. The characters in this movie are either extremely good, or extremely evil. They have either no redeemable qualities or no clear flaws in their character that required development. Or rather, their short comings are a result of circumstance and not one of character. Why? Because it's painfully clear that the characters are each meant to be a symbol. Unfortunately, such a symbol took precedence over the development of the character. And as a result, these characters are single dimensional and just not believable.
The movie continuously hammers away at the Christian values morality to the point of absurdity and sometimes I feel like the movie tries to white-wash the moral landscape that is reality. I guess if you're just want to sit down and enjoy a movie with very clear messages and little after thought, this movie is good for just that. (in a way, it functions very much like an action flick. you enjoy it, you put it away, you move onto other things.) It spells out everything for you so clearly that you should have no delusion as to what the movie is trying to say. However, if you like movies that can sustain a bit more discussion and god forbid, a second viewing, this movie is not for you.