Change Your Image
robotsareevil
Reviews
Kiss the Sky (1998)
A Glimpse
You know, when you sit down and turn on Showtime at 1:30 in the morning, the film you'd expect to see is not the sort that you'd go and tell your mom about. Channel surfing is something I do on occasion, and rarely do I end up stopping to watch an entire movie. This was one of those bizzare exceptions.
There is a great deal of thought in this film. More than you could possibly imagine without seeing it. The dialogue for the film could be transcribed and published as a book that would be regarded as a serious philosophy book of note. The subject of the book would quite simply be the relationships between men and women -- a subject that few have ever dared to discuss in this way, and a subject almost nobody has every intelligently discussed.
Eric Lerner, the writer of the film, has created for us a dialectic work that captivated my spirit and my mind. It is quite clear to me that the 10+ sex scenes in the film were added to appease the production company, and that Mr. Lerner was left with little choice but to present it in this fashion (otherwise he would have been unable to present it at all). This is of course speculation.
The words of the film are powerful, deep, and though prevoking. They bring a great deal into account. One of the most interesting of the modern philosophers (in my opinion), Daniel Quinn (author of Ishmael, My Ishmael, and The Story of B), introduces the "walk away" philosophy which states that to truly exist we must walk away from our lives as we know them. This philosophy is considered on a different level in this film.
The acting is alright. The two leading gentlemen are both capable, but it is the words of Lerner that really brings the meaning of this film home. I cannot go into more detail, because when it comes to philosophy I can only call myself a student -- not a teacher -- not yet. This is a must-see for any philosophy major, or anybody interested in the human dynamic. It will remain on my mind for a long time to come.
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Pearl Harbor: Sink or Swim?
Pearl Harbor: Sink or Swim?
The latest film out from Jerry Bruckheimer, Pearl Harbor, marks Hollywood's latest entry in the Extended Play Club. Running just over 3 hours in length (not including the credits), Pearl Harbor sets out to accomplish one simple task: to bring the totality of the events of December 7th, 1941 to heart and mind. This, is what it sets out to do. What they actually accomplished was something quite different.
Pearl Harbor produced many emotions in me, not least of which was the emotional response to the destruction of the Japanese attack on the U.S. Naval base, and the finality and reality of death. However, the one true feeling that this movie spawned was bewilderment.
In setting out to create a specific plot that would add some focus to the broader story of the attack and beginning of U.S. involvement in the war is a romance, featuring our films three main stars. Yes, that's right, I said three. Our blockbuster face, as you must by now know, is that of Ben Affleck who plays pilot Rafe McCawley. Co-Starring as his life-long best friend Danny Walker is the not-as-well-known Josh Hartnett. Hartnett has appeared in a few films (Town and Country, The Faculty), but this surely intended to serve as his star power engine. And the love of these two character's young lives, Evelyn Johnson, is played by Kate Beckinsdale (Brokedown Palace, Much Ado About Nothing). These young stars strive through most of the movie to do their best at confusing the intentions of the film and the audience in general.
The fact is that while there is this impending doom reminiscent of "Titanic," insofar as that you KNOW that the Japanese are going to attack, the production team does its best to make you forget about that. Their attempts, of course, fail miserably. The thing they succeed in doing is creating a paradox of sorts. While you know what's going to happen, there is this constant feeling that you don't really know anything at all. The romance that develops between these three characters is so twisted and confused that by the time the attack rolls around you're so out of sorts you're wondering if maybe the American's will win the fight this time.
I feel pressured somehow to recommend that you see this film for yourself. I say that because I don't really trust the reviews of anybody other than myself, and can't require that any other person does the same. But at the same time I cannot in good conscience say that it is a good film. It is "alright."
Many historians have criticized `Pearl Harbor' for inaccuracies, and while watching it you certainly can understand why. It is a blockbuster for Blockbuster's sake. It is no "Saving Private Ryan." It's not even a "Titanic."
This is not the best movie I've seen in a long time. This isn't even the best movie I've seen this week. "Pearl Harbor" leaves much to be desired.
The one thing that I can say about "Pearl Harbor" is that it gives you everything your expecting when you get there, and it does them as well as you'd expect. The attack sequence is what I was awaiting when I got there, and I got what I was waiting for. It was the superfluous psycho-romance that surrounds and penetrates the attack that really drives this tirade today.
Great Effects. Generally Good Acting. Good Directing. But was the screenwriter smoking crack?
Grade: C (60%)
~Fenn
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Pearl Harbor: Sink or Swim?
Pearl Harbor: Sink or Swim?
The latest film out from Jerry Bruckheimer, Pearl Harbor, marks Hollywood's latest entry in the Extended Play Club. Running just over 3 hours in length (not including the credits), Pearl Harbor sets out to accomplish one simple task: to bring the totality of the events of December 7th, 1941 to heart and mind. This, is what it sets out to do. What they actually accomplished was something quite different.
Pearl Harbor produced many emotions in me, not least of which was the emotional response to the destruction of the Japanese attack on the U.S. Naval base, and the finality and reality of death. However, the one true feeling that this movie spawned was bewilderment.
In setting out to create a specific plot that would add some focus to the broader story of the attack and beginning of U.S. involvement in the war is a romance, featuring our films three main stars. Yes, that's right, I said three. Our blockbuster face, as you must by now know, is that of Ben Affleck who plays pilot Rafe McCawley. Co-Starring as his life-long best friend Danny Walker is the not-as-well-known Josh Hartnett. Hartnett has appeared in a few films (Town and Country, The Faculty), but this surely intended to serve as his star power engine. And the love of these two character's young lives, Evelyn Johnson, is played by Kate Beckinsdale (Brokedown Palace, Much Ado About Nothing). These young stars strive through most of the movie to do their best at confusing the intentions of the film and the audience in general.
The fact is that while there is this impending doom reminiscent of "Titanic," insofar as that you KNOW that the Japanese are going to attack, the production team does its best to make you forget about that. Their attempts, of course, fail miserably. The thing they succeed in doing is creating a paradox of sorts. While you know what's going to happen, there is this constant feeling that you don't really know anything at all. The romance that develops between these three characters is so twisted and confused that by the time the attack rolls around you're so out of sorts you're wondering if maybe the American's will win the fight this time.
I feel pressured somehow to recommend that you see this film for yourself. I say that because I don't really trust the reviews of anybody other than myself, and can't require that any other person does the same. But at the same time I cannot in good conscience say that it is a good film. It is "alright."
Many historians have criticized `Pearl Harbor' for inaccuracies, and while watching it you certainly can understand why. It is a blockbuster for Blockbuster's sake. It is no "Saving Private Ryan." It's not even a "Titanic."
This is not the best movie I've seen in a long time. This isn't even the best movie I've seen this week. "Pearl Harbor" leaves much to be desired.
The one thing that I can say about "Pearl Harbor" is that it gives you everything your expecting when you get there, and it does them as well as you'd expect. The attack sequence is what I was awaiting when I got there, and I got what I was waiting for. It was the superfluous psycho-romance that surrounds and penetrates the attack that really drives this tirade today.
Great Effects. Generally Good Acting. Good Directing. But was the screenwriter smoking crack?
Grade: C (60%)
~Fenn
Shrek (2001)
Shrek mixes feelings
I took my time and saw Shrek twice this past weekend. I made sure that I understood exactly what it was that I liked and disliked about the film before committing it to words. And here's where I stand.
Shrek is funny, no... not just funny. It is by far the funniest movie out this year. But it misses its target in a lot of different ways. Donkey, Shrek's comic sidekick voiced by Eddie Murphy brought me to laughter every time he did anything in the film. There wasn't a second of silence when Donkey spoke.
Then there is Lord Farquaad. This miserable little man, voiced by John Lithgow, is hilarious. His tyrade against the fairy tale creatures is unrelenting, and his evil demenour made me double over more than once.
And the fairy tale creatures as well, caused constant pain in my side. And I welcome that pain any day. From Pinochio to the Three Bears, they were all there, and I was glad to see them.
I'm sure by now you've noticed that I've left two very important characters out of this commentary. The first, is Fiona, voiced by Cameron Diaz. The second, is Shrek, voiced by Mike Myers (who is one of my very favorites).
These two characters suffered immensly throughout the feature. Shrek's humour was grotesque, and found only a few times through the course of the movie. As he approaches Lord Farquaad's castle, accompanied by his friend Donkey, Shrek comments, "do you think he's compensating for something?" The castle is, of course, huge and some might consider it narrow. This joke is one of those that are intended to fly over the head of the Jr. audience, and make adults and parents laugh. Well, I'm sure it flew over the kids heads... but when it got to the adults who were tall enough to catch it, it really wasn't funny. That was Myers problem throughout the whole movie, he wasn't funny.
Fiona, I grant, was not really intended to be funny. At least I hope not.
I think that the first main problem I had with the film was that the romance seemed to be the main point that they were trying to emphasize. I think they should have subdued it a little more. Maybe brought in more scenes with the funny "faerie-tale-things," for a few more laughs. Farquaad should have been in it more as well, I think.
Overall, it should have been a half hour longer, and not strived for the amount of substance that it did. The medium is great, but the presentation they were making was for comedy, and not for some dramatic romance... and then the script decided to screw the presentation over.
Shrek is good. I liked it. No, I loved it. But still, these reservations really stick with me even days after I've seen it. The combination of the "image isn't everything" romance and the comedy just didn't mix as well as I had hoped they would.
Regardless of that little tyrade, I'm still recommending "Shrek" to all my friends, and to you as well. Shrek is a good family movie. A good date movie. And a good movie to see with friends. It's mostly funny, and generally a good time.
Go see Shrek. But don't expect perfection. Just expect to laugh.