Change Your Image
Moriachnae
Reviews
The Westing Game (1997)
Ruination of a Terrific Story
Okay. There were too many characters in the book, too many plot twists and (sadly) too much thinking required on the part of the audience to make a movie of the story as written by Raskin. But why oh why rewrite the whole thing from start to finish? Why make Angela a witchy debutante instead of the goody-two shoes she had been forced to become? Why did Grace Wexler promptly become an interior designer (which is what she wanted to be in the book and instead, she became a restaraunteur while Mr. Hoo became an inventor)? Why throw out Flora (who became a true mother figure to Turtle when it became clear that Grace was the worst mother on record) to pair Turtle with Chris (who was originally partners with Angela's fiance, Dr. Deere)? Why completely subvert the whole premise of Sam Westing's game which was to release Crow from her misguided suffering and free her to live life to the fullest--not to punish her for past misdeeds? The whole story became just another run of the mill kid flick with characters from central casting--no depth, no personality, no nothing.
Someone, somewhere, PLEASE, read the book and make us a far better movie than this mess. Yes, the book was tough to read because of the shifting viewpoints, but this mess cut out all the need to think, inquire or analyze. What a disaster!
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Good, but not as good as "Fellowship"
Really, I did enjoy the movie. Honest. There were great moments here:
1) Aragorn's grief at the "deaths" of Merry and Pippin. 2) Aragorn's comic delight at seeing the Elven archers 3) The counting match between Gimli and Legolas 4) Sean Astin--let's just give him the award for Best Performance in a Supporting Role and call it done. 5) Best new way to mount a moving horse award to Legolas 6) The Orc Army 7) Pippin and Merry's delight at "getting it right". (I understand this wasn't in the book, but it was nice to see the two little trouble makers growing up a bit and coming into their own.) 8) The battle between Gandalf and the Balrog 9) Just about everything at the Battle of Helm's Deep (even the Elven archers who aren't in the book)
But--
1) Who's idea was it to have Legolas go stair-surfing? It didn't look cool, it looked anachronistic and dumb. 2) Some of the dialogue (including Sam's lengthy spiel about heroic stories toward the end) was cringe-worthy. 3) So was the dwarf tossing business. I know we needed some comic relief, but why Gimli every time? 4) Gollum's unfortunate Donald Duck voice--I'm sorry, but the argument between Gollum and Smeagol brought the house down with laughter when I saw it. Instead of being a tense and heart tugging moment, it became a cause for laughter. 5) The lighting of the bomb at Helm's Deep looked a lot like the Olympic Torch lighting. Please! 6) It really wouldn't bother me a whole lot if Peter Jackson went outside cannon and killed Arwen. Now. Please. Before I toss my pasta. 7) Also let the Nazgul get Eowyn instead of the other way around. 8) Some of the things taken out "because of time constraint" were replaced by things that took up more time than the things they replaced. 9) Was anyone else besides me and my friends waiting for the army at Mordor to start singing "Oh-wee-oh" from "The Wizard of Oz"? I would not have been at all surprised to see Sam, Frodo and Gollum grab three orc soldiers, smack them on their heads and then reappear dressed in their armor to march inside. Oh, but that would have ended the movie early, wouldn't it?
But I liked it. It made me cry in the right spots and it didn't have two things that make me want to scream whenever I see them: Jar Jar Binks and Princess What's Her Name of Naboo. Also I appreciate that none of the females (Elven or otherwise) resorted to wearing lots of revealing clothing.
That said, this was weaker than the glorious first film and I hope Return of the King redeems and clarifies the changes made.
Session 9 (2001)
The Shining meets Jason and Blair Witch Holds The Camera
I haven't decided yet if this film disappointed or delivered or did both. Wonderful atmosphere and deliciously creepy without special effects (shades of the original "Haunting"). No gals in skimpy outfits (a big plus)! Effective use of darkness and sound and shadow. (Hank's shedding of his clothing as he staggers through the darkness and the final moment we see him caught in the flashlight are particularly scary bits.) And (SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER) this has to be the most original case of haunting/possession. Sure, Jack Nicholson was possessed by the numerous unhappy souls of visitors at the hotel. But when was the last time you saw someone get possessed, not by the soul of a vengeful demon, but one of a mentally ill woman's multiple personalities? That was the the most interesting aspect of the film--I kept wondering how the taped sessions of Mary Hobbes were going to tie up with the rest of the plot, but with Simon's final lines, the whole thing is tied up for us. OUr killer's fears made him vulnerable to the possession--and I suspect that the taped sessions were what called up the spirit to begin. Still...I was disappointed when the last twenty minutes devolved into "Someone's killing everyone...quick, let's separate and see how quickly the rest of us can get killed" type ending. But I'll give it props for how it played out until then. (And--plot point/logic--what on earth were the former administrators of the asylum thinking when they left behind all the tapes and files of various patients? If Mike had chosen another patient's sessions to listen to, would the results have been the same????)
Telmisseomding (1999)
Tell Me Something...what in the world happened???
Okay, I admit it. I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, but come on! I watched it carefully, even backing up to make sure I read all the dialogue correctly. Several times. I now know how to say "Yes" in Korean. And because my free time is limited, I resent the idea that I may have to watch this thing two or three times to "get it."
I don't normally need to have stuff spelled out for me (I'm one of those obnoxious people who figure out the "big secret" of flicks like "The Crying Game" and "The Sixth Sense") but this left me feeling-- well, annoyed. If I have to sit through a blood bath, there sure as heck better be a towel at the end.
SPOILER ALERT HERE:
Was there one killer or two? I understood (after a hellish amount of thinking that the "Inchon Road" referred to during the last 30 minutes was the address where Cho and Chae went and where she made the revelations about her brilliant father. I understood the part about "the boy next door" who was her only friend was really one of 6 daughters and had been burned in the fire that Daddy caused. Got that. Figured it out. NOW: did the girls work together to off Dad or did they work with the other young men who eventually ended up dead as well. Was Senguin (you gotta love that name) killing the young men to let Chae know who killed Daddy or was she ticked because after helping to kill Daddy Chae threw her over for these other guys? ANd, yeah, why did they drop the plot about police corruption? Oh--and who was the kid who fell from the building in the opening and what did his buttons or her buttons or someone's buttons have to do with anything? Didn't the police notice that the apartment was a little bit funky when they went upstairs to check trajectory? What were the cameras doing in Chae's apartment and who put them there?
END OF SPOILERS I THINK:
I've read other comments here (hoping for enlightenment) that suggest those of us who don't get it don't have the necessary intelligence to grasp the implications. But gee whiz, if as many people as are writing in are feeling stupid, then there is definitely something being lost in the translation. (All this flick needed was a blue box, a key and a transexual murmuring "silencio" and the David Lynch-i-ness would have been complete.)
Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi (2001)
It helps to know your folk and fairy tale motifs...
...but it isn't necessary if you want to just watch it without thinking. **SPOILERS**
While others have called this a riff on "Alice in Wonderland" and "Wizard of Oz" (and it is, it is, it certainly is), it is also a pastiche of every culture's fairy and folk tales.
Examples?: 1) Yubaba: Baba Yaga, anyone? She's the alternately vicious and helpful witch of Russian lore, lives in a house on chicken feet and can be your best friend or worst nightmare depending on what day you catch her. Of course, Yubaba is also reminiscent of The Duchess AND the Red Queen from "Alice". She's the Wicked Witch from Oz. Queen Mab of British legend. And while I am not terribly conversant with Japanese fairy tales, I'm fairly sure there is a wicked witch/evil fairy ruling over Japan's fairy land as well.
2) Guys, you never, but never eat food you find sitting around in a strange place. It will either turn you into a piggie or it will prevent you from leaving the strange place.
3) The three green heads (which all looked a lot like Disney's blue Genie to me) are indeed part of traditional japanese lore. They are headless ghosts and eaters of human flesh.
4) Ditto, no face, The Hungry ghost who can't get his fill.
5) The "prince" (instead of princess) in peril.
6) How about that stink spirit: Androcles and the Lion, anyone?
7) "Don't look back!" (Lot's wife looking back on Sodom and Gomorrah?)
8) The kind hearted, tough as nails character (the boiler man) who helps the heroine when she needs help.
9) The helpful animal companions (okay, so they used to be a baby and a harpy, but still...)
10) The frog. Frogs are often turned into princes and vicer versa, but in much of traditional fairy lore, frogs are NOT good guys...they aren't even guys...they just aren't anyone you want to meet.
11)SPOILER: The fact that Chichiro and folks have been in fairy land a LONG time (maybe not the requisite seven years, but certainly seven weeks or months, judging by the grass that has grown, the fall of leaves and the dust in the car).
All they needed was Tamlyn, a feisty dog and some ruby slippers. Instead, they had a school card, sneakers and a hungry ghost.
I loved this movie. I know a lot of people had plaints about the plot. Yes, there were some breakdowns in logic, but then have you ever read the great English classic "Alice in Wonderland"? That thing has plot holes big enough to drive a mack truck through. Friendships form instantaneously in "The Wizard of Oz." Evil characters (like the flying monkeys in Oz and the Duchess in Wonderland) become good. This was a "fantasy." More to the point, it was a DREAM fantasy. (Okay, yeah, it's "real" in that we are to assume it is happening, but the flavor is dreamlike--it's fairy land for crying out loud.).
No, you can't take very small children or a weak bladder to this film. You need a strong stomach, too. (When the Hungry Ghost lost ITS lunch, I nearly lost mine.) But it wasn't any worse than--and was, frankly, miles ahead of "The Road to El Dorado" and "Hercules" for story and sophistication.
Go see the movie. Let it wash over you. And don't LOOK for logic (or trouble); it's a dream--dreams are never logical.
The Assassination Bureau (1969)
Frothy Fun
After reading the other comments here, I wonder if these folks saw the same movie. This film is a lot of fun, a touch on the slap-stick side and it isn't supposed to be Bond OR the Pink Panther. Maybe the problem is generational??? Those of us who grew up in the far away and ancient times learned that there didn't have to be an action sequence every thirty seconds, lots of overt sex and toilet humor. These things are what seem to "make" a movie today and it's why a lot of people of my generation a) don't go to a lot of films today and b) really worry about the ones who think the named qualities are what make a movie "good". Oh, well. Every generation has to grow up. When they do, maybe they will find that The Assassination Bureau really is the laugh riot while The American Pies and What About Marys are noted to be rather--well--gross.
Will & Grace (1998)
Used To Love This Show
I used to love this show. Back when it was about two people who had been friends since college and, BTW, one of them is a gay man...back when it was about being gay and about being human...back when it was FUNNY. Now it's all about being gross, about being stylistically gay, about being genitalia centered (snicker, wink, nudge) about making at least one really revolting, really obnoxious sex joke per second, about using the word "ass" every chance you get...
It used to be: "We're here, we're queer, get used to it and, oh, by the way, we walk and talk and live and breathe and do stuff just like everyone else does. We have friends, we have jobs and we get along well with others."
Now it's: "We're here, we're queer, we're going to be every bit as randy, rowdy, gross and revolting as the bigots want to believe we are. We're going to make sure that all single straight women are portrayed as sleep around sluts and gold digging lushes, and we're going to toss in as many double entendres as we dare for sodomy because now we CAN. And when the ratings flag, we'll drag in guest stars to get you watching again."
There's still some spark here and some flash and some wit...but lately it's all been buried under glitz, meanness and sexual effusion. Even the horniest gay man (or straight woman, for that matter) thinks about something else besides their sex life during the day.
Being John Malkovich (1999)
One Wonders Why John Malkovich Wants to Be John Malkovich
Previous to this film I watched "8MM." THAT film made me want to take a shower with lye soap and a brillo pad, but it didn't disturb me half as much as this sick little fantasy. At first I was fascinated by the puppetry aspect. I laughed over the conceit of a seventh and a half floor. (The lady who first shows Cusack how to get out at that floor should get an honorary oscar for her bit part). Mary Kaye Place was a treat as the snotty, incomprehensible secretary. Even that first trip through Malkovich's brain was a hoot. Then...it stopped being a brilliant discussion of manipulation (who, after all, is the real puppet here--the wooden puppets, Malkovich--or Cusack's loser puppeteer himself???) and turned into something so revolting I was glad I had rented it from my library.
How many times have we had to sit through the plot device of the "old lecher boss"? How many times have you watched a story in which our hero (such as he is) pursues the ice queen only to learn she's in love with his wife (or some other woman in the story)and continues, blindly to pursue her after he learns the truth? After a while, the satire wore thin and really, what did it all amount to in the end?
I did want to like it because of the way it handles manipulation and for the really nasty twist in the last few seconds (poor little Emily!)...ultimately, though, I want to get the taste of this movie out of my mouth. Ugh.
Don't Tell Her It's Me (1990)
Wish They Had Made a Movie of the BOOK
While this was a cute and funny film, I was still very disappointed in it in very much the same way I was disappointed in the film version of "The Object of My Affection." The films concentrate on the emotions and issues of characters who were secondary to the problems of the main character.
In the book, Emily Pear was the viewpoint character. It was her story and HER learning experience...not Gus's. You understood her a lot better and got to know her. I suppose that wouldn't make for a lot of action, but it was a delightful read...I wish the movie could have been as much fun...instead it was a ditzy little ramble. Too bad.
The Others (2001)
It does not Shuffle, It BUILDS
It really bothers me that so many people call this film "excruciatingly slow" and "shuffling." Have we become so numbed by the current "high speed-chase, hot sex and shoot-em-up" trends that a movie that requires you to bring your brain is "boring"? There's no gore in this film, no bodies falling out of closets, no "things" bursting through abdomens...it requires you to think, to be patient and to wait. It's that most rare of summer movies--a scary, fun ghost story that requires you to bring a little something besides your eyes and body. It requires you to put some of the puzzle together for yourself. (There are some gaps to be filled at the end, no matter what the denouement tells us.)
Although comparisons with "The Sixth Sense" are inevitable, they are also odious. Oh, I liked the former, but it was fairly obvious from the first fifteen minutes where the last fifteen would end up. (I always felt that the "real"movie were those opening and closing minutes and the middle, however well done, was an excuse to get us from one to the other.)
"The Others" builds on everything that goes before. Why does Grace wake up screaming in the first frame? What are all those little side scenes between the servants about? Who is evil and who isn't? What the heck IS going on in the attic??? And what's the deal with those curtains????? As each new element is introduced (and the sequence in which Grace confronts her daughter in her communion dress is a corker) you have to compare it with the information you've been given before and try to find the place where it fits. This is what intelligent 'fun" movie making is about. This is what intelligent horror is about--not bodies being ripped to shreds by hooded maniacs, but the subtle feeling that you just aren't alone, that things have been skewed, that it just isn't RIGHT...but you don't know why or how and fear that maybe you never will.
I will admit that I had some of the ending figured out in advance, but just enough twists were added (see The Communion Dress Scene above) to make you reconsider your reasoning.
So, skip the special effects (except those you provide with your brain) and get ready to be challenged and entertained. (And if you are give to shivers, bring a sweater. And you may want to bring a friend.) This one requires some brain work and patience, but it will be worth it in the end. Have fun!
In the Eyes of a Stranger (1992)
Please Don't Blame the Writer!
Sometimes, a chef puts together a twist on a classic gourmet dish. Then the chef's employer comes in and removes what makes the dish special and adds on a heavy sauce that ruins the fresh, sharp flavor.
That's what happened to "In The Eyes of a Stranger." The screenwriter is a cousin of mine. He began this script as a college project which subsequently won him a hefty academic grant. The script was marketed to several companies and was supposed to go into production with Elizabeth Shue in the lead. Unfortunately, that company tanked before the movie could be made. It was not, at that time, the story you now see. The story was much darker, the heroine much more lethal and the hero a great deal less lucky than in this production. Because it wound up as an ABC production, the writer ultimately had to change the ending to make it happy. He was NOT happy with this turn of events, but when you are supporting a wife and kids, you do what you have to, right???