Review: "HEAD OF STATE" was Ahead of its Time

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 157 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux

Head of State (2003)

Running time:  95 minutes (1 hour, 35 minutes)

MPAA – PG-13 for language, some sexuality and drug references

DIRECTOR:  Chris Rock

WRITERS:  Ali LeRoi and Chris Rock

PRODUCERS:  Ali LeRoi, Chris Rock, and Michael Rotenberg

CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Donald E. Thorin (D.o.P.)

EDITOR:  Stephen A. Rotter

COMPOSER:  DJ Quik and Marcus Miller

COMEDY

Starring:  Chris Rock, Bernie Mac, Dylan Baker, Nick Searcy, Lynn Whitfield, Robin Givens, Tamala Jones, James Rebhorn, Keith David, Tracy Morgan, and Nate Dogg

Head of State is a 2003 political comedy from director Chris Rock.  The film is Rock's feature film debut as a director, as he had previously mainly been an actor, writer, and producer.  Head of State focuses on a minor politician who steps into the void left after the death of a presidential candidate and enters the 2004 U.S. Presidential race.

Chris Rock’s first directorial effort, Head of State, plays to his strengths as a comedian and (and although many people seem to have forgotten this) as a political commentator.  Although Rock and his co-writer Ali LeRoi (“The Chris Rock Show”) take the political and social commentary to the extreme and even to farcical levels, they certainly make their point, and what they have to say is actually dead on and funny.

The story begins late in a presidential race.  When the opposition party’s (ostensibly the Democrats) ticket dies in a double plane crash, the party leaders need to throw a candidate to the wolves, someone who will lose this race and allow the party powers-that-be to get ready for the next race in four years.  Party leader, Senator Bill Arnett, (James Rebhorn) who wants to run in the next election, picks a defrocked Washington D.C. alderman Mays Gilliam (Rock) to run against incumbent Vice-President Brian Lewis (Nick Searcy).  Arnett assigns Mays two handlers (Dylan Baker, Lynn Whitfield) and sends him on the campaign trail.  When Mays popularity begins to grow, the Washington establishment moves to destroy him.  They’re doing a good job until Mays calls in a ringer as his running mate, his brother Mitch (Bernie Mac).

More than anything else, Head of State is very funny, and quite often hilarious.  Rock is himself, sharp as ever, and he doesn’t shy away from being himself.  It’s his act, his shtick that sells, and he’s smart to know that his act is the axis upon which the film turns.  Being a directorial novice, he wasn’t able to make the film seamlessly flow from one scene to another, but established directors have done far worse.  He makes up for the bumps and stops by letting his cast of excellent character actors (Rebhorn, Baker, Searcy, and Ms. Whitfield clearly stand out) play the roles to their utmost ability.  He’s smart enough not to force them into being straight the entire time, and all of them have at least a few bright comedic moments, even the usually dour Rebhorn.

Head of State is probably Bernie Mac’s best and funniest turn as an actor.  He seems comfortable, and the character is a natural fit in that it seems so much like his public and professional persona, especially the one he uses on the comedy stage.  In fact, Mac’s performance here is light years ahead of his crippled turn in Charlie’s Angels 2: Full Throttle, where he seemed to be forcing his act and presence and where the filmmakers clearly didn’t know how to use him.  HOS doesn’t treat him like a token, and Angels seem to go out of its way not to treat him thusly, which only made it more obvious that he was.

People who like Chris Rock should like this film.  Its take on politics is so funny, and much of it has a grain of truth.  That Rock’s take on how to fix our government is unrealistic in the real world is actually the saddest thing about the movie.

7 of 10

B+

★★★½ out of 4 stars

Edited: Saturday, September 7, 2024

NOTES:

2004 Image Awards (NAACP):  1 nomination: “Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Motion Picture” (Bernie Mac)

2004 Black Reel Awards:  1 nomination: “Film: Best Screenplay-Original or Adapted (Chris Rock and Ali LeRoi)

The text is copyright © 2024 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this blog or site for reprint and syndication rights and fees.

-----------------------------

------------------------------

Review: "THE HAUNTED MANSION" 2003 is Perfect for a Family Fright Night

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 2 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux

The Haunted Mansion (2003)

Running time:  88 minutes (1 hour, 28 minutes)

MPAA – PG for frightening images, thematic elements and language

DIRECTOR:  Rob Minkoff

WRITER:  David Berenbaum

PRODUCERS:  Don Hahn and Andrew Gunn

CINEMATOGRAHER:  Remi Adefarasin (D.o.P.)

EDITOR:  Priscilla Nedd-Friendly

COMPOSER:  Mark Mancina

COMEDY/FAMILY/FANTASY/HORROR

Starring:  Eddie Murphy, Terence Stamp, Nathaniel Parker, Marsha Thomason, Jennifer Tilly, Wallace Shawn, Dina Waters, Marc John Jefferies, and Aree Davis

The Haunted Mansion is a 2003 American supernatural horror-comedy film directed by Rob Minkoff and starring Eddie Murphy.  Released by Walt Disney Pictures, the film is loosely based on the Disney theme park attraction, “The Haunted Mansion,” which first opened at Disneyland in 1969 and at the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida in 1971.  The Haunted Mansion the movie focuses on a realtor and his family who are summoned to a haunted mansion where they must learn lessons about the importance of family if they want to escape.

In the film, The Haunted Mansion, Jim Evers (Eddie Murphy) is a workaholic real estate agent.  He is allegedly part of a team, Evers & Evers, with his wife, Sara (Marsha Thomason, the British actress who played Martin Lawrence’s love interest in Black Knight).  However, you’d hardly know that they are a team because Jim spends so much time away from Sara and their children.  And since Sara (as many movie wives do) complains that he spends too much time away from the family, Jim decides to take the family on a trip to a lake.

Sara, however, gets an invitation to visit Gracey Manor, a foreboding manor locked behind a huge iron gate and nestled in a jungle of sinister vegetation.  If that wasn’t enough to say “haunted house,” the mansion has a rather spacious scenic graveyard on the property.  Sara alone had been invited, but Jim insists that they make the visit to Gracey as part of their vacation stop, so their children, sassy girl Megan (Aree Davis), and the seemingly perpetually terrified Michael (Marc John Jefferies) go along.

At the mansion, the imposing butler Ramsley (Terence Stamp), an emaciated and cadaverous figure with an obvious air of menace about him, greets the Evers.  They meet the mansion’s owner, Master Gracey (Nathaniel Parker), a deeply troubled man who claims to be the original owner’s heir.  Gracey is apparently obsessed with Sara, and gradually Jim, Michael and Megan start to figure out the dreadful truth, but is it in time to save the family?  Will it take a band of ghosts to teach Jim Evers a lesson about the importance of family?

This premise for the film The Haunted Mansion, based upon a Disney World theme park ride, actually works, for the most part.  Director Rob Minkoff (The Lion King, Stuart Little) displays a deft touch in keeping the film both suspenseful and funny, and he expertly juggles live action so that the special effects seamlessly fit rather than seeming to have been thrown in.  Mansion is also a lot funnier than the ads for the film imply; in fact, most of the ads come across as being out of context.  This movie is pure fluff, but it’s done quite well, so someone in Disney marketing should get a reprimand.

I loved the costumes, and especially the art direction (Beat Frutiger and Tomas Voth) and set decoration (Rosemary Brandenburg).  The house and graveyard recall Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney, Christopher Lee, and Peter Cushing, a whole host of Hammer films, as well as Abbot & Costello and four decades of Scooby-Doo cartoons.  What a delightful mix!  As usual, Rick Baker does stellar makeup effects work in bringing corpses to life; this man is a national treasure.

The acting is good, and Murphy gives one of his better performances as a star of family-friendly movies.  Usually, his acting seems out of place and kind of awkward in films like Daddy Day Care (where he was good), but here his fit is natural and he seems inspired.

There is a peculiar racial subtext to this film that the storytellers attempt to conceal, but it will be obvious to most adults.  Maybe that would have made this story richer; as it is, it gives a dark edge to the inspired fluff.  Still, The Haunted Mansion is fine the way it is.  The characters have a lot with which to deal, and the resolution makes sense even if the execution of the ending stumbles a bit.  It’s a fine family film.  It has that Disney flavor that suggests Disney films from the 1950’s and 60’s, so I think The Haunted Mansion could become a Disney Halloween stable.

6 of 10

B

★★★ out of 4 stars

Edited:  Saturday, July 27, 2024

The text is copyright © 2024 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved.  Contact this blog or site for reprint and syndication rights and fees.

----------------------------------

Review: "BAD BOYS II": What'cha Gonna Do 'Cept Watch This

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 114 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux

Bad Boys II (2003)

Running time:  147 minutes (2 hours, 27 minutes)

MPAA – R for strong violence and action, pervasive language, sexuality and drug content

DIRECTOR:  Michael Bay

WRITERS:  Ron Shelton and Jerry Stahl; from a story by Cormac Wibberley & Marianne Wibberley and Ron Shelton (based upon the characters created by George Gallo)

PRODUCER:  Jerry Bruckheimer

CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Amir Mokri (D.o.P.)

EDITORS:  Roger Barton, Mark Goldblatt, and Thomas A. Muldoon

COMPOSER:  Trevor Rabin

ACTION/COMEDY/THRILLER/CRIME

Starring:  Martin Lawrence, Will Smith, Gabrielle Union, Joe Pantoliano, Theresa Randle, Jordi Molla, Gary Nickens, Jason Manuel Olazabal, John Salley, Henry Rollins, and Dan Marino

Bad Boys II is a 2003 American buddy-cop film and action-comedy from director Michael Bay.  It is a sequel to the 1995 film, Bad Boys, and is also the second film in the Bad Boys film series.  In Bad Boys II, loose-cannon Detectives Burnett and Lowrey investigate the flow of illegal drugs into Miami and end up on the middle of a battle for control of the ecstasy trade.

In a crowded field of auteurs, director Michael Bay (The Rock, Armageddon) strives to become the director god of action movies; indeed, he may already be there.  He returns for the sequel to Bad Boys, the film that put him on the map as a big time director of insane gunfights, fiery explosions, and slow motion ballets of unabashed violence.  And since we must not worship any god before the god, this Zeus of adrenaline films unleashes a film of wall-to-wall mayhem that overwhelms the audience to paranoiac exhaustion just to show us what he can do.

Bay is fortunate (if a god can ever be called fortunate) to have two talents who are very good at what they do, Martin Lawrence and Will Smith.  It’s ironic that these roles weren’t originally written for them, but the two actor/comedians have made the bad boys, Marcus Burnett (Lawrence) and Mike Lowrey (Smith) of Bad Boys II, their own because Burnett and Lowrey could not exist without them.

The plot is a confused half-assed muddle involving stereotypical Russian, Cuban, Jamaican, and redneck drug dealers battling it out in Miami for control of the ecstasy trade.  If that wasn’t addled enough, Marcus’s sister, Sydney (the beautiful and sexy Gabrielle Union), is an undercover DEA agent caught in the middle of some mismanaged surveillance operation of a Russian and Cuban money-laundering scheme.

Smith and Lawrence are absolutely wonderful as the bad boys.  They have to be because they’re on a very short list of actors whom Michael Bay cannot overwhelm with his thunderous conflagrations of balls-to-the-walls violence.  Smith is pure bravado, sweating confidence with cartoonish machismo.  His physical bearing and rapid-fire delivery of his dialogue create a seamless presence in the film that leads you to believe that Smith is always Lowery, even when you know that a stunt guy has to step in every now and then.  He’s no bossy director’s action marionette or pretty boy A-list actor frontin’ like he’s all that.  Smith is all that.

When he has good material, Martin Lawrence is a riot act of physical and facial humor.  He’s a comedian, born to make us laugh despite his own personal demons.  Lately, he’s sold himself for movies that treat him like a minstrel, when he’s at his best skewering the mainstream.  In Bad Boy II, he reveals himself to be the best graduate of the Richard Pryor school of facial contortions, which Lawrence uses to grand effect to make us believe that the film’s juggernaut of violence actually scares him.

Even the overwhelming performances of Smith and Lawrence are almost no match for the overwhelming violence of Bad Boys II, but the actors are game.  They do an admirable job keeping up with the exploding body parts, flying corpses, decapitated corpses, defiled corpses, gunshot wounds, gratuitous ass shots, the bare breasts of a naked corpse, flying cars, disintegrating cars, exploding cars, car wrecks, car crashes, and flesh wounds to the buttocks.  There was a point early in the film when I was sure that Michael Bay was a fabulous artist of the absurd, cinema his canvas, and wanton violence his raw materials.  The action was great and invigorating, the violence was cathartic and deliriously funny, and I wanted to revel in the excess.  Lawrence and Smith were so on that I screamed with the kind of laughter I reserve for classic Richard Pryor, Mel Brooks, Marx Brothers, Lenny Bruce, and Burns and Allen.

After awhile, I realized that this was as much popcorn cinema as it was art.  I still believe that Bay is on to something.  One day, we will see him a great filmmaker who pushed the envelope with his inventiveness and imagination, but in Bad Boys II, he went too far too soon.  It’s more popcorn than an even an audience ravenously hungry for Circus Maximus bedlam can stomach.  With this film, Bay made the mistake that Martin Scorsese did with Gangs of New York:  end the picture early enough and he has a cinematic classic, a truly great film.  Overstay his welcome, and the director spoils his film.

As mean-spirited as this film gets, I’d still recommend this to die hard action fans and fans of Smith and Lawrence.  I’d only recommend that they just have a bib ready for when you spit up from overeating this cinematic pandemonium.

6 of 10

B

★★★ out of 4 stars

Edited:  Monday, July 1, 2024

NOTES:

2004 Image Awards (NAACP):  3 nominations: “Outstanding Motion Picture,” “Outstanding Actor in a Motion Picture” (Will Smith), and “Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture” (Gabrielle Union)

2004 Black Reel Awards:  1 nomination: “Film: Best Soundtrack”

The text is copyright © 2024 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this blog or site for reprint and syndication rights and fees.

---------------------------------

Review: "THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS" is a Masterpiece

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 125 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux

Les Invasion Barbares (2003)

The Barbarian Invasions (2003) – U.S. title

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN:  Canada/France; Language:  French/English

Running time:  99 minutes (1 hour, 33 minutes)

MPAA – R for language, sexual dialogue, and content

WRITER/DIRECTOR:  Denys Arcand

PRODUCERS: Daniel Louis and Denise Robert

CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Guy Dufaux

EDITOR: Isabelle Dedieu

COMPOSER: Pierre Aviat

Academy Award winner

DRAMA/COMEDY

Starring:  Rémy Girard, Stéphane Rousseau, Dorothée Berryman, Louise Portal, Dominique Michel, Yves Jacques, Pierre Curzi, Marie-Josée Croze, Marina Hands, Toni Cecchinato, and Mitsou Gélinas

Les Invasions barbares is a 2003 comedy and drama written and directed by Denys Arcand.  A Canadian and French co-production, the film was released in the U.S. under the title, The Barbarian Invasions, the title I will used for this review.  The Barbarian Invasions focuses on a dying man, who during his final days, is reunited with old friends, former lovers, his ex-wife, and his estranged son.

Arcand’s The Barbarian Invasion won the Academy Award for “Best Foreign Language Film” at the 76th Academy Awards in 2004.  A sequel to Arcand's 1986 film, The Decline of the American Empire, The Barbarian Invasions received only one other Oscar nomination, which was for best original screenplay (written by Arcand), and that was and still is ridiculous.  Considering the performances and Arcand’s direction, the film should have received at least a few more.

The Barbarian Invasions is the story of 50-ish Rémy (Rémy Girard) and his family.  He is dying of cancer and is laid up in a Montreal hospital.  His ex-wife, Louise (Dorothée Berryman), summons home their son, Sébastien (Stéphane Rousseau), who is estranged from his father and is living in London.  Sébastien, a rich oil trader for a huge British firm, is, in a sense, a disappointment to his father.  The son is a wealthy capitalist and the father was an arm chair, leftist, radical type.

Soon after he arrives, Sébastien uses his money and connections to fight the entrenched Canadian nationalized health system, and he gets Rémy a private room and other amenities.  But the most difficult part of the prodigal son’s return home is the reconciliation between father and son.

The most amazing thing about this thoroughly beautiful film is that Arcand is able to tell the story of a father trying to redeem himself, of a son trying to put aside his anger at this father, and of a man trying to find meaning in a life he believes that he lazily kept so modest and have still more sub-plots, philosophies, and ideas.  The film also deals with mother/daughter relationships, the drug war, drug addiction, personal and professional failure, the Canadian health system, socialism, infidelity, friendship, politics, religion, genocide, and barbarian invasions of civilization.  Arcand does all of this without losing the central, human focus of his lovely movie.  Filled with rich performances, subtle humor, and endearing characters, The Barbarian Invasions is the best film of the year.

10 of 10

Re-edited:  Saturday, September 2, 2023

NOTES:

2004 Academy Awards, USA:  1 win: “Best Foreign Language Film” (Canada); 1 nomination: “Best Writing, Original Screenplay” (Denys Arcand)

2004 BAFTA Awards:  2 nominations: “Best Screenplay-Original” (Denys Arcand) and “Best Film not in the English Language” (Denise Robert, Daniel Louis, and Denys Arcand)

2004 Golden Globes, USA:  1 nomination: “Best Foreign Language Film” (Canada)

The text is copyright © 2023 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this blog or site for reprint and syndication rights and fees.

------------------------------

Review: "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" Remains Entertaining

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 101 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux

Terminator 3:  Rise of the Machines (2003)
Running time:  109 minutes (1 hour, 49 minutes)
MPAA – R for strong sci-fi violence and action, and for language and brief nudity
DIRECTOR:  Jonathan Mostow
WRITERS:  John Brancato and Michael Ferris, from a story by Tedi Sarafian and John Brancato & Michael Ferris (based upon characters created by James Cameron and Gale Anne Hurd)
PRODUCERS:  Matthias Deyle, Mario F. Kassar, Hal Lieberman, Joel B. Michaels, Andrew G. Vajna, and Colin Wilson
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Don Burgess (D.o.P.)
EDITORS:  Nicolas de Toth and Neil Travis
COMPOSER:  Marco Beltrami

SCI-FI/ACTION/THRILLER

Starring:  Arnold Schwarzenegger, Nick Stahl, Claire Danes, Kristanna Loken, David Andrews, and Earl Boen

Terminator 3:  Rise of the Machines is a 2003 science fiction and action film from director Jonathan Mostow.  It is the third film in the Terminator film franchise.  In this film, Schwarzenegger's Terminator travels from a post-apocalyptic future to the present in order to protect 19-year-old John Connor and his future wife from a new and more lethal female Terminator.

So is it as good as T2?  Honestly, I wasn’t all that crazy about Terminator 2: Judgment Day.  Sure, the special effects were eye popping at the time; it was like watching actual, real magic on a movie screen.  There were many scenes that I liked, but overall, T2 seemed like some Gothic and ponderous beast, not at all like the lean and hungry fighting machine that was The Terminator, the original and still the best.  But rest assured, a good time is to be had in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.

John Connor (Nick Stahl), the future savior of mankind in its war against the machines, is now 18.  In the nearly six years that have passed since the omnipresent Skynet sent a T-1000 to kill him and his mother, Connor has dropped out of society.  He’s off the grid:  no phone, no job, no credit card, and no home.  Judgment Day (originally set to occur in 1997), the day that the machines were supposed to launch nuclear war on humanity, has passed, and nothing happened.

John’s still afraid that something is going to happen.  He’s grown weary of his mantle when suddenly a T-X (Kristanna Loken), a female terminator, comes through time.  Vastly superior to previous terminators, the T-X is programmed not only to kill John but a future lieutenant, Kate Brewster (Clair Danes), as well.  Right behind her is the T-850 (Arnold Schwarzenegger), a replica of the terminator that saved his life as a boy, but this new model is holding dark and shocking secrets deep in its computer brain.

I have to give credit to director Jonathan Mostow (U-571) and the screenwriters for going for the jugular.  T3 is a wall to wall cartoon, occasionally it’s all balls out.  Not only is it so very cartoon like; it’s has the kind of outrageous and over the top stunts and action scenes that usually drawn by the best comic book artists.  Mostow lavishes mayhem and destruction with an attention to detail when it comes to delineating the rubble and fallout from destroyed buildings and cars.  I don’t think destruction has had such chaos and beauty since the Japanese animated film (anime) Akira.  In terms of shootouts, car chases, explosions, and bloody, gore-filled deaths, this is one of the fanciest, grandest B-movies ever made.  It so fun because you don’t have to think, but the movie is still good enough to hold your attention.  As insane as the pandemonium of T3 is, it’s not strained and forced like the disabled anarchy of Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle.

T3 is certainly not as thoughtful as its predecessors, being relatively philosophy free.  This time Arnold’s terminator is grimmer, darker, and more determined to follow his programming regardless of the feelings of the humans he has to protect, even those of his charge John.  Ms. Loken makes a fearsome T-X, and she certainly has moments when she could scare Dracula.  However, I found that her beautiful face made her seem a little too much like candy, more tart than dangerous.  The T-X is so powerful that it’s hard to believe that it could not carry out its programmed task.  Nick Stahl is an excellent John Connor, beset by doubts and fearful of the future.  Ms. Danes has her moments, but it takes awhile for her to warm up to the part.

Still, even the rough spots can’t take the fun out of this crazed trip of non-stop violent action.  Sometimes hilarious, often breathtaking, and thrilling from end to end, T3 fits right in with the other Terminator films, and it’s a hoot to boot.

7 of 10
A-

Edited:  Thursday, November 5, 2015


The text is copyright © 2015 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this blog for reprint and syndication rights and fees.

---------------------------

Review: "Legally Blonde 2" is Officially Bad

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 116 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux

Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde (2003)
Running time:  95 minutes (1 hour, 35 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for some sex-related humor
DIRECTOR:  Charles Herman-Wurmfeld
WRITERS:  Kate Kondell; from a story by Eve Ahlert, Dennis Drake, and Kate Kondell (based upon characters created by Amanda Brown)
PRODUCERS:  David Nicksay and Marc Platt
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Elliot Davis (D.o.P.)
EDITOR:  Peter Teschner
COMPOSER:  Rolfe Kent

COMEDY

Starring:  Reese Witherspoon, Sally Field, Regina King, Jennifer Coolidge, Bruce McGill, Dana Ivey, Bob Newhart, Luke Wilson, J Barton, and Alanna Ubach

The subject of this movie review is Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde, a 2003 comedy starring Reese Witherspoon.  The film is a sequel to the 2001 film, Legally Blonde, which also starred Witherspoon.  In the sequel, Elle Woods heads to Washington D.C. in order to join a congresswoman’s staff and to try and get a bill that bans animal testing passed into law.

If the summer of 2003 tells Hollywood film studios anything it is that sequels don’t always succeed commercially or artistically.  Of course, studio bosses have known that for a while, but to them making sequels seems like a safe bet.  A sequel is a known property with brand awareness, and with the ridiculous cost of making and marketing a movie rising to absurd heights monthly, they go for the safe bet.

Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde will more than likely make a profit for MGM, even with the kind of tricky accounting the film studios usually invoke to claim that their films are flops so they don’t have to honor profit sharing agreements with actors and producers.  Artistically, it’s not even worth talking about, as an examination of subject matter, theme, and characters is an utter waste of time.

As for it’s entertainment value (you know, the simple judgment of whether you like it), Legally Blonde 2 has none.  I’m quite sure that somewhere there are people who really like this, and I did laugh a sort of painful, dry, desperate-to-find-something-to-justify-the-cost-of-my-ticket laugh a few times.  However, I left the theatre ashamed, praying that no one would ask me what movie I’d just left.  I don’t know what would have been worse, having some nappy-headed homeboy call me a faggot for seeing it or having one of the theatre’s employees laugh at me behind my back because they knew.  Lord, they knew how bad it was.  And they never told me.

There’s a plot, or something like a plot, but right now I only feeling like telling you that this film is just plain awful.  Elle Woods (Reese Witherspoon) goes to Washington D.C. to work for her friend Rep. Victoria Rudd (Sally Field) so that Elle can fight for a law that outlaws cosmetic companies from testing their products on animals.  Apparently, it’s okay for Reese and her studio compatriots to test poisonous cinema products on us.  Regina King plays the most pathetic traitorous Negro since Billy Dee played Lando in The Empire Strikes Back, but at least she was better than the rest of the supporting cast, whom the film reduced to playing naked paper dolls.  Sally Field, her face shockingly showing such age and wear, looked as if she wanted to cry every time she had to be in front of the camera.  I feel you, sista girl.

1 of 10
D-

Updated:  Saturday, March 22, 2014

The text is copyright © 2014 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this site for syndication rights and fees.

Review: Andreas Wilson Makes Star Turn in "Ondskan" (Evil)

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 205 (of 2006) by Leroy Douresseaux

Ondskan (2003)
Evil – 2006 U.S. theatrical release
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN:  Sweden; Languages:  Swedish and Finnish
Running time:  113 minutes (1 hour, 53 minutes)
Not rated by the MPAA
DIRECTOR:  Mikael Håfström
WRITERS:  Hans Gunnarsson and Mikael Håfström (from the novel by Jan Guillon)
PRODUCERS:  Ingemar Leijonborg and Hans Lönnerheden
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Peter Mokrosinski
EDITOR:  Darek Hodor
COMPOSER:  Francis Shaw
Academy Award nominee

DRAMA

Starring:  Andreas Wilson, Henrik Lundström, Gustaf Skarsgård, Linda Zilliacus, Jesper Salén, Filip Berg, Johan Rabaeus, and Marie Richardson

The subject of this movie review Ondskan (Evil), a 2003 private school drama from director, Mikael Hafstrom.  The film is based on the 1981 Swedish autobiographical novel, Ondskan (The Evil) by Jan Guillon.  The film received a limited theatrical release in the United States in 2006.

After numerous fights in which he brutalized his victims, a rebellious teenager, Erik Ponti (Andreas Wilson), is expelled from high school after the headmaster declares him “Evil,” while also noting what a good student Erik is.  Erik also has a pitiful home life, in which his bullying Stepfather (Johan Rabaeus) beats him while his Mother (Marie Richardson) suffers in silence.  Erik’s mother sells off some of her family heirlooms to send Erik to the prestigious boarding school, Stjärnsberg.  This is Erik’s last chance to finish high school, which will allow him to move to the next class (called “forms”), the “Sixth Form.”  However, if Stjärnsberg expels him, his chance at law school is finished.

Erik is determined to live in peace at his new school, but after having endured so many beatings from his stepfather, Erik is shocked to learn Stjärnsberg has a similar attitude of abuse.  He faces a constant barrage of verbal and physical threats from the school’s senior class, in particularly a group of students (whose families are nobility) – led by a pompous bully named Otto Silverhielm (Gustaf Skarsgård).  They torment the younger students mercilessly, but Erik refuses to accept a low place on the totem pole and just wants to be left alone.  Although he takes some of their punishment, they want to crack him, but he won’t crack or lash out in violence.  When Otto turns his anger towards Erik’s best friend and roommate, Pierre Tanguy (Henrik Lundström), Erik must face the evil within him and the evil of Otto and his gang of bullies.  Erik also has a romantic entanglement with Marja (Linda Zilliacus), a member of the school’s kitchen staff, which, if discovered, will get him expelled and her fired.

Mikael Håfström’s film Ondskan – English title Evil – received a 2004 Academy Award nomination for “Best Foreign Language Film” as a representative of Sweden.  Although the film may remind some U.S. viewers of Dead Poets’ Society because both share an elite boarding school the setting, Ondskan is probably closer to the 1992 prep school drama, School Ties.  Based on Jan Guillon’s novel (which in turn was based upon some of his experiences as a boarding school student), Ondskan is a rumination on both the evil in people (as manifested by their actions) and the evil they accept (the actions of others that they tolerate out of habit or because of social conventions).  Mikael Håfström manages to delve into the script’s, which he co-wrote, more thoughtful pursuits, while extracting the tense drama the setting – a boarding school full of conflicting ideologies, social classes, cliques, motivations, etc. – allows him.

He has a star in Andreas Wilson, the kind of young actor with the fierce charisma needed to play a screen tough like Erik.  Wilson’s ability to portray quite determination and also hate, rage, and evil boiling under the surface with such subtlety both drives and carries this film.  Hollywood taking notice of him would be a good thing.

8 of 10
A

Saturday, September 30, 2006

NOTES:
2004 Academy Awards, USA:  1 nomination:  “Best Foreign Language Film” (Sweden)

Updated: Wednesday, February 19, 2014


The text is copyright © 2014 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this site for syndication rights and fees.

Review: "A Mighty Wind" Sounds Good

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 173 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux

A Mighty Wind (2003)
Running time:  91 minutes (1 hour, 31 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for sex-related humor
DIRECTOR:  Christopher Guest
WRITERS:  Eugene Levy and Christopher Guest
PRODUCER:  Karen Murphy
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Arlene-Donnelly Nelson (D.o.P.)
EDITOR:  Robert Leighton
Academy Award nominee

COMEDY/MUSIC

Starring:  Michael McKean, Harry Shearer, Christopher Guest, Eugene Levy, Catherine O’Hara, Bob Balaban, Jane Lynch, John Michael Higgins, Fred Willard, Ed Begley, Jr., Don Lake, Deborah Theaker, Larry Miller, Jennifer Coolidge, Bill Cobbs, Parker Posey, Rachael Harris, and LeShay Tomlinson

The subject of this movie review is A Mighty Wind, a 2003 comedy-drama from director Christopher Guest.  This mock documentary captures the reunion of a 1960s folk trio, as they prepare for a show to memorialize a recently deceased concert promoter.

Christopher Guest’s film A Mighty Wind is the third in his popular series of mock documentary films, or mockumentaries, as fans know them, which also include Waiting for Guffman and Best in Show.  Guest and co-stars Michael McKean and Harry Shearer were also the band in the Rob Reiner’s famous mockumentary, This is Spinal Tap.  This time the comedic trio comprises another movie group, the folk trio The Folksmen.

The neurotic and fussbudget son (the sublime Bob Balaban) of a folk music record company mogul, with some help from his siblings, organizes a reunion of three of his father’s biggest acts:  the aforementioned The Folksmen, The New Main Street Singers, and the very popular duo Mitch and Mickey.  As the groups prepare for a nationally televised show (on public TV) staged at Town Hall in New York City, old tensions and conflicts that caused breakups or hard feelings start to arise.  Will everyone have his or her act together in time to show the nation that folk music is alive and well?

Some consider this to be the least among the Guest-Levy comedies, and A Mighty Wind is often too polished and too smooth.  The documentary aspect of the film is also just window dressing; the film is better when it’s more about personal relationships and less about characters being observed by a camera.  The documentary makes the characters appear to be shallow when they’re obviously more interesting than just the surface appearance.  In the end, the players are more interesting than the film’s conceit.

However, there are times when Guest and Levy deal their wit using only the sharpest instruments of satire and farce, but the brilliance in the writing of this film is that Guest and Levy, for all the fun they poke, actually make folk music quite appealing.  The screwy, peculiar, neurotic, and sometimes wacky characters are all quite loveable.  I found myself laughing good-naturedly more than in derision at the cast.  Would that more movies were so endearing even when they skewering.

The film earned an Oscar® nomination for “Best Music, Original Song” for the fabulous and poignant “A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow,” song by Mitch and Mickey.  Guest, McKean, and Levy, however, did win a Grammy® Award in the category of “Best Song Written for a Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media” for the movie’s title track, “A Mighty Wind.”  These two songs and many others in combination with a musically talented and funny cast make A Mighty Wind a must see for viewers who want their comedy a notch above profanity and gross out.

6 of 10
B

NOTES:
2004 Academy Awards, USA:  1 nomination: “Best Music, Original Song” (Michael McKean and Annette O'Toole for the song "A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow")

Updated:  Wednesday, February 19, 2014


The text is copyright © 2014 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this site for syndication rights and fees.

Review: "Looney Tunes: Back in Action" is Surprisingly Quite Good

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 166 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux

Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003)
Running time:  91 minutes (1 hour, 31 minutes)
MPAA – PG for some mild language and innuendo
DIRECTOR:  Joe Dante with Eric Goldberg (animation director)
WRITER:  Larry Doyle
PRODUCERS:  Bernie Goldmann, Joel Simon, and Paula Weinstein
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Dean Cundey (D.o.P.)
EDITORS:  Rick W. Finney and Marshall Harvey
COMPOSER:  Jerry Goldsmith

ANIMATION/ACTION/ADVENTURE and COMEDY/FAMILY/FANTASY

Starring:  Brendan Fraser, Jenna Elfman, Steve Martin, Timothy Dalton, Heather Locklear, John Cleese, Joan Cusack, Bill Goldberg, Dan Stanton, Don Stanton, Matthew Lillard, Ron Perlman, and (voices) Joe Alaskey, Bob Bergen, Casey Kasem, Frank Welker, Billy West, with (receiving no screen credit) Peter Graves and Michael Jordan

The subject of this movie review is Looney Tunes: Back in Action, a 2003 adventure and comedy film from director Joe Dante.  Back in Action blends live-action and animation and stars Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and the rest of the Looney Tunes characters.  In the movie, the Looney Tunes help a down-on-his-luck security guard find his missing father and the mythical Blue Monkey diamond.

Right out of the box, let’s proclaim Looney Tunes: Back in Action a fantastically funny film, almost as good as the gold standard of films that mix live action and animation, Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and better than Space Jam.  It’s not dumb and hackneyed as some have claimed; nor is it a cynical attempt to market Time Warner trademarks and merchandise.  Just about anyone who has ever loved the Looney Tunes characters will love this film.

As simple and as silly as it is, LT:BIA’s story ends up making a very funny film.  Daffy Duck (Joe Alaskey) is having another of his many conniptions about his status as second banana to Bugs Bunny (Joe Alaskey), but this time Kate Houghton (Jenna Elfman), an eager young Warner Bros. Studio executive fires Daffy.  Daffy’s shenanigans also cost a studio lot guard, DJ Drake (Brendan Fraser), his job.

Later Daffy and DJ discover that DJ’s dad, Damien Drake (Timothy Dalton), the famous spy movie star, is actually a real life spy.  He’s been kidnapped and is being held hostage in Las Vegas.  Via a special spy signal, he asks his son to find the Blue Monkey Diamond and keep it from the evil Mr. Chairman (Steve Martin), head of the Acme Corporation, who wants to use the diamond’s mystical powers to turn everyone on the planet into monkeys.  It’s up to DJ, Kate, Bugs, and Daffy to find the jewel, rescue DJ’s dad, and save the world.

The films is technically well made, and the merger of animation and live action is easily on par, if not superior to Roger Rabbit.  Joe Dante (Gremlins), no stranger to special effects and genre films, does a fantastic job prepping his film, especially its stars, to act with characters and effects that would only be added after the principal photography was finished.  Animation director Eric Goldberg has also done some of the best helming of animated film in years.  It’s the best work this year by a director of animation after the Finding Nemo crew, which is clearly evident in the Bugs/Daffy/Elmer Fudd (Billy West) surrealistic and imaginatively designed race through the Louvre in Paris.

The cast of actors is fantastic.  Brendan Fraser is an underrated actor, movie star, and comedian.  He’s excellent with physical comedy, and by now has a knack for working in an environment where a lot of the film elements are added after he does his work.  Jenna Elfman is a pleasant surprise, and she has excellent chemistry with her costars, live and animated.

The films gets a hardy recommendation because it’s such fun.  The fact that almost all major and minor characters that have ever appeared in a Warner Bros. Looney Tunes cartoon have a part in the film makes it a must see.  There’s even a small scene that plugs 2004’s Scooby-Doo 2, and if that’s not enough for certain moviegoers, then, they are indeed in need of a laugh.  Looney Tunes: Back in Action is just what the doctor ordered.

8 of 10
A

Updated: Wednesday, November 13, 2013

The text is copyright © 2013 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this site for syndication rights and fees.

Review: "The Matrix Revolutions" is the Good with the Bad

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 164 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)
Running time:  129 minutes (2 hours, nine minutes)
MPAA – R for sci-fi violence and brief sexual content
WRITERS/DIRECTORS:  The Wachowski Brothers
PRODUCER:  Joel Silver
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Bill Pope (D.o.P.)
EDITOR:  Zach Staenberg
COMPOSER:  Don Davis

SCI-FI/ACTION/THRILLER

Starring:  Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne, Carrie-Anne Moss, Hugo Weaving, Jada Pinkett-Smith, Collin Chou, Mary Alice, Tanveer Atwal, Helmut Bakaitas, Monica Bellucci, Nona M. Gaye, Nathaniel Lees, Harold Perrineau, Bruce Spense, Lambert Wilson, and Anthony Zerbe

The subject of this movie review is The Matrix Revolutions, a 2003 science fiction action movie from filmmaker siblings Andy and Larry (now Lana) Wachowski.  It is the third film in The Matrix film franchise, and it is both a direct sequel and continuation of The Matrix Reloaded, which was released six months earlier.  The Matrix Revolutions focuses on two main plots:  the attempt by the human city of Zion to defend itself against a massive invasion of machines and also Neo’s fight to end the human-machine war by battling the rogue Agent Smith.

The Matrix Revolutions end The Matrix trilogy not with a bang but with a whimper, a dud, and a plop.  It’s largely a bore, and, while not as talky as the first, the film drags like a wet rag when it does try to be all philosophical.  Like Once Upon a Time in Mexico, The Matrix Revolutions is an average, meandering, dull film made by very talented filmmakers who know how to use all kinds of gadgets to make movies, but can’t tell a good story.  TMR tries to resolve all the plotlines, while cheekily leaving just enough unresolved to suggest that it is a never-ending story or, at least, that there will be more movies born of this immense cash cow.

The machines finally invade Zion, and human inhabitants of the underground sanctuary are wildly overmatched.  Meanwhile, Neo (Keanu Reeves) not only has to battle Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving), who has become a self-replicating virus that is rapidly taking over the Matrix, but Neo also has to travel to the Machine City and make a peace deal with the machine central intelligence.  The Oracle (played by Mary Alice, as the original, Gloria Foster, died during filming of the second film), an important (but minor character), plays a larger role in Revolutions as she tries to save the Matrix from all the various rival programs that are attempting to have their own way in the artificial construct into which most of humanity is jacked.

Press for the film is telling audiences that The Matrix Reloaded was about life and that this last film Revolutions is about death.  There is death here, but it’s mostly in a lame script and poorly executed concept.  The ideas behind The Matrix are grand and interesting.  The writer/directors Larry and Andy Wachowski, however, just don’t always know quite how to find that straight line that goes from concept to final product.

Revolutions is dry and slow, and the mish mash stew of Eastern philosophy and computer jargon is tasteless.  The cinematography by Bill Pope is lush a landscape of rich and sexy, dark watercolors.  The battle between the humans and sentinels in Zion is a spectacular blend of CGI, bravura editing, and human emoting that might not have viewers comparing it to the battles in Braveheart or Saving Private Ryan, but those familiar with video games will recognize this as the most awesome sci-fi battle put on film to date.  The leather bar segment and the final duel between Neo and Agent Smith are also fairly spectacular.

If anything, we can always remember The Matrix films for their groundbreaking and mind bending visual effects.  There truly is no doubt that these films are three of the most important movies films in advancing the technology and craft of movie making.

If you’ve seen the other two, there’s no point in not finishing this.  The Matrix Revolutions, however, is a mediocre movie.  The surface pyrotechnics are just fine, but the meat and bones of the film – the story, is weak and lousy; in the end, this is not a tale, but a collection of cool scenes that would be right at home in a video game.

This is the film result of two indulgent filmmakers who needed to be reigned in before their egos and unchecked imaginations went wild and made crap.  Sometimes, someone, even a studio executive – a suit, needs to harness the madness of young filmmakers.  They owe the audience that much.  It’s not at all acceptable that the price of admission buys the messy product of two directors who needed to take their fantasy back to the drawing board one more time.

5 of 10
C+

NOTES:
2004 Black Reel Awards:  1 nomination: “Film: Best Supporting Actress” (Mary Alice)

2004 Image Awards:  3 nominations: “Outstanding Actor in a Motion Picture” (Laurence Fishburne), “Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture” (Nona Gaye), and “Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture” (Jada Pinkett Smith)

2004 Razzie Awards:  1 nomination: “Worst Director” (Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski for The Matrix Reloaded)

Updated:  Thursday, November 07, 2013

The text is copyright © 2013 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this site for syndication rights and fees.

Review: "Brother Bear" is Sweet (Happy B'day, Joaquin Phoenix)

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 163 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux

Brother Bear (2003) – animated
Running time:  85 minutes (1 hour, 25 minutes)
MPAA – G
DIRECTORS:  Aaron Blaise and Robert Walker
WRITERS:  Tab Murphy, Steven Bencich, Lorne Cameron, Ron J. Friedman, David Hoselton, and Broose Johnson, from a story by multiple contributors
PRODUCER:  Chuck Williams
EDITOR:  Tim Mertens
COMPOSERS:  Phil Collins and Mark Mancina
Academy Award nominee

ANIMATION/FAMILY/FANTASY with elements of adventure

Starring:  (voices) Joaquin Phoenix, Jeremy Suarez, Jason Raize, Rick Moranis, Dave Thomas, D.B. Sweeney, Joan Copeland, Michael Clarke Duncan, Harold Gould, and Estelle Harris

The subject of this movie review is Brother Bear, a 2003 animated drama and fantasy-adventure film produced by Walt Disney Feature Animation and released by Walt Disney Pictures.  This Oscar-nominated film tells the story of a young Inuit hunter who needlessly kills a bear, and is magically changed into a bear himself as punishment and forced to play big brother to a talkative cub.

As it stands in late 2003, Brother Bear is the next to last 2D animated (or hand animated) feature from Walt Disney Studios, as they announced their plans to focus on 3D or computer generated films like Finding Nemo and Dinosaur.  With next year’s Home on the Range already looking kinda tepid, the greatest studio of 2D animated films seems to be limping out the exit.

Brother Bear, apparently set sometime in Ice Age North America, is the story of Kenai (Joaquin Phoenix), a young Native American hunter, who seeks vengeance on a bear that caused the death of his older brother Sitka (D.B. Sweeney).  Deep down, Kenai blames himself for his brother’s death, and he hopes killing the bear will help to alleviate his guilt.  After he kills the bear, Kenai causes some kind of unbalance in the supernatural forces that guard the earth.  Sitka’s spirit transforms Kenai into a bear who needs the help of a young cub, Koda (Jeremy Suarez), for redemption.  Meanwhile, Kenai’s other brother, Denahi (Jason Raize), hunts the transformed Kenai, believing him to be the bear that killed both his brothers.

As usual for Disney feature length animation, Brother Bear has beautiful animation dressed up in a sumptuous feast of dazzling colors.  At times, the viewer might think he’s taking a virtual tour of a museum full of lavishly painted landscapes.  BB’s animation isn’t as good as the great ones like Pinocchio and Fantasia, but it is better than Little Mermaid or Oliver and Company.  BB’s character animators do some excellent work, especially on the human characters and the moose voiced by Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas, who are virtually reprising their “SCTV” characters Bob and Doug McKenzie.

BB has two major weaknesses – Phil Collins’ song score and the script.  Collins’ work, while by know means bad, ranges from tiresome to tolerably functional.  The script manages to capture the essence of a very nice fable.  The mixture of Native American spiritualism, pacifism, and interspecies friendship, however, feels strained and, at times, phony.  The animals live together in happiness as if the forest was a nice suburban, multicultural neighborhood, and there’s barely a hint that some of these creatures dine on the other creatures.  The Indian spiritualism and ancestor worship is, in a strangely subtle way, actually over the top.

The film direction ranges from mediocre to fairly good.  Brother Bear strains and struggles to feel like an epic film, but most of the time it falls on its face like a goofy and gangly bear cub.  The cornball humor doesn’t help matters and isn’t all that funny; even Moranis and Thomas are, at best, mildly amusing.  On some levels, the film succeeds in being feel good.  It captures the sense of what it means to be obligated to another being and to be responsible for what happens when one’s actions create havoc in another’s life.  In the end, Brother Bear is nice, but overreaches itself to end up a bit syrupy, not at all grand, classic and heroic like the two films it obviously mimics – Bambi and The Lion King.

6 of 10
B

NOTES:
2004 Academy Awards, USA:  1 nomination: “Best Animated Feature” (Aaron Blaise and Robert Walker)

Updated:  Monday, October 28, 2013

The text is copyright © 2013 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this site for syndication rights and fees.

Review: A Rickety "House of 1000 Corpses"

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 56 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux

House of 1000 Corpses (2003)
Running time:  89 minutes (1 hour, 29 minutes)
MPAA – R for strong sadistic violence/gore, sexuality and language
WRITER/DIRECTOR:  Rob Zombie
PRODUCER:  Andy Gould
CINEMATOGRAPHERS:  Alex Poppas (director of photography) and Tom Richmond (director of photography)
EDITORS:  Kathryn Himoff, Robert K. Lambert, and Sean Lambert
COMPOSERS:  Scott Humphrey and Rob Zombie

HORROR with elements of fantasy

Starring: Sid Haig, Bill Moseley, Karen Black, Chad Bannon, Sheri Moon, Erin Daniels, and Chris Hardwick

The subject of this movie review is House of 1000 Corpses, a 2003 horror and exploitation film from musician, recording artist, and director, Rob Zombie.  The film takes place on Halloween and follows four people (two couples) held hostage by a sadistic backwoods family.

I’m only vaguely familiar with Rob Zombie’s music, as a solo artist or as the front man for the band White Zombie, but what I’ve heard, I’ve like very much.  I first ignored news that he was making a movie, especially when I learned that the title would be House of 1000 Corpses.  However, I became more interested as I followed the controversy surrounding the film, including original distributor, Universal’s, decision not to release the film because they believed it would receive an NC-17 rating from the MPAA.  Since being finished in 2000, Zombie searched for a distributor until Lion’s Gate decided to distribute the film.

The tale of this horror movie is a familiar one to fans of scary movies, in particular, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.  This time, two couples get lost in a remote rural area during a terrible rainstorm.  Seeking refuge and a telephone, the end up in a rundown farmhouse with a family of hugely strange and unusual people.

I could use a lot of words to describe this film: evil, wicked, disgusting, gory, horrible, horrifying, funny, hilarious, terrifying, spooky, creepy, weird, vain, surreal, strange, bizarre, or maybe I could just say whether it is good or bad.  Well, it’s not a bad film, but I wouldn’t exactly call it good.

It’s as much a music video as it is a movie, not only in its sensibilities, but also in its execution.  Zombie mixes the story with video clips that have nothing to do with the film, while some of them are either vaguely or obviously related to the film either literally and thematically.  Zombie creates a virtual sound wall of violent, bloody, gory, and deranged imagery.  The film is awash in horror, violence, and acts of pure inhumanity.  Despite all that, Zombie manages to create a coherent story.  Even while cramming in as much shock value as he does, he holds onto his central concept of victims and victimizers, giving us just enough about the characters to keep us interested in or curious about them.  Light though he may be on characterization, Zombie seemed to at least have one idea about who and what each character should be.  I know that I really liked the heroes/victims and wanted to know more about them, and the villains are so sick and deranged that I wanted to know from where do things like them come.

The performances are inspired and zany, especially Karen Black, Sheri Moon, and Chad Bannon.  Everybody seemed to be having a lot of fun.  For all the sickness that is this film, I have to give credit for the filmmakers’ creative energy and obvious love for this project.  You could see it in the performances and feel it in the craftsmanship.  Heck, love for this project dripped off the screen the way gore dripped off the walls in the film.

This is by no means for everyone.  I think the film’s biggest weakness is that the violence and sadism are far too sick.  The setting’s relentless environment of blood, violence, and the bizarre hamper the storytelling, but structurally the film is sound.  This is a curiosity piece.  It’s not very everyone; honestly, it’s not for very many people.  It’s a vanity project that might interest fans of Zombie’s music and hardcore horror movie fans who love gore by the shipload.  You have to have a strong stomach and be able to tolerate really extreme subject matter; it’s not for the average Joe or even for many “serious” film fans.  When you walk out the theatre, you need to be able to just brush off this particular movie experience.  It’s not good or bad; it just is.

The story is only supposed to make sense visually the way a music video might “make sense.”  This is Zombie vomiting out some of the twisted imagery that rides in his head.  If he gets to make another horror movie, the next one might delve a little deeper into story and character and leave the shocking and extraneous video images for one of those short films musicians use to sell their music.

4 of 10
C

Updated:  Sunday, October 20, 2013

The text is copyright © 2013 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this site for syndication rights and fees.

Review: Winning Cast Carries "Casa de los Babys"

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 80 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux

Casa de los Babys (2003)
Running time:  95 minutes (1 hour, 35 minutes)
MPAA – R for some language and brief drug use
WRITER/DIRECTOR:  John Sayles
PRODUCERS:  Alejandro Springall and Lemore Syvan
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Mauricio Rubinstein (D.o.P.)
EDITOR:  John Sayles
COMPOSER:  Mason Daring

DRAMA

Starring:  Maggie Gyllenhaal, Daryl Hannah, Marcia Gay Harden, Susan Lynch, Mary Steenburgen, Lili Taylor, and Rita Moreno

The subject of this movie review is Casa de los Babys, a 2003 drama from writer-director John Sayles.  The film focuses on a group of American women in South America where they hope to adopt babies.  Casa de los Babys was screened at various film festivals before receiving a limited theatrical release in September 2003.

In John Sayles’ film Casa de los Babys, six white American women from varying backgrounds have traveled to an unnamed Latin American country to (hopefully) pick up newly adopted babies.  However, they end up stuck in the country because of laws that require they live there while a months-long process of paperwork slowly winds itself through the red tape maze.

The women come to reside at the “casa de los babys,” a hotel run by a woman who is involved in the adoption process.  Oh, the women may very well get babies, but they find themselves going through hoops; mostly it’s about waiting – waiting and getting to know the other mothers – some with sad or scary personal stories.

It’s always hard to figure out what Sayles is trying to say in his films; that’s assuming he has a message.  His movies are always about the characters, and while story and setting aren’t necessarily secondary, the joy of watching one of his movies is in watching how characters live in their environments.

The structure and proportions of Sayles’ films suggest realism, but it’s really the best drama – rooted in reality with the conflict idealized to make it more intriguing.  There are few easy answers, and Sayles films usually leave me with so many unanswered questions.  As usual with a Sayles movie, I’ll heartily recommend this heartfelt and heart-wrenching film and also tell you you’re dumb if you don’t like Casa de los Babys.

8 of 10
A

Updated:  Friday, September 27, 2013

The text is copyright © 2013 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this site for syndication rights and fees.

---------------------------------

Review: "Anything Else" is Familiar Woody Allen

TRASH N MY EYE No. 119 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux

Anything Else (2003)
Running time:  108 minutes 91 hour, 48 minutes)
MPAA – R for a scene of drug use and some sexual references
WRITER/DIRECTOR:  Woody Allen
PRODUCER:  Letty Aronson
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Darius Khondji
EDITOR:  Alisa Lepselter

COMEDY/ROMANCE

Starring:  Woody Allen, Jason Biggs, Fisher Stevens, Anthony Arkin, Danny DeVito, Christina Ricci, Kadee Strickland, Jimmy Fallon, Diana Krall, William Hill, Stockard Channing, Maurice Sonnenberg, Kenneth Edelson, David Conrad, and Joseph Lyle Taylor

The subject of this movie review is Anything Else, a 2003 romantic comedy from writer-director Woody Allen.  The film is a contemporary romantic comedy set in New York City and follows an older guy as he guides his younger protégé through a messy and hilarious love story.

Woody Allen’s Anything Else is a movie about two relationships.  First, there is the friendship between an aged, aspiring comedy writer, David Dobel (Woody Allen), and a young, struggling comedy writer, Jerry Falk (Jason Biggs, American Pie).  Dobel is apparently severely paranoid, but he dispenses much wisdom and advice to Falk, who is in the middle of a messy situation.  That situation is the second relationship upon which the film focuses.  Falk is deeply in love with Amanda (Christina Ricci), a young actress who is insecure about her weight, among others things.  Amanda also claims to be uptight and insecure about her relationship with Jerry, but she may only be using that as a cover for having one or several affairs.

Anything Else isn’t among Allen’s best work, but it’s better than his least work – sort of in the middle.  It’s intermittently funny, sometimes outrageous, but too often dull and dry.  Allen’s dialogue, is as usual, crackling, but it takes almost half the film before the witty repartee begins to flow.  When Allen is not the lead in his film or if he’s not in his film, he usually has another character stand in for him.  While Allen is in Anything Else as David Dobel, Jason Biggs’ Jerry Falk is the Woody character or character type we’ve seen in films like Annie Hall or Manhattan.  Biggs does a passable job in this role, but that’s all; thankfully Woody is so good at writing himself, even for other actors to play, that the film doesn’t fall apart.  But nor does it ever really come together as anything more than several scenes that would make good exercises for an acting class.

Christina Ricci steals the show, although her performance takes a bit of time to get going.  Despite its obvious flaws, Anything Else is worth seeing, not only for Allen fans, but also for fans of Ms. Ricci.

6 of 10
B

Updated:  Wednesday, July 24, 2013

The text is copyright © 2013 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this site for syndication rights and fees.

Review: "Lost in Translation" is Superb (Happy B'day, Bill Murray)

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 22 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux

Lost in Translation (2003)
Running time:  101 minutes (1 hour, 41 minutes)
MPAA – R for some sexual content
WRITER/DIRECTOR:  Sofia Coppola
PRODUCERS:  Sofia Coppola and Ross Katz
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Lance Acord (D.o.P.)
COMPOSER:  Kevin Shields
Academy Award winner

DRAMA/ROMANCE with some elements of comedy

Starring:  Scarlett Johansson, Bill Murray, Giovanni Ribisi, Anna Faris, Nancy Steiner (uncredited voice), Fumihiro Hayashi, Hiroko Kawasaki, and Akiko Takeshita

The subject of this movie review is Lost in Translation, a 2003 drama and romantic film from writer-director Sofia Coppola.  Sofia’s legendary filmmaker father, Francis Ford Coppola, is also this film’s executive producer.

In 1990, film critics howled in derision when director Francis Ford Coppola cast his daughter, Sofia, in The Godfather: Part III, when another actress had to drop out early in filming schedule.  Over a decade later, Sofia Coppola has firmly established herself as a directorial talent to watch thanks to her excellent film, Lost In Translation, the story of two displaced Americans in Tokyo who form a unique friendship of platonic love.

Bob Harris (Bill Murray) is a fading TV star who goes to Tokyo after he’s paid $2 million to appear in an ad for Suntory whiskey.  Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) is in Tokyo with her husband, John (Giovanni Ribisi), who is photographing a rock band for a major magazine.  Bob and Charlotte spend most of their time stuck in a hotel.  Charlotte is frozen in her life, unsure of where her marriage is going and of what’s she going to do in life.  Bob’s marriage is kind of shaky as he goes through a midlife crisis.

Bob and Charlotte meet in a hotel bar and bond.  It’s that bond that helps them to deal with their feelings of confusion and loneliness, and in that special friendship, they share  the hilarity caused by the cultural and language differences they encounter in Tokyo.  They turn their time in a strange land into a wonderful and special week in Japan.

Lost in Translation was one of 2003’s best films.  It’s smartly written, beautifully photographed, and splendidly directed.  If there’s an adjective that suggests good, it belongs in descriptions of LiT.  There is a patience in the filmmaking that suggests the filmmakers allowed the film to come together in an organic fashion, each adding their talents in the correct measure.

Ms. Coppola is brilliant in the way she lets her stars carry the film.  She does her part to give LiT a unique visual look, something that suggests a documentary and an atmosphere of futurism.  If you’ve heard that Bill Murray is just doing himself in this movie, you’re hearing ignorant people.  Yes, Murray brings a lot of his personality to the role, but Bob Harris is mostly a stranger to us.  Bill builds the character before our eyes, showing us a character new and rich in possibilities, someone with whom we can sympathize.  Bill shows us just enough to know him and keeps enough hidden to make Bob mysterious and intriguing.

Ms. Johansson carries herself like a veteran actress of many films.  She’s beautiful, but she’s puts those good looks to more use than just being eye candy.  She’s subtle and crafty, and a lot of her character is revealed in her eyes, in the careful nuances of facial expressions, and in the understated movements of her slender, sexy frame.  She’s a movie star.

For people who are always looking for something different in film, this is it.  Lost in Translation is like sex, lies, and videotape or Reservoir Dogs, an early film in a director’s career that is more foreign than American, and announces the coming of a director who might just be a visionary.  Plus, it’s a great romantic movie, as good as any classic love story.

9 of 10
A+

NOTES:
2004 Academy Awards, USA:  1 win “Best Writing, Original Screenplay” (Sofia Coppola); 3 nominations “Best Actor in a Leading Role” (Bill Murray), “Best Director” (Sofia Coppola), “Best Picture” (Ross Katz and Sofia Coppola)

2004 BAFTA Awards:  3 wins: “Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role” (Bill Murray), “Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role” (Scarlett Johansson), and “Best Editing” (Sarah Flack); 5 nominations: “Best Film” (Sofia Coppola and Ross Katz), “Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music” (Kevin Shields and Brian Reitzell), “Best Cinematography” (Lance Acord), “Best Screenplay – Original” (Sofia Coppola), “David Lean Award for Direction” (Sofia Coppola)

2004 Golden Globes, USA:  3 wins: “Best Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical,” “Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical” (Bill Murray), “Best Screenplay - Motion Picture” (Sofia Coppola); 2 nominations: “Best Director - Motion Picture” (Sofia Coppola) and “Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical” (Scarlett Johansson)

Updated:  Saturday, September 21, 2013

The text is copyright © 2013 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this site for syndication rights and fees.

Review: "The Order" is Unfortunately Out of Order

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 18 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux

The Order (2003)
Running time:  102 minutes (1 hour, 42 minutes)
MPAA – R for violent images, sexuality and language
WRITER/DIRECTOR:  Brian Helgeland
PRODUCERS:  Craig Baumgarten and Brian Helgeland
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Nicola Pecorini
EDITOR:  Kevin Stitt
COMPOSER:  David Torn

MYSTERY/HORROR/THRILLER with elements of and fantasy

Starring:  Heath Ledger, Shannyn Sossamon, Benno Fürmann, Mark Addy, Peter Weller, and Francesco Carnelutti

The subject of this movie review is The Order, a 2003 mystery-horror film from writer-director, Brian Helgeland.  The film stars Heath Ledger as a young priest who travels to Rome to investigate the troubling death of the head of his order.

In Oscar® winning screenwriter Brian Helgeland's (L.A. Confidential) The Order, two priests belonging to an arcane order known as the Carolingians and a troubled painter track a figure of Catholic lore known as the Sin Eater.  When the leader of the Carolingians, Dominic (Francesco Carnelutti), dies, Alex Bernier (Heath Ledger) goes to Rome to investigate the circumstances of his mentor’s mysterious death.

Dominic’s body bears strange scars that may be the markings of the Sin Eater, a renegade who offers absolution of the gravest sins.  This is the only way to heaven for those who are outside the jurisdiction of the church, either by choice or because of excommunication.  However, there is a bigger problem; as Alex and his own colleague Father Thomas Garrett (Mark Addy) search for the Sin Eater, there may be a conspiracy surrounding Alex, drawing him closer to the Sin-Eater, a centuries old man named William Eden (Benno Fürmann).

The Order has an interesting premise, and it actually could have been a fairly good suspense thriller (and a creepy one, at that) without the hokey special effects.  The Order’s story is basically a tale of religious conspiracy, in this case, that old Hollywood standby, a conspiracy reaching the upper levels of the Roman Catholic Church and involving arcane Catholic lore.  One can wonder what Helgeland was thinking when he dreamed up this story.  It’s all flash and no substance.  What are the themes?  What is it really about?  Is it just a film exercise meant to be a scary movie.

Two things really hurt The Order.  First, the special effects and fantasy, horror, supernatural elements seem tacked on, as if the studio knew that people would not go for some religious mystery thriller if there wasn’t some unholy bump in the night going on.  Secondly, the actors, except for a few, spare moments, are pitiful.  They lack energy and seem lethargic or drugged.  Speaking accents and dialects are plentiful, but no actor is consistent.  Each one seems to grab whatever accent works for the moment, as if he or she will simply try everything in hopes that something will stick.

If you’re looking for a hardcore horror movie, this isn’t it.  If you like mystery and religious conspiracies, this isn’t a totally bad way to spend VCR time.

4 of 10
C

Updated:  Wednesday, September 04, 2013

The text is copyright © 2013 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this site for syndication rights and fees.

Review: "Brother Outsider: The Life of Bayard Rustin" Shames Us for Forgetting

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 59 (of 2013) by Leroy Douresseaux

Brother Outsider: The Life of Bayard Rustin (2003)
Running time:  84 minutes (1 hour, 24 minutes)
PRODUCERS/DIRECTORS:  Nancy D. Kates and Bennett Singer
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Robert Shepard (D.o.P.)
EDITORS:  Rhonda Collins, Veronica Selver, and Gary Weimberg
MUSIC:  B. Quincy Griffin

DOCUMENTARY – History/LGBT/Civil Rights

I was recently searching Netflix, looking for a movie I could review in commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom (also known simply as the March on Washington).  I suddenly came across the name of a person involved in the American Civil Rights Movement of whom I had never heard.

That man is Bayard Rustin, and he turned out to be the perfect subject matter for this remembrance for several reasons.  One of them is that Rustin was the chief organizer (official title: Deputy Director) of the March on Washington (August 28, 1963), where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his famous and historic “I Have a Dream” speech.  The second reason is that there is an award-winning documentary about Bayard Rustin.

Brother Outsider: The Life of Bayard Rustin is a 2003 documentary film from the producing and directing team of Nancy D. Kates and Bennett Singer.  Brother Outsider was originally broadcast as an episode of the long-running PBS documentary series, “P.O.V.” – Season 15, Episode 9 (January 20, 2013).  The film was also shown at the 2003 Sundance Film Festival, where it received a nomination for the festival’s “Grand Jury Prize Documentary” award.

Brother Outsider: The Life of Bayard Rustin presents a broad overview of Rustin’s life.  Rustin was an American leader and activist in several social movements, including civil rights, gay rights, non-violence, and pacifism.  Rustin was born in West Chester, Pennsylvania in 1912, and Brother Outsider follows his life from there.  West Chester is where Rustin began his life as an activist, when as a youth he protested Jim Crow laws.

The film chronicles Rustin’s arrival to Harlem, and his subsequent involvement in communism and later in the anti-war movement.  The film also recounts Rustin’s run-ins with the law enforcement officials over his activities and also how he was monitored by the FBI.  The film discusses Rustin’s life as an openly gay man, which got him into trouble, both with police and with his colleagues and contemporaries.  Of course, the film’s centerpiece is Rustin’s long involvement with the Civil Rights Movement, so the film covers the March on Washington.  There is also an examination of Rustin’s relationship with Dr. King and with his mentor, A. Philip Randolph.

Rustin’s friends, family, companions, and figures from the Civil Rights Movement speak on camera about Rustin.  That includes Civil Rights figures such as Eleanor Holmes Norton, Andrew Young, and actress Liv Ullmann.  The film uses a lot of archival footage, which includes film and video of Dr. King, Malcolm X, Strom Thurmond, H. Rap Brown, Stokely Carmichael, Robert F. Kennedy, and President Lyndon Johnson, among many.  Brother Outsider also includes a sequence from the 2001 HBO movie, Boycott, starring Jeffrey Wright.

In a recent article for CNN.com, writer and CNN contributor LZ Granderson talks about Bayard Rustin’s marginalization in Civil Rights history, which Granderson attributes to homophobia among some African-Americans and in some segments of the black community.  Running through Brother Outsider is the question asking why Rustin remained in the background of the Civil Rights Movement, never really coming forward.  I don’t think the film ever directly answers that question.

Watching the film and understanding the pariah status that gay people had in the United States for the majority of Rustin’s life, one can understand that Granderson is likely right.  Rustin’s status or lack thereof in Civil Rights history has been affected by his being openly gay.  Rustin was both a “brother,” to many in the social movements in which he participated, but his sexual identity also made him an “outsider.”  For portraying this, Brother Outsider: The Life of Bayard Rustin won the GLAAD Media Award for “Outstanding Documentary” in 2004.  Rustin’s place in history is being restored.  On August 8, 2013, President Barack Obama posthumously awarded Bayard Rustin (who died in 1987) the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

As a documentary about the Civil Rights Movement, Brother Outsider: The Life of Bayard Rustin is essential, not only because it brings Rustin to light, but also because it is a good overview of the movements that preceded the Civil Rights Movement.  The film also draws attention to the figures that both influenced the movement before it began and also built the movement in its early days.  Brother Outsider: The Life of Bayard Rustin, as a documentary, is essential Civil Rights viewing.

8 of 10
A

NOTES:
2004 Black Reel Awards:  1 nomination: “Black Reel Television: Best Original Program” (Public Broadcasting Service-PBS)

2004 Image Awards:  1 nomination: “Outstanding TV News, Talk or Information-Series or Special”

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

http://rustin.org/

For the time being, LZ Granderson’s CNN.com column, “The man black history erased,” can be read (as long as the article remains posted) here or http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/21/opinion/granderson-rustin-erased

The text is copyright © 2013 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this blog for syndication rights and fees.