Review: "The Lone Ranger" is a Little Bit Stranger

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 9 (of 2014) by Leroy Douresseaux

The Lone Ranger (2013)
Running time:  149 minutes (2 hours, 29 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for sequences of intense action and violence, and some suggestive material
DIRECTOR:  Gore Verbinski
WRITERS:  Justine Haythe and Ted Elliot & Terry Rossio; from Justine Haythe and Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio
PRODUCERS:  Jerry Bruckheimer and Gore Verbinski
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Bojan Bazelli
EDITORS:  James Haygood and Craig Wood
COMPOSER:  Hans Zimmer
Academy Award nominee

WESTERN/ACTION with elements of fantasy

Starring:  Johnny Depp, Armie Hammer, William Fichtner, Tom Wilkinson, Ruth Wilson, Helena Bonham Carter, James Badge Dale, Bryant Prince, Barry Pepper, Leon Rippy, Stephen Root, Terry Treadaway, Saginaw Grant, Joaquin Cosio, James Frain, Leonard Earl Howze, Grover Coulson, and Mason Cook.

For those who don’t know:  The Lone Ranger is a fictional character that first debuted in a radio show in late January 1933.  The Lone Ranger is a Texas Ranger who fights injustice in the American Old West with the assistance of Tonto, his Native American friend.

The radio show ran from 1933 to the mid-1950s for almost 3,000 episodes.  The character is probably best-remembered for the television series, The Lone Ranger, which aired for eight seasons (1949 to 1957) for over 200 episodes on the ABC television network.  Clayton Moore starred as the Lone Ranger, and Jay Silverheels played Tonto.  The character also made several appearance in film, the last being an infamous and unsuccessful 1981 movie.  Early in the Summer of 2013, the Lone Ranger and Tonto returned to the big screen.

The Lone Ranger is a 2013 action and Western film from producer-director Gore Verbinski and producer Jerry Bruckheimer.  Starring Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer, The Lone Ranger 2013 focuses on the earliest efforts of The Lone Ranger and Tonto to end corruption in and to bring justice to the American Old West.

[A NOTE:  Since the following review is a longish one, I’ll summarize it here.  I thoroughly enjoyed The Lone Ranger 2013, and had a blast watching it.  However, it is not a traditional Western movie, just as the Pirate of the Caribbean movies are not typical pirate movies.  The Lone Ranger is funny, but quirky.  If you look past its oddness and focus on the action, you might find it to be quite entertaining.]

The Lone Ranger opens in 1933 at a fair in San Francisco.  In a sideshow, a boy named Will (Mason Cook) just happens to meet an elderly Native American who claims to be Tonto (Johnny Depp).  Learning that Will idolizes the Lone Ranger, Tonto tells the boy the story of how he first met the legendary hero.

The story moves back to 1869.  Lawyer John Reid (Armie Hammer) returns to his hometown of Colby, Texas.  He finds the Transcontinental Railroad to be the focus of attention, but railroad tycoon, Latham Cole (Tom Wilkinson), is focused on the capture of outlaw, Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner).  John joins his brother, Texas Ranger Dan Reid (James Badge Dale), who leads the search for Cavendish and his gang.

John discovers that Native American Comanche warrior, Tonto (Johnny Depp), is also searching for Cavendish, whom the Indian believes is a creature he calls “windigo.”  Events leave John a “lone Ranger,” and he is forced join Tonto in an often-contentious but effective partnership.  But can the two new partners stop a conspiracy that is bigger and older than they may realize?

I think that the movie reviews which accompanied The Lone Ranger upon its initial theatrical release back in late June 2013 can be described as mostly negative to mixed.  I unequivocally like this movie, although I will admit that it has some flaws.  For instance, I have a question that has already been asked by other critics.  What is the target audience for The Lone Ranger?

The Lone Ranger 2013 is a Western.  It has several elements that can be found throughout the history of American Western films:  brothels, construction of a railroad, cowboys and Indians, lone lawman, outlaws, quests for redemption, revenge, and the shoot ‘em up.  However, this new Lone Ranger is nothing like The Lone Ranger television series, which was a traditional Hollywood Western aimed at a general audience and relied on stock elements that were familiar to viewers of all ages.

This movie is also a comedy and action flick as much as it is a Western, but it is not reverent about the things found in many Western movies and television programs from the 1930s to the 1950s.  The film has those big, reality-bending action scenes we have come to expect of Jerry Bruckheimer movies like the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise (which also stars Johnny Depp).  As a comedy, the film sometimes mocks elements and aspects associated with The Lone Ranger franchise.  Some of the dialogue and scenes in this movie have a single purpose – be funny.

The Lone Ranger 2013 is also surprisingly quirky.  It is kind of a “weird Western,” like the films, Jonah Hex and Wild Wild West (1999).  The movie has a strange mixture of imitation Native American mysticism and quasi-occultism, with a funky supernatural twist.  Much of that is tied to violence, cannibalism in particular.

I think that in order to enjoy this film, the viewer has to focus more on the basic plot, the characters, and the big action scenes and sequences and less on the setting (the post-Civil War “Old West”) and genre (the Western).  I didn’t mind that The Lone Ranger is an unusual Western film, and I certainly like the plot, characters, and action set pieces.

Also, Armie Hammer turned out to fit in this movie better than I thought he would.  Still, to me, it seems as if he can never make his character, John Reid/The Lone Ranger, escape the tremendous shadow cast by Johnny Depp’s Tonto.  Depp owns this movie, and that is a bigger problem for this movie than anything else.  It is more about Tonto than it is about The Lone Ranger.  In fact, whenever the story switched to other characters, I could feel myself chomping-at-the-bits for the movie to go back to Depp/Tonto.

I have to admit that I wish that we get a sequel to The Lone Ranger.  That is unlikely, as this movie is considered a box office disappointment and, to some, a flop.

7 of 10
B+

NOTES:
2014 Academy Awards, USA:  2 nominations:  ‘Best Achievement in Makeup and Hairstyling” (Joel Harlow and Gloria Pasqua Casny) and “Best Achievement in Visual Effects” (Tim Alexander, Gary Brozenich, Edson Williams, and John Frazier)

2014 Razzie Awards:  1 win: “Worst Remake, Rip-Off or Sequel;” 4 nominations: “Worst Picture,” “Worst Actor” (Johnny Depp), “Worst Director” (Gore Verbinski), and “Worst Screenplay” (Ted Elliott-screen story and screenplay, Justin Haythe-screen story and screenplay, and Terry Rossio-screen story and screenplay)

Tuesday, March 04, 2014


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

Review: Silly "LiTTLE MAN" Offers Big Laughs (Happy B'day, Shawn Wayans)

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 149 (of 2006) by Leroy Douresseaux

Little Man (2006)
Running time:  90 minutes (1 hour, 30 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for crude and sexual humor throughout, language and brief drug references
DIRECTOR:  Keenen Ivory Wayans
WRITERS:  Keenen Ivory Wayans, Marlon Wayans, and Shawn Wayans
PRODUCERS:  Rick Alvarez, Lee R. Mayes, Keenen Ivory Wayans, Marlon Wayans, and Shawn Wayans
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Steven Bernstein
EDITORS:  Michael Jackson and Nick Moore
COMPOSER:  Teddy Castellucci

COMEDY/CRIME

Starring:  Marlon Wayans, Shawn Wayans, Kerry Washington, Tracy Morgan, John Witherspoon, Lochlyn Munro, Fred Stoller, Damien Dante Wayans, Gary Owen, Chazz Palminteri, Alex Borstein, Brittany Daniel, John DeSantis, Dave Sheridan, Molly Shannon, and David Alan Grier with Rob Schneider (no screen credit)

The subject of this movie review is Little Man (also stylized as LiTTLE MAN), a 2006 crime comedy from director, Keenen Ivory Wayans, and starring his brothers, Marlon and Shawn Wayans.  The film focuses on a wannabe dad who mistakenly believes that a short-of-stature criminal is his newly adopted son.

As soon as diminutive criminal, Calvin (Marlon Wayans provides the face; Linden Porco and Gabriel Pimental provide the body), leaves prison, he joins his dim and hapless homeboy, Percy (Tracy Morgan, priceless as the criminally inept doofus), in the theft of a large diamond.  With the police hot on their trail, Calvin passes the diamond off to a suburban couple, Darryl (Shawn Wayans) and Vanessa (Kerry Washington).

Calvin and Percy follow the couple back to their home where they learn that the couple is struggling with whether or not they should have a child.  Percy convinces the short-statured Calvin to disguise himself as a baby, and Percy leaves Calvin on Darryl and Vanessa’s doorstep.  After discovering the “baby” Calvin on their doorstep, the couple takes him in, deciding to keep the toddler for at least the weekend until they can turn him over to child welfare authorities on Monday.  Now a part of the family, baby Calvin makes his move to retrieve the diamond he hid in Vanessa’s bag, but Pops (John Witherspoon, in a scene stealing role), Vanessa’s father who lives with them, doesn’t trust this new foundling and keeps his eyes on him.  Meanwhile, Walken (Chazz Palminteri), the cheap hood for whom Calvin and Percy stole the diamond, is moving in to retrieve his booty and he just may kill anyone in his way.

A midget or diminutive criminal passing himself off as a baby to be taken in by a naïve civilian who then unwittingly hides bogus baby from the law is a staple of Warner Bros. Looney Tunes cartoon shorts – 1954 Baby Buggy Bunny comes to mind.  The family team of director/co-writer Keenen Ivory Wayans and co-writers/stars Marlon Wayans and Shawn Wayans make the concept their own in the new comedy, Little Man.  Coming from the people who gave us the Fox sketch comedy series, “In Living Color,” and the reviled, but popular 2004 film, White Chicks ($113 million in worldwide box office, $42.2 of that earned internationally), we would expect Little Man to be in bad taste, and boy, is it in bad taste.

It’s grosser than most gross-out comedies.  In terms of sexual innuendo, bawdy humor, and sexual humor, it actually crosses the line.  There are moments that either outright offended me or stunned and shocked me into silence – killing my laughter as if someone hit an off switch.  This concept is ridiculous except in Bugs Bunny cartoons.  The execution of the narrative is illogical, implausible, improbable, and filled with impossibilities.

The CGI and visual effects that mold Marlon Wayans body with that of two dwarf  actors to create Calvin is some amazing movie technology, but it doesn’t totally work.  Marlon’s head often movies awkwardly, and sometimes his head still looks way too big for such a small body.  Sometimes the seams between the computer-created Calvin and reality are painfully obvious, and Calvin just looks as if he’s been pasted in.  On the other hand, about half the time, the “little man” in Little Man actually looks quite good.

But after all is said and done, Little Man is just frickin’ funny.  It’s laugh-out-loud funny, howl with laughter in the theatre funny, choke-on-laughter funny, funny funny, etc.  Those who like the Wayans’ unabashedly low brow humor, chocked full of bad taste and taboo busting will find this a hilarious treat.  Little Man isn’t the classic great film, but it’s the classic make-you-laugh comedy.  What Little Man lacks in serious artistic merit, it makes up for in laughter inducing nonsense.  That’s the low art of high comedy.

6 of 10
B

Saturday, July 15, 2006

NOTES:
2007 Razzie Awards:  3 wins: “Worst Actor” (Marlon Wayans, Shawn Wayans), “Worst Screen Couple” (Shawn Wayans, Kerry Washington, Marlon Wayans, Shawn Wayans and either Kerry Washington or Marlon Wayans), and “Worst Remake or Rip-Off” (Rip-Off of the 1954 Bugs Bunny cartoon Baby Buggy Bunny-1954); 4 nominations: “Worst Picture,” “Worst Actor” (Rob Schneider for The Benchwarmers), “Worst Director” (Keenen Ivory Wayans), and “Worst Screenplay” Keenen Ivory Wayans, Marlon Wayans, Shawn Wayans)

Updated:  Sunday, January 19, 2014

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

Review: "Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle" Sputters

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 100 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux


Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle (2003)
Running time: 106 minutes (1 hour, 46 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for action violence, sensuality and language/innuendo
DIRECTOR: McG
WRITERS: John August and Cormac Wibberley and Marianne Wibberley, from a story by John August (from the television program created by Ivan Goff and Ben Roberts)
PRODUCERS: Drew Barrymore, Leonard Goldberg, and Nancy Juvonen
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Russell Carpenter (D.o.P.)
EDITOR: Wayne Wahrman
COMPOSER: Edward Shearmur
Razzie Award winner

ACTION/ADVENTURE/COMEDY/MYSTERY

Starring: Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, Lucy Lui, Demi Moore, Bernie Mac, Justin Theroux, Robert Patrick, Luke Wilson, Matt LeBlanc, Crispin Glover, John Cleese, Shia LaBeouf, Ashley Olsen, Mary-Kate Olsen, Pink, Jaclyn Smith, Bruce Willis (no screen credit), and John Forsythe (voice)

The subject of this movie review is Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle, a 2003 action comedy from director McG. This movie is a direct sequel to the 2000 film, Charlie’s Angels. Both films are based on the television series, “Charlie’s Angels,” which was originally broadcast on ABC from 1976 to 1981. As in the first film, Full Throttle stars Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu as three women employed by a private investigation agency and working for the voice known as “Charlie.”

Charlie’s Angels, the 2000 film remake of the 70-80’s TV show of the same name, was a hoot, a delightful and highly entertaining action/comedy with the guile of a cool Frank Miller comic book. Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle, the 2003 sequel, is an overblown, way over-the-top Hollywood production that’s way too full of crap, and miraculously, it still manages to be somewhat entertaining.

It’s pointless to even attempt to describe the plot, as it’s muddled nonsense. The real plot involves the indelicate manner in which the filmmakers place Charlie’s Angels in positions and situations that create mondo opportunities for shots of tits and ass. Natalie Cook (Cameron Diaz), Dylan Sanders (Drew Barrymore), and Alex Munday (Lucy Lui) return as Charlie Townsend’s (voice of John Forsythe) high tech-trained, super-powered, manga-like cuties. This time the grrrrls have to retrieve two encrypted rings, which when combined give up the locations of people in the FBI witness relocation program, and wouldn’t the bad guys love to have that info.

McG, the director of the first film, returns to helm this gigantic, flatulent cartoon that is Full Throttle. The script is lame, but all McG has to do is make the pictures look good, and, as a music video director, he knows how to do that. Imagine The Matrix on drain cleaner, Japanese cartoons (anime) on fast forward, soft porn on the rag, and comic books conceived by horny, high school upper classmen and dull-witted sorority boys and you have the Charlie’s Angel's sequel. Don’t get me wrong; there are lots of laughs. It’s difficult to tell if the filmmakers were trying to be clever or if they were cynical enough to believe that audiences really would take it ‘tween the cheeks. The end result is this dumb as a low-rent retard movie.

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle parodies action movie clichés…badly, and also throws in a stiff riff from Martin Scorcese’s Cape Fear. It’s just too over the top and too much of a crack-addled cartoon. I did like the way the filmmakers tried to created the vibe of a family extended around the Angels; that actually gave me warm feelings. Still, I was half enthralled and half bored out of my mind. For all the fun I had, there were as many moments when I wondered why the experience of seeing this felt so wasteful. This is simply too much candy, and frankly, unless you really crave an empty movie experience, you can wait for the tape. Someone might tell you that this is a sly, wink-wink, nudge-nudge movie and you have to take it for what it is. If he tries to spin trash as something smart, he is a way-too-easy ho for the big, movie making machine in la-dee-da land.

4 of 10
C

NOTES:
2004 Razzie Awards: 2 wins: “Worst Remake or Sequel” and “Worst Supporting Actress” (Demi Moore); 5 nominations: “Worst Actress” (Drew Barrymore, also for Duplex-2003), “Worst Actress” (Cameron Diaz), “Worst Excuse for an Actual Movie” (All Concept/No Content!), “Worst Picture” (Columbia), and “Worst Screenplay” (John August-also story, Cormac Wibberley, and Marianne Wibberley)

Updated: Thursday, June 27, 2013

Review: "Paycheck" More Than Minimum Wage Film

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 108 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux

Paycheck (2003)
Running time: 119 minutes (1 hour, 59 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for intense action violence and brief language
DIRECTOR: John Woo
WRITER: Dean Georgaris (based upon a short story by Philip K. Dick)
PRODUCERS: Terence Chang, John Davis, Michael Hackett, and John Woo
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Jeffrey L. Kimball (D.o.P.)
EDITORS: Christopher Rouse and Kevin Stitt
COMPOSERS: John Powell

SCI-FI/ACTION/THRILLER

Starring: Ben Affleck, Aaron Eckhart, Uma Thurman, Paul Giamatti, Colm Feore, Joe Morton, Michael C. Hall, and Peter Friedman

The subject of this movie review is Paycheck, a 2003 science fiction movie from director John Woo and starring Ben Affleck. The film is based on the short story, “Paycheck,” written by author Philip K. Dick and first published in the June 1953 issue of Imagination, a 1950s American science fiction and fantasy magazine. Paycheck the movie focuses on an engineer who takes what seems like an easy million-dollar payday, but ends up on the run and trying to piece together the reason why.

Michael Jennings (Ben Affleck), a brilliant reverse engineer (takes other people’s technology and works backwards to figure out what makes the tech work), takes a job from a powerful friend named Rethrick (Aaron Eckhart). The final part of each of Michael’s assignments involves his employer wiping Michael’s mind clean of the memories of his time working on a project; that’s how his employers keep what they’ve done secret.

However, Michael discovers something decidedly nasty while working on Rethrick’s project, so he mails himself a package full of goodies to help him remember his mission before Rethrick has Michael’s memory wiped. The problem is that once he wakes up from his mind wipe, he can’t remember why he needs this packet full of odds and ends, but he does learn that Rethrick wants him dead.

The writings of science fiction author Philip K. Dick, especially his short fiction, has been adapted into quite a few well-regarded films including Blade Runner, Total Recall, and Minority Report. Director John Woo’s Paycheck is the most recent adaptation, and while the film doesn’t make movie history or break new ground in cinema as the aforementioned have, Paycheck is an entertaining action thriller that doesn’t wear its sci-fi on its sleeves.

This is an old-fashioned action movie that relies on complicated and dangerous stunt work for the action sequences. It does not rely on CGI and the other computer enhancements that have become so favored since The Matrix. The film is true to what Woo does best, pure macho action built around car chases, explosions, gunfights, and fisticuffs. While Paycheck may not be as good as Woo classics like his Hong Kong work or Face/Off, the film is in that spirit.

The casting, however, isn’t great; I could think of actors who would have better fit these roles, and some of these actors weren’t given much with which to work. Still, everyone is game, and they seemed like they were into the film. They play their parts well enough to make this quite entertaining, so while Paycheck isn’t landmark science fiction, it is a fun movie to watch. It has more than enough suspense and mystery to keep the viewer intrigued. And while the chase scenes won’t keep you on the edge of the your seat all the time, they’ll get you close enough most of the time.

7 of 10
B+

NOTES:
2004 Razzie Awards: 1 win “Worst Actor” (Ben Affleck – also for Daredevil-2003 and Gigli-2003)

2010 Razzie Awards: 1 nomination: “Worst Actor of the Decade” (Ben Affleck – also for Daredevil-2003, Gigli-2003, Jersey Girl-2004, Pearl Harbor-2001, and Surviving Christmas-2004; nominated for 9 “achievements” and “winner” of 2 Razzies)

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

Review: "Scary Movie 4" Just as Bad, but Less Funny

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 72 (of 2006) by Leroy Douresseaux


Scary Movie 4 (2006)
Running time: 83 minutes (1 hour, 23 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for crude and sexual humor throughout, some comic violence and language
DIRECTOR: David Zucker
WRITERS: Craig Mazin, Pat Proft, and Jim Abrams; from a story by Craig Mazin
PRODUCERS: Craig Mazin and Robert K. Weiss
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Thomas E. Ackerman
EDITORS: Craig Herring and Tom Lewis
COMPOSER: James L. Venable
Razzie Award winner

COMEDY/HORROR

Starring: Anna Faris, Regina Hall, Craig Bierko, Anthony Anderson, Kevin Hart, Leslie Nielsen, DeRay Davis, Charlie Sheen, Chris Elliot, Molly Shannon, Michael Madsen, Carmen Electra, Dr. Phil McGraw, and Shaquille O’Neal

The subject of this movie review is Scary Movie 4, a 2006 comedy and parody film of science fiction and horror films. It is the fourth film in the Scary Movie franchise and a direct sequel to Scary Movie 3. Scary Movie 4 also ends the story arc that began in the original film, Scary Movie.

Cindy Campbell (Anna Faris), Brenda Meeks (Regina Hall), and the rest of the Scary Movie gang are back. Using a parody of the Steven Spielberg/Tom Cruise version of War of the Worlds (2005) as a framework, the gang sends-up movies like The Grudge (2004), Brokeback Mountain, The Village (2004), Saw and Saw II, and Million Dollar Baby along with other films, music and current events. Cindy has to solve the mystery of a little boy’s murder if she is going to stop the alien invasion and reclaim the new love of her life, Tom Ryan (Craig Bierko, spoofing Cruise in War of the Worlds).

Scary Movie 4 isn’t as funny as Scary Movie 3, not having nearly the same number of belly laughs 3 had. Director David Zucker, known for his work on such lampoon movies as Airplane! and the Naked Gun franchise, gives Scary Movie 4 a more coherent narrative than he gave the third film. This one actually has a story that attempts to make sense while at the same time satirizing of so many other films and pop culture. However, the determination to “make sense” tames any of the jokes that have potential for being really raucous humor.

The audience with which I saw this film was obviously uncomfortable with or not familiar with Brokeback Mountain, so the gay love jokes fell flat. However, the scenes satirizing The Grudge succeed because they capture that film’s scary weirdness. Still, I’ll never understand why the Wayans Brothers were summarily dismissed from the franchise, because Zucker’s films (3 and 4) are not nearly as good or as funny as Scary Movie and Scary Movie 2. Ultimately, Scary Movie 4 is a lame film that is nothing more than a cheesy video rental.

3 of 10
C-

Saturday, April 15, 2006

NOTES:
2007 Razzie Awards: 1 win: “Worst Supporting Actress” (Carmen Electra, also for Date Movie-2006)

Review: Halle Berry a Mess in the Hot Mess that is "Catwoman"

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 130 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux

Catwoman (2004)
Running time: 104 minutes (1 hour, 44 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for action violence and some sensuality
DIRECTOR: Pitof
WRITERS: John Brancato, Michael Ferris, and John Rogers; from a story by Theresa Rebeck, Michael Ferris and John Brancato (based upon characters created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger)
PRODUCERS: Denise Di Novi and Edward L. McDonnell
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Thierry Arbogast (D.o.P.)
EDITOR: Sylvie Landra
COMPOSER: Klaus Badelt

SUPERHERO/CRIME with elements of action

Starring: Halle Berry, Benjamin Bratt, Sharon Stone, Lambert Wilson, Frances Conroy, Alex Borstein, and Michael Massee

The subject of this movie review is Catwoman, the 2004 American superhero film starring Halle Berry. Berry stars as a character inspired by Catwoman, the DC Comics thief, anti-hero, and sometimes love interest of Batman. Upon its initial release, Catwoman was poorly received by critics and fans of the character, but some of those fans hated the film before it was released because a stunningly gorgeous woman of color, Halle Berry, was playing a character depicted as white in the comic books.

Patience Philips (Halle Berry) works for the behemoth cosmetics company Hedare Beauty. It’s a thankless job, and instead of pursuing a career as an artist, she designs cosmetic advertisements that her tyrannical boss, George Hedare (Lambert Wilson), hates. The woman who won’t stand up for herself eventually experiences a fateful turn of events. She overhears that Hedare’s soon-to-be-launched new anti-aging cream, Beau-line, is dangerous to users and is murdered to keep that fact secret.

Mysterious forces then resurrect Patience with the heightened strength and agility and ultra-keen senses of a cat. Suddenly, Patience is Catwoman, a sexy and seductive creature of the night, straddling that proverbial line between good girl and bad ho. Tom Lone (Benjamin Bratt), a tall, dark, and handsome cop, is on the trail of the Catwoman, and he’s also hot for Patience. Get a clue, flat foot! Catwoman ain’t the criminal. She’s after the real dark force behind Hedare, and it just might be George Hedare’s icy, supermodel wife, Laurel (Sharon Stone).

Directed by Pitof, Catwoman is a thorough mess. The film starts out flat, but with some hope, and only gets worse. Frighteningly dull and irritating clunky, the film is one of the worst movies of the year. And I am disappointed to say that because I’d been hot to see this since I first heard that Ms. Berry had been cast to play Catwoman. The film’s biggest problem may be that it focuses too much on the Patience Philips/Catwoman character, who isn’t very interesting or appealing. The focus on the lead player is a single-minded vision of disaster, because if the other characters had been fully developed, they could have been a diversion from a less interesting lead. As it is, the supporting characters only range from vaguely interesting to cardboard cutouts.

The poorly conceived special effects, the (lack of) directing, the flat acting, the hideous music, the too-fake-looking CGI fight scenes, and Halle Berry’s totally unsexy demeanor make this a dud. Stay home on this one, folks.

3 of 10
D+

NOTES:
2005 Razzie Awards: 4 wins: “Worst Actress” (Halle Berry), “Worst Director” (Pitof), “Worst Picture” ((Warner Bros.), and “Worst Screenplay” (Theresa Rebeck, John D. Brancato, Michael Ferris, and John Rogers); 3 nominations: “Worst Screen Couple” (Halle Berry, Benjamin Bratt, Sharon Stone and Halle Berry & EITHER Benjamin Bratt OR Sharon Stone), “Worst Supporting Actor” (Lambert Wilson), and “Worst Supporting Actress” (Sharon Stone)

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

Review: "Lady in the Water" is a Beautiful Storybook Fantasy (Happy B'day, Bryce Dallas Howard)

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 163 (of 2006) by Leroy Douresseaux

Lady in the Water (2006)
Running time: 110 minutes; MPAA – PG-13 for some frightening sequences
WRITER/DIRECTOR: M. Night Shyamalan
PRODUCERS: Sam Mercer and M. Night Shyamalan
CINEMATORGRAPHER: Christopher Doyle, H.K.S.C
EDITOR: Barbara Tulliver, A.C.E.

FANTASY/DRAMA/MYSTERY/THRILLER

Starring: Paul Giamatti, Bryce Dallas Howard, Jeffrey Wright, Bob Balaban, Sarita Choudhury, Cindy Cheung, Freddy Rodriguez, Bill Irwin, Jared Harris, M. Night Shyamalan, June Kyoto Lu, Mary Beth Hurt, and Noah Gray-Cabey

M. Night Shyamalan’s films have been thoughtful and profound. His characters fight pitched battles with their inner demons as they wage war with the outside forces that would destroy or enslave them. We’ve seen that in everything from the heart-rending ghost story, The Sixth Sense, to the story of a lapsed minister who finds his way back to his faith while battling an alien invasion in the 2002 hit film, Signs. Shyamalan’s films are also known for their twist endings – surprising finales that not only change the tone of the film, but also frustrate audiences who bought into one kind of story and find a shock ending ruins their expectations – Unbreakable (2000) and The Village (2004) being the best (or worst) examples.

In his new film, Lady in the Water, Shyamalan eschews the twist ending for a yarn that can be taken figuratively as a fairytale or literally as a tale of people who find their destiny in a fairytale made real. Or maybe the viewer can see it as both figurative and literal. Regardless of how one views it, Lady in the Water is one of the most lovely and heartfelt tales told in recent years – a thing as beautiful as its sparkling blue movie poster.

Modest and humble, Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti, in a performance that solidifies his place as a great American actor), manages an apartment building named “The Cove.” One night Cleveland is investigating the noises from the apartment’s swimming pool when he falls in by accident. He awakens to find that a pale, young woman with deep blue eyes, who says her name is Story (Bryce Dallas Howard), has rescued him from drowning. Cleveland discovers that Story is a “narf,” a creature from an old bedtime story, and she is trying to make the treacherous journey from our world back to her own, the “Blue World.” Cleveland and the rest of The Cove’s collection of oddball tenants realize that they have suddenly been drawn into Story’s fable. Young Soon (Cindy Cheung), a go-getter college student, Mr. Dury (Jeffrey Wright), a serene crossword puzzle fanatic and his son, Joey (Noah Gray-Cabey), Mr. Leeds (Bill Irwin), a housebound TV watcher, and Vick (M. Night Shyamalan), a writer and Anna Ran (Sarita Choudhury), his talkative sister, among many others, accept this strange story of which they are a part. With their help, Cleveland must protect this fragile young woman from a deadly creature hell-bent on keeping Story from returning home.

By now, many reviewers and audiences have turned on Shyamalan for this picture. However, where others see Lady in the Water as boring or mystifying, I see it has a simple fairytale. Yes, Shyamalan’s script is a bit artsy and pretentious at times, and the story (based upon a bedtime tale he wrote for his children) is stretched to the breaking point and challenges credibility. Still, for all that we might take it literally, much of the story is symbolic The characters, setting, and incidents are meant to remind us of a bedtime story, or to put it bluntly – “Once upon a time... Lady in the Water is a metaphor about people taking up their place in destiny, of the difficulty in taking up the journey to get to one’s place, and that each person does indeed have a purpose.

While the subject matter and characters might not make sense on the surface, they and the tale in which they exist have a deeper meaning. We’re supposed to see past the trappings and see the core – lives driven by purpose for the good of humanity. In Lady in the Water, the title character, but especially Cleveland Heep, have to break out of the protective shells they’ve made for themselves using their own fears, grief, and insecurities as building material. Thus, it’s no wonder that the other characters were so quick to embrace their part in this bedtime story – they’ve also hungered for a life of meaning. An enchanting fairytale filled with magical characters and dark fantasy, Lady in the Water is the most meaningful fable mainstream Hollywood has given us in a very long time.

8 of 10
A

Monday, July 31, 2006

NOTES:
2007 Razzie Awards: 2 wins: “Worst Director” (M. Night Shyamalan) and “Worst Supporting Actor” (M. Night Shyamalan); 2 nominations: “Worst Picture” ((Warner Bros.) and “Worst Screenplay” (M. Night Shyamalan)

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

Razzie Worst Picture Winner? "Gigli" is Not that Bad

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 120 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux

Gigli (2003)
Running time: 121 minutes (2 hours, 1 minute)
MPAA – R for sexual content, pervasive language and brief strong violence
WRITER/DIRECTOR: Martin Brest
PRODUCERS: Martin Brest and Casey Silver
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Robert Elswit
EDITOR: Julie Monroe and Billy Weber
Razzie Award winner

CRIME/DRAMA/ROMANCE

Starring: Ben Affleck, Jennifer Lopez, Justin Bartha, Lenny Venito, Christopher Walken, Al Pacino, and Lanie Kazan

A little more than half way through the year 2003, Martin Brest's (Beverly Hills Cop, Scent of a Woman) Gigli may be the worst reviewed movie of the year, but it is by no means the worst movie I’ve seen this year. Thus far, that would be the dreadful Legally Blonde sequel. Gigli is entertaining and has enough raunchy comedy that I would recommend it to anyone who can stomach something like Pulp Fiction or it’s Baby Gap version, Go. Anyone who is a fan of Affleck or Ms. Lopez shouldn’t miss this for the world. It’s not a matter of the film being that bad, considering that many people will give anything a shot, especially once a movie is on home video, Gigli pretty much runs with the pack in terms of quality (or lack thereof).

Larry Gigli (Ben Affleck) is a lowly thug with a penchant for delivering the pain when his mob boss Louis (Lenny Venito) demands it. He’s assigned to kidnap Brian (Justin Bartha), the mentally retarded brother of powerful federal prosecutor. Louis doesn’t trust Gigli not to screw up the job, so he sends in Ricki (Jennifer Lopez), another contract specialist, to watch over Larry. After some initial hard feelings, Larry falls for Ricki, but when she promptly informs him that she is gay, Gigli realizes that it may be a hard road to travel before he gets in her drawers.

More than anything, I think Gigli’s problems lie in Martin Brest’s script. I don’t at all mind the lewd and crude humor and scenes or the idiosyncratic characters. What I do mind is that Brest’s assumes that all the odd bits should make up for what is essentially a lightweight tale of star-crossed lovers and offbeat characters. In a sense, Gigli and Ricki should easily fall in love – after a period of struggling to accept each other’s oddities, of course. Instead the love story simply stumbles around its own plot twists: Ricki’s gay; she might be interested in men; she thinks Gigli’s in the closet; she really likes him, but she’s just not ready for a man.

Granted that there might be real life situations like this, but drama, art, and fiction should give the audience the payoff that real life will not. Even a love story about two polar opposites is supposed to deliver on the fact that this mismatched pair will eventually match up. Now, one of those “complex, art, awards season” films might get away with keeping the nothing-in-common lovers apart, but Gigli is, regardless of Brest’s intentions, throwaway entertainment. After all, a smart intelligent, Academy Award-genre film doesn’t rely on a mentally handicapped man singing rude rap songs or saying things like, “when my penis sneezes” for laughs.

Gigli wants to be a crime drama, but it’s only superficially so. There is some and crime and some drama, but it’s almost a movie without a genre. What saves Gigli are the often-hilarious lines and scenes, even the goofy ones like, “when my penis sneezes,” or “I tell my penis ‘God bless you’ when it sneezes.” I even enjoyed Ben and Jen playing twister with this crooked love story. Ben ably rises above the material to give a very good performance, only falling short when the script utterly fails him. Jen’s character is a crock, but she tries in spite of her limitations as an actress. Lanie Kazan (in a really low down and common role), Christopher Walken and Al Pacino make the most of their cameos, and Lenny Venito and Justin Bartha give solid supporting performances.

I’d see this again, because I like it in spite of the handicapped script. When it’s funny, it’s outrageous and as raw as anything Richard Pryor or Eddie Murphy could deliver in their best days. And at the oddest moments, Gigli is sad, sweet, charming, and endearing. In a season of disposable action movies, Gigli is the odd man out, and worth seeing – either in the theatre or at home.

5 of 10
C+

NOTES:
2004 Razzie Award: 6 wins: “Worst Actor” (Ben Affleck), “Worst Actress” (Jennifer Lopez), “Worst Director” (Martin Brest), “Worst Picture” (Columbia and Revolution), “Worst Screen Couple” (Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez), “Worst Screenplay” (Martin Brest); 3 nominations: “Worst Supporting Actor” (Al Pacino), “Worst Supporting Actor” (Christopher Walken) and “Worst Supporting Actress” Lainie Kazan)

Review: Michael Douglas' Performance in Original "Wall Street" Still Amazes

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 104 (of 2010) by Leroy Douresseaux

Wall Street (1987)
Running time: 126 minutes (2 hours, 6 minutes)
MPAA – R
DIRECTOR: Oliver Stone
WRITERS: Stanley Weiser and Oliver Stone
PRODUCER: Edward R. Pressman
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Robert Richardson (D.o.P.)
EDITOR: Claire Simpson
COMPOSER: Stewart Copeland
Academy Award winner

DRAMA

Starring: Michael Douglas, Charlie Sheen, Darryl Hannah, Martin Sheen, John C. McGinley, Hal Holbrook, James Karen, Terrence Stamp, Sean Young, James Spader, Saul Rubinek, and Tamara Tunie

Although I was hot to see it when it was first released, I finally watched director Oliver Stone’s Wall Street – 23 years after it debuted in theatres. The film, which follows a young stockbroker’s adventures with an immoral corporate raider, is certainly one of Stone’s most popular films.

Wall Street opens in 1985, as Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen), a junior stockbroker (salesman) at Jackson Steinem & Co., struggles to get out of a rut and make it big. Fox wants to become involved with his hero, Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas), the corporate raider and Wall Street player who is legendary for both his ruthlessness and his success. Bud’s father, Carl (Martin Sheen), an airline maintenance worker and union president, inadvertently provides his son with the information that captures Gekko’s interest. Gekko takes on Bud as a kind of apprentice and co-conspirator and helps him to become wealthy. Bud also gets a new girlfriend, an interior decorator named Darien (Daryl Hannah), a close friend of Gekko’s. Bud, however, begins to lose himself the deeper he goes in with Gekko.

Michael Douglas’ performance as Gordon Gekko is one of the best of the last quarter of the 20th century. Simply, it is magnificent. It is hard to believe that at the time of the film, Douglas was apparently considered a mediocre actor – more of a film producer than a performer. In Douglas’ hands, Gekko not only personifies “Wall Street greed,” but also the nature of greed and the competitive urge in humanity. Douglas as Gekko could make you think the phrase, “tour de force,” was created specifically to describe such an awesome and awe-inspiring performance. Like Raging Bull, Wall Street is a movie that enters the rarefied air of remarkable dramatic films made important because of great performances by lead actors.

Still, Wall Street is not completely about Michael Douglas. Charlie Sheen’s stiff-acting style actually makes Bud Fox the perfect dupe/foil for Gekko. Sheen’s (then) exceedingly fresh-looking baby face embodies America’s youth (relatively speaking), and his facial expressions are all about lust for success and money. At other times, Sheen depicts in Fox that inherent guilt that keeps our gluttony and baser appetites in check, for the most part.

Oliver Stone even draws out Wall Street’s religious subtext in scenes where the devilish Gekko mentors (or tempts) Fox on how to get ahead the unethical and illegal way. Stone and Douglas are quite good at presenting their vision of greed. Wall Street makes it look sexy – as if greed were really good, as Gekko says in his legendary monologue. Wall Street is still fantastic, and it may make you remember just how good Stone and Douglas were when they were at the top of their respective games.

8 of 10
A

NOTES:
1988 Academy Awards: 1 win: “Best Actor in a Leading Role” (Michael Douglas)

1988 Golden Globes: 1 win: “Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture – Drama” (Michael Douglas)

1988 Razzie Awards: 1 win: “Worst Supporting Actress” (Daryl Hannah)

Monday, December 20, 2010

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