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.

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

Amazon wants me to inform you that the affiliate link below is a PAID AD, but I technically only get paid (eventually) if you click on the affiliate link below AND buy something(s).

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.

Review: Ben Affleck Miscast as a Superhero in "Daredevil"

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 18 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux

Daredevil (2003)
Running time:  103 minutes (1 hour, 43 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for action/violence and some sensuality
WRITER/DIRECTOR:  Mark Steven Johnson
PRODUCERS:  Avi Arad, Gary Foster, and Arnon Milchan
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Ericson Core
EDITORS:  Armen Minasian and Dennis Virkler
COMPOSER:  Graeme Revell

SUPERHERO/ACTION/CRIME

Starring:  Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Colin Farrell, Michael Clarke Duncan, Jon Favreau, Joe Pantoliano, Erick Avari, Scott Terra and David Keith

The subject of this movie review is Daredevil, a 2003 superhero film starring Ben Affleck in the title role.  The movie is based on the Marvel Comics character, Daredevil, created by Stan Lee and artist Bill Everett.

The movie’s plot also borrows heavily from elements Frank Miller introduced during his stint as writer-artist on Marvel Comics’ Daredevil comic book series and on several other Daredevil publications.  Stan Lee is one of this film’s executive producers.  Oscar-winning screenwriter Brian Helgeland apparently contributed to the screenplay, but did not receive a screen credit.

Before I get into the heart of the review, I want to start off by saying that Daredevil really ain’t nothing special, and that makes this pretty run of the mill, except for the subject matter.  If you just have to see it (and I can only imagine that comic book fans feel this way as the character originates from a long running Marvel comic of the same title), see it in a movie theatre; otherwise, it may not be worth the time, money, and effort of going to the movies.

Another note before getting into the review:  although he doesn’t get credit, renowned comic book writer/artist and cartoonist Frank Miller just might be the major contributor to this film.  Miller, wrote and drew, the comic book, Daredevil, for Marvel Comics from the late 1970’s to the early 80’s and again wrote the title in the late 80’s with sometime New Yorker cartoonist, David Mazzuchelli, as the comic’s illustrator.  Miller created the character Elektra Natchios (played in this film by Jennifer Garner of TV’s “Alias”), but he did not create all the characters used in this film.

However, the stylistic approach used for the characters comes almost exclusively from Frank’s work.  This movie wouldn’t exist without Frank’s legendary accomplishments; Frank’s Daredevil stories are available in book form as Daredevil Visionaries:  Frank Miller Vol.’s 1-3 and Daredevil: Born Again.  In fact, the 1989 film version of Batman owes very much to Frank’s work on the character in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, which is always in print.  Miller is also a screenwriter, having penned Robocop 2 and Robocop 3, and his original script (presumably the for second Robocop) will be adapted into a comic book by Avatar Comics.  Now, to the review.

Attorney Matt Murdock (Ben Affleck) was blinded as a child by a chemical that, though it robbed him of his sight, heightened his four remaining senses.  His hearing developed a kind of radar sense that allows him to “see” objects through the sound waves that bounce of those objects.  In the movie, we see the radar sense in operation as a rather cool looking visual effect.  After the accident that blinded him, young Murdock (Scott Terra) trains his body to be as superior as his heightened senses.  After criminals murder his father Jack (David Keith), young Matt grows up to be the costumed crime fighter, Daredevil, prowling the night in a tight, red leather uniform and pounding criminals into dust, literally.  Daredevil don’t play that; he’ll dispense justice to the extreme even if it means that a criminal might lose his life.

Matt meets Elektra, who is an ass kicking, martial arts hottie, and they have a brief romance, but when a crazed assassin named Bullseye (Colin Farrell) kills her father (Erick Avari, The Mummy), Elektra seeks revenge.  In her haste for revenge, she doesn’t realize how complicated matters are and that hanging over all their heads is master manipulator and super crime boss, Wilson Fisk - The Kingpin (Michael Clarke Duncan).

Daredevil is much darker than many super hero movies, almost as dark as Batman Returns, but the former does share the latter’s leather fetishistic theme.  There are lots of really good fight scenes mixing martial arts, boxing, and gymnastics.  Like Spider-Man, Daredevil uses quite a bit of CGI (computer generated imagery) to create human-like figures that can rapidly bounce off walls and scale ceilings while fighting.  In fact, in addition to the “bullet time” technique used so famously in The Matrix, CGI is the only other way live action film can mimic the impossible acrobatics of comic book fight scenes.  Daredevil’s fight scenes are exciting and even thrilling, but many times the CGI is so obviously fake, particularly in the jerky manner in which the CGI figures move.

The story has its moments.  Some of the romantic elements are genuinely sad and sentimental, and some of the drama is palatable.  However, like Spider-Man, the best stuff is during the fights are when Daredevil soars over the CGI New York skyline.

Director Mark Steven Johnson’s love for the material is evident.  He really tried to capture the feel of the comic book in his film.  However, some of the film is awkward, forced and clunky.  The movie drags, and sometimes it races headlong through the story without any substantial development.  There are too many characters, some who, if given more screen time, would have made a better movie.  Jon Favreau, as Matt’s law partner Foggy Nelson, is simply delightful, but Johnson uses him strictly for comic relief.  Farrell strains and overacts as Bullseye; by the time, Johnson reigns Farrell in enough to make Bullseye a good villain, the movie’s almost over.

Suffice to say, Daredevil is an average movie going experience, and might serve as a decent video rental.  It’s special only to comic book fans; most everyone else will find this to be just another movie, unless you’re into the strange and the unusual.  There is a really funk vibe going on with all those leather suits and the rest of the characters’ impressive wardrobe that’s worth experiencing on the big screen.

4 of 10
C

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

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

Updated:  Friday, August 23, 2013

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

Review: "S.W.A.T." is by the Book Crime Thriller

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 126 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux

S.W.A.T. (2003)
Running time:  117 minutes (1 hour, 57 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for violence, language and sexual references
DIRECTOR:  Clark Johnson
WRITERS:  David Ayer and David McKenna; from a story by Ron Mita and Jim McClain (based upon characters by David Hamner)
PRODUCERS:  Dan Halsted, Chris Lee, and Neal H. Moritz
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Gabriel Beristain
EDITOR:  Michael Tronick
COMPOSER:  Elliot Goldenthal

ACTION/CRIME/DRAMA

Starring:  Samuel L. Jackson, Colin Farrell, Michelle Rodriguez, LL Cool J, Josh Charles, Jeremy Renner, Brian Van Holt, Olivier Martinez, Reginald E. Cathey, Larry Poindexter, and James DuMont

The subject of this movie review is S.W.A.T., a 2003 action-thriller and crime film.  The film is based on the short-lived television series, “S.W.A.T.”  This ABC action-crime drama (Feb. 1975 to April 1976) was created by Robert Hamner and Lee Stanley.  In S.W.A.T. the movie, S.W.A.T. tries to prevent an imprisoned drug kingpin from breaking out of police custody.

When the law gets a hold of Alex Montel (Olivier Martinez), billionaire drug lord and arms dealer, Montel offers 100 million dollars (say it in a heavy Al Pacino/Tony Montana accent to get the full effect) to anyone who can free him.  Who you gonna call?  How about the Los Angeles Police Department’s finest – S.W.A.T. (Special Weapons and Tactics)?

Led by a legendary S.W.A.T. veteran, Sgt. Dan “Hondo” Harrelson (Samuel L. Jackson), the group includes LAPD’s best, brightest, and toughest: Jim Street (Colin Farrell) a disgraced S.W.A.T. officer Hondo gives a second chance; Chris Sanchez (Michelle Rodriguez), repeatedly denied admission into the S.W.A.T. program because she is a female; and David “Deke” Kay (LL Cool J), a tough street cop who can run down you and yo mama.

S.W.A.T. is a by the book action thriller that correctly presses all the right buttons except those bothersome story and character buttons.  But the fireworks, explosions, gunshots, and machismo all work, and that’s pretty much all that’s needed to make an successful action movie – one that doesn’t make you feel like you’ve wasted your money as soon as you leave the theatre.  The plot is simple and straight, and the script contains familiar American archetypes:  Jackson’s Hondo is the black mentor to Farrell’s Street, the dangerous young white stud.  Hollywood seems intent on making Farrell a matinee idol whether the matinee wants him or not.

The movie was fun, a pleasant distraction, pleasantly intense, not manically and obscenely intense like Bad Boys II, but intense in a way that lets us get excited about overwrought gun battles.  There’s even an ultra hilarious segment in which an L.A. street gang tries to liberate Montel for his 100 meeeeell-yon dollerz!  There’s no meaningful drama in the story, nothing to make you really care for the characters other than the fact that you’d like to see Street show the department it was wrong for disgracing him.  But this is good film popcorn, one I’d heartily recommend to fans of hardcore action films and one I’ll see again.

Of course, if you want a gritty cop film, something with meat on the bones, there’s always Joe Carnahan’s Narc.

5 of 10
B-

NOTES:
2004 Black Reel Awards:  1 nomination: “Best Film” (Christopher Lee, Neal H. Moritz, and Dan Halsted)

2004 Image Awards:  1 nomination: “Outstanding Actor in a Motion Picture” (Samuel L. Jackson)

Updated:  Wednesday, August 07, 2013

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

Review: "Mystic River" is Really Good, But is Too Damn Bleak (Happy B'day, Laurence Fishburne)

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 92 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux

Mystic River (2003)
Running time:  138 minutes (2 hours, 18 minutes)
MPAA – R for language and violence
DIRECTOR:  Clint Eastwood
WRITER:  Brian Helgeland (from the novel by Dennis Lehane)
PRODUCERS:  Clint Eastwood, Judie G. Hoyt, and Robert Lorenz
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Tom Stern (D.o.P.)
EDITOR:  Joel Cox
COMPOSER:  Clint Eastwood
Academy Award winner

DRAMA/CRIME

Starring:  Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Kevin Bacon, Laurence Fishburne, Marcia Gay Harden, Laura Linney, Kevin Chapman, Thomas Guiry, Emmy Rossum, Spencer Treat Clark, Andrew Mackin, Adam Nelson, and Robert Wahlberg

The subject of this movie review is Mystic River, a 2003 crime drama from director Clint Eastwood.  The film is based on Mystic River, the 2001 novel from author Dennis Lehane.  Mystic River focuses on three men who are reunited by circumstance after the daughter of one of the men is murdered.

Clint Eastwood’s film Mystic River was one of the most acclaimed films of 2003, and it earned several Oscar nominations including Best Picture and Best Director.  However, thanks to the onslaught that was The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King at the 2004 Academy Awards, Mystic River only picked up the two “Best Actor” awards:  Leading Role (Sean Penn) and Supporting Role (Tim Robbins).

Jimmy Markum (Sean Penn), Dave Boyle (Tim Robbins), and Sean Devine (Kevin Bacon) are three childhood friends reunited after Markum’s daughter, Katie (Emmy Rossum), is found brutally murdered.  Their reunion is at cross-purposes, however.  Markum is small time hood, Devine is the investigator with the State Police investigating Katie’s murder, and Boyle survived being kidnapped and sexually assaulted when the three men were boys.  When Boyle becomes the lead suspect, the reunion spirals towards tragedy.

Mystic River is a very good film, but ultimately it’s a bit too cold for too long.  At times, I could have sworn that I was watching Clint Eastwood directing a drama as a formal dinner party.  Mystic River is professional and slick, as well as being raw and gritty.  The film has weight and gravity, but it all seems so laid back and cool.  Not until the last 20 minutes does the film really begin to unleash a tour de force of film drama, but those closing scenes are alien to the rest of the film.

Mystic River really plays with the idea that people are interconnected; the action or inaction of one has inevitable, although unseen, consequences upon another – neat but pat.  Besides, the award winning performances of Penn and Robbins, Kevin Bacon and especially Laurence Fishburne have the roles that anchor the film and they almost steal the show.  In the end Mystic River is all good, but waits for the closing act to show how really good it can be.  If you like dour dramas with good acting, this one is for you, but it’s not an exceptional work of movie art.

7 of 10
A-

NOTES:
2004 Academy Awards, USA:  2 wins: “Best Actor in a Leading Role” (Sean Penn) and “Best Actor in a Supporting Role” (Tim Robbins); 4 nominations: “Best Actress in a Supporting Role” (Marcia Gay Harden), “Best Director” (Clint Eastwood), “Best Picture” (Robert Lorenz, Judie Hoyt, and Clint Eastwood), and “Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay” (Brian Helgeland)

2004 BAFTA Awards:  4 nominations: “Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role” (Sean Penn), “Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role” (Tim Robbins), “Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role” (Laura Linney), and “Best Screenplay – Adapted” (Brian Helgeland)

2004 Golden Globes, USA:  2 wins: “Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture – Drama” (Sean Penn) and “Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture” (Tim Robbins); 3 nominations: “Best Director - Motion Picture” (Clint Eastwood), “Best Motion Picture – Drama” (Best Screenplay - Motion Picture” (Brian Helgeland)

Updated: Monday, July 08, 2013

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

Review: Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 103 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux


Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (2003) – animated film
Running time: 86 minutes (1 hour, 26 minutes)
MPAA – PG for adventure action, some mild sensuality and brief language
DIRECTORS: Patrick Gilmore and Tim Johnson
WRITER: John Logan
PRODUCERS: Jeffrey Katzenberg and Mireille Soria
EDITOR: Tom Finan
COMPOSER: Harry Gregson-Williams

ANIMATION/FANTASY/ADVENTURE/FAMILY with elements of comedy and romance

Starring: (voices) Brad Pitt, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Michelle Pfeiffer, Joseph Fiennes, Dennis Haysbert, and Jim Cummings with Frank Welker

The subject of this movie review is Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas, the 2003 animated swashbuckling fantasy and adventure film from DreamWorks Animation. While this film is technically a Sinbad movie, the character is taken out of its traditional Arabic context and moved to a Greek setting. Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas finds the sailor of legend framed by a goddess for the theft of a magical book and forced to save the life of a childhood friend.

Doesn’t Hollywood make great adventure films like Raiders of the Lost Ark anymore, or how about one that’s just good? I suspect that Dreamworks’ Jeffrey Katzenberg was attempting to make a “great” animated adventure film when his company took on the task of creating Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas. Visually the film rocks the boat as hard as any other adventure film, but in the end, it lacks the heart of the great American animated films. The film also lacks the show-stopping performances that leave us wanting more, like Raiders did.

Sinbad (Brad Pitt), the Arabian playboy sailor is set to steal The Book of Peace from a galley when he discovers that the book is under the protection of a boyhood friend, Proteus (Joseph Fiennes). Later, a shape-shifting goddess, Eris (Michelle Pfeiffer), makes a deal with Sinbad for him to make another attempt at theft, but she betrays him, steals the book, and frames Sinbad.

The theft is punishable by death, but Proteus offers his life as ransom so that Sinbad will be free to find the book before the date of execution. Proteus believes that only a sea captain of Sinbad’s skill can make the arduous journey across the oceans to retrieve the sacred tome. To make sure that Sinbad keeps his end of the bargain, Proteus’ betrothed Marina (Catherine Zeta-Jones) follows Sinbad and his crew to Eris’s dark kingdom of Tartarus.

Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas seems a little lost in the current movie marketplace. It’s a boys adventure animated film, and both Fox (with Titan A.E.) and Disney (with Treasure Planet) have suffered spectacular box office flops with boys oriented animation. Computer animated films like Finding Nemo and Monster’s Inc. appeal to both the kiddies and the adults with their broad humor and tales of families and friendships fighting adversary.

What does Legend of the Seven Seas have going for it? It has striking, traditional cel animation in rich beautiful colors and 3-D computer modeling of spectacular and awe-inspiring cityscapes. The filmmakers use computer animation to create large scale crowd scenes and to unleash some of the most impressive, monstrous creatures you’ll see in animation for a long time. The story is rather simple-minded, but the fast-paced script by John Logan (a co-scriptwriter on Best Picture winner Gladiator) keeps the film story bouncing off the walls like a madly-inspired pulp novel. The score by Harry Gregson-Williams is the kind of stunningly grand and opulent affair usually reserved for serious, live action epics, so it makes Sinbad seem more serious than it is.

The voice acting is mostly bad, and I mean really bad. Brad Pitt is atrocious. Let’s face it, and he needs to be seen as well as heard. He’s a package deal – a good actor with a good face and body. If they aren’t together, all you have is slop. Catherine Zeta-Jones, whose voice I find so distinct, is so nondescript that if not for her name on the marquee, we’d never know who it was. Dennis Haysbert’s sonorous tones are wasted on the hideous dialogue Logan (or whoever rewrote this) gave him. Listening to the film’s stilted dialogue is torture, and in the end, it’s the major misfire that does in this movie.

Most of the time, Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas is gorgeous to look at, but with the deep pockets of American film studios, how can animators not at least make an animated film look good? Other than that, there’s nothing to make this film stand out. The story is just so matter-of-fact; even the prize to be obtained, The Book of Peace, lacks resonance. It doesn’t seem important, and the script really isn’t clear on why it should be important; the book might as well have been a gold-encrusted jack-in-the box.

A really good animated film can have a simple story, but it must reach the audience’s (children and adults) hearts and as well as appeal to their minds. Dreamworks certainly has the power to make beautiful animated films of an epic scope, but this is ultimately only a show of force i.e. we (Dreamworks) can compete with Disney. Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas simply lacks heart. Finding Nemo’s story of a grieving father’s desperate search for his only child really touched a large number of viewers. A cast of witty and talented voice actors who can keep up the banter and make their characters’ emotions and moods seem real just endears itself to viewers.

For all the thunder and lightening Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas has, it’s mostly a disposable adventure film. It is certainly an entertaining adventure film, but there’s nothing to make it stand out. I don’t think kids are going to buy it because there’s nothing in the film to endear them to it. Lovers of adventures films will have a good time, but they’ll almost certainly forget Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas, if not by the time they walk out the theatre, then certainly by the time they reach the first stop light.

5 of 10
B-

Updated: Friday, July 05, 2013