|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
The news is not good.clark
........................................................
To Beat the Heat
Review by Duncan Shepherd
Published August 1, 2002
San Diego ReaderFull Frontal, Goldmember, Signs, and Tadpole
Accompaniments to the air conditioning.... Signs. (As in warning signs or road signs, depending on your point of view.) For all those who can believe in crop circles, and those who only wish they could, this is not the answer to a prayer. M. Night Shyamalan, the writer and director of The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, certainly takes a serious approach. So much so that you might imagine the grim cast of characters labored under the impression they were in an Ibsen drama. There are reasons for that: the hero, played by Mel Gibson as a change from Bruce Willis, is a backsliding cleric whose wife was killed six months earlier in a roadside mishap, details of which are leaked out in dribs and drabs. In the end, the ponderous, portentous forward progress of the film, together with its charged atmosphere of Domestic Tragedy, proves to be, as it were, all approach and no (or very late) arrival; all heavy-handed foreplay and diminutive climax. Shyamalan does not lack intensity or concentration, and he is capable now and again of touching a sensitive spot, prompting a tremor: the first glimpse of an alien appendage disappearing into a cornfield, or the attempt to get a look at the shadowy prisoner locked behind the pantry door, or the siege in the cellar illuminated only by flashlight. Unhappily, the filmmaker, more cursed than blessed by his Sixth Sense, seems more concerned now to be a spiritual leader than a mere storyteller. Somehow, when alien invaders descend over the entire planet, the crisis of faith of one grieving widower in rural Pennsylvania is apt to seem small potatoes, no matter how symbolic or symptomatic of all mankind. And the confinement of most of the action to the family farm -- like some Roger Corman grade-Z science fiction of the late Fifties -- is ultimately stultifying. To be sure, the portable television, whenever the strictly monitoring father (no longer "Father") allows his children to watch it, serves to widen the scope, at least in our imaginations: the proliferation of crop circles in India (too fast and far apart to be a conspiracy of hoaxers), the strange lights suspended over Mexico City, the network broadcast of a Little Green Man's cameo appearance in a birthday-party home video, etc. One of the TV viewers is tactless enough to remark, "It's like War of the Worlds." We wish!
Goldmember. (Or Austin Powers in Goldmember, or whatever it's called.) Austin Powers, now Sir Austin Powers, has become respectable. That happened -- it's the American way -- as soon as he became a "franchise." Although critics are under injunction not to spoil the "surprise" of the Big Names who pop up on screen by way of endorsement (in return, one supposes, for mojo), any visitor to the Internet Movie Data Base could find out that Tom Cruise, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kevin Spacey, Danny DeVito, and Sir Steven Spielberg are among them. It should be no surprise, either, that the movie was accorded a command performance at the White House, nor that our local Museum of Contemporary Art would light upon an Austin Powers theme for its big summer fund-raiser ("Black Tie or Shagadelic Costume"). Everyone wants to be a sport. Well -- not everyone. Not me. Austin Powers, a decent idea for a skit, was overextended in his first feature film, and every subsequent sequel only extends the overkill. There is already, in just the second sequel, a "Twelve Days of Christmas" feeling of picking up baggage as we go. (Did we really need to bring back Fat Bastard? Will we need, next time, to bring back the freckle-faced and flaking-skinned Goldmember?) Sure, the running time can be padded with peepee-poopoo jokes (picture our President slapping his knee), along with incongruous spoofs of rap music, blaxploitation films, The Silence of the Lambs, what-have-you. And suddenly our swinging superspy can develop parental-approval issues. But what has any of this to do with the original premise? When I predicted two months ago that Goldmember couldn't match Undercover Brother for regressive good fun, I didn't know that Mike Myers would put up a Foxxy Cleopatra character (Beyoncé Knowles) for such direct and detrimental comparison: Myers, to draw him into further comparison with the likes of Woody Allen and Ingmar Bergman, does not write very well for women. (He does not write very well for anybody, but women especially.) And more than ever would I want to stress my compliment about the internal cohesion -- the solidness -- of the material in Brother. (No sequels, please.) By contrast, the final revelation in Goldmember, via a Galaxy Far Far Away, would have been enough to sour me if I hadn't been soured already. Just to prove, though, that I was not sitting with my arms folded throughout the entire film, let me note that Michael Caine, whose eyeglasses in his Harry Palmer roles were clearly one of the inspirations for Austin Powers, looks to be a smart choice for the hero's father, though not without some sort of time-travel rationale, never forthcoming. (Was not Austin a full-blown adult in the Sixties?) And the sight gag of our hero atop Mini-Me's shoulders under a janitor's coat -- a sharply tapering figure teetering around on tiny legs -- is a sight for sore eyes. And the bit about subtitles partially disappearing over a white background was a bright idea, albeit dimly, dirtily carried out. (Without scatology, Myers would be held necessarily to skit-length.) And there was one sophisticated line of dialogue, quoted here in its entirety if it will save you the bother: "There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures. And the Dutch."Full Frontal. Steven Soderbergh offers no reassurance, after Ocean's Eleven (and Traffic and Erin Brockovich), that he has not been ruined beyond redemption. Outwardly, this day-in- the-lives-of-motley-Hollywoodites would appear to be an attempt to recapture that old Independent Spirit, even if the filmmaker hedges his bet by enlisting Julia (Roberts) and Brad (Pitt) and others, so that the mainstream press and mass audience will have something to buzz about. (Besides the gossipy topic of Hollywood or the impenetrable meaning of the title.) The "appearance" of independence, in any event, amounts to little more than the appearance of cheapness, messiness, and obscurity: the over-reverberant sound, to be specific, and the grainy blurry home-movie-ish image that alternates with a sharper and higher- grade image for a film-within-the-film called Rendezvous. (Apart from the film stock, little difference can be discerned -- is that the point? -- between Hollywood "reality" and the "fiction" of Rendezvous, a film, if I've got it straight, about a magazine reporter interviewing an actor on an airplane, following him to a meeting with Miramax's Harvey Weinstein, onto location with Brad Pitt, and back to the airport.) Where independence for Soderbergh once might have meant something like self-sufficiency or self-possession, it now seems to mean things like self-indulgence and self-importance. Not to forget self-deception. Any random touch of cleverness -- the cameo of Terence Stamp in his fictional persona from Soderbergh's The Limey -- vanishes like a drop of water on a hot stove.
Tadpole. A rude reminder that in the world after Attack of the Clones there are still differing grades of digital video. The production banner over Gary Winick's little coming-of-age comedy -- Indigent (or InDigEnt), acronym for Independent Digital Entertainment -- is a commendable example of truth-in-labelling. Poor for sure. Needy indeed. An anemic, myopic image that gets ever blurrier with every inch of distance from the camera, and ever pastier with every inch of closeness to it. There is no great harm, nor great joy either, in the amorous antics of a precocious, Voltaire-reading high-school sophomore (Aaron Stanford), in love with his stepmother (Sigourney Weaver) and actually in bed with the stepmother's best friend (Bebe Neuwirth, a sly scene stealer). And I can have no objection to films other than computer-animated kiddie films that come in at under an hour and a half: this one a quarter-hour under. If only, let me be clear, to abbreviate the tedium.
Follow Ups:
As I plan to see this film tomorrow. The money spent isn't an issue as matinee prices are around $6.00. It is more the fact that I spent time that could have been utilized for something else (like a round of golf) if it wasn't all that good!
I saw it this weekend. Emotionally hollow and flawed in several dimensions. The director has become so enamored with his trademark surprise endings that seems to be all he can think about. As a result it makes his films feel entirely too contrived, all aiming for the big pay-off. In the 6th Sense it worked. In Unbreakable it fell flat as a board (who really cares about comics other than comic book fans?) and here it lands somewhere in between. The other striking thing about this film is how derivative it is. Its like his first two films channeled through Poltergeist and Close Encounters - down to the precocious kids who carry a large part of the story (such as it is) forward.This director seems to be a one trick pony and It's going to be interesting to see how much longer he can ride it before coming up with another remotely innovative idea...
one out of 100 movies... that's for sure...Don't expect great movies every month or even a whole year...
My wife, myself and one of our friends saw this film earlier today and for the most part came away quite impressed. FTR, Signs is nothing at all like Sixth Sense or Unbreakable and it really doesn't rely on a shock ending to carry the story either. Which brings up the comment you made about Unbreakable (i.e., "who really cares about comics other than comic book fans?"). As a comic book fan for over four decades I find the superhero genre every bit as respectable as other genres, but that isn't the point. Unbreakable wasn't really "about" comic books per se, comics were simply the framework for a fascinating character study about heroics and villainy being facets of the human condition that feed off of each other.You have every right to your opinion, even if you wear tin foil on your head while trashing the movie. As I see it, Signs may not be a great film, but it's a very good one and IMHO it certainly isn't emotionally hollow. It never plays down to the audience by trying to explain everything up front as so many less inspired films seem to do (i.e., it's very literary in this regard). As the story unfolds, the background information gradually falls into place and the audience begins to understand the motivations and responses to the unearthly dilemma faced by the characters. As for your "one trick pony" remark, well, I don't know what horse you rode in on, but we've seen all three of M. Night Shymalan's groundbreaking films as well as the others you referenced and Signs didn't seem that derivative to any of us.
"As a comic book fan for over four decades I find the superhero genre every bit as respectable as other genres, but that isn't the point."You and several hundred other people. But you're right, that's not the point. But watching a film within its chosen context (regardless of the plot) makes its context fundamental to accepting the films message, no? When the context is laugable to many, expecting them to make the leap of faith is a bit much.
I stand by my emotionally hollow comment. I was struck continuously throught this film with a peculiar sense of detachment and unreaility to the characters. Like watching people trying to look like certain kinds of characters without behaving in a believably human sort of way. Mel suffered in the extreme in this regard - playing a bitter man who has lost his faith as though that would mean the person would be an emotional blank. It was like watching a walking & talking piece of cardboard. Instead of organic characters the motivations provided by the script seemed too forced and literate to be believable to me.
And the kids were straight out of Lucas / Spielberg - in a way that was so obvious I would think you would have to try in order to miss it.
Groundbreaking? The guys made one good film and a couple of flawed ones. This one is certainly more interesting than the last. But groundbreaking? Hardly. And his +++++SPOILER ALERT++++++ contrived payoff ending of having Mel do what his dying wife nonsensically said months before to save his son is the sort of contrived plot twist this director is intent on wedging into everything he does. Finding out Willis was a ghost at the last moment, finding out Jackson is the villian who created the hero in the final scene and now Mel rediscovering his faith in following the nonsense words of his wife at the climax of this film to save the day.
Whats next from this groundbreaking director?
Somehow, I suspect more of the same.
I can only hope we get more of the same. Layered well thought out film making that touches every emotion. In this day and age of sequels, movies based on TV shows, and sequels of movies based on TV shows I'll take all the "same" stuff I can get from this film maker.
1
For people who aren't afraid of liking nonarthouse forgein films this is a terrific movie. Like The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable this film is well thought out in every way and runs the gamut of emotional content.
I found it an emotional near zero.Scarey? Nope.
Tragic? Nope.
Uplifting? Nope.
Funny? Yep, it had a few genuine laughs.
In fact, the lack of emotion in this film and the lack of emotional response it managed to stir in me is what I found so striking about the whole preceeding.
sorry it didn't work for you. It did for me
Duncan was being too kind.
Asylum Readers - I was very very disappointed with this movie as the overhead mike for the actors continually protruded into the frame. For me this spoiled the suspense of the movie. I can't think of any other movie where I have ever seen this. There was too much of this to save the movie in the cutting room. If this version is the same for all movie theaters stay away and save your money......Haoleguy
We saw the film yesterday and there wasn't a boom-mic in evidence throughout. I'm not exactly sure how the re-framing is supposed to work, but things like this can occur and it sure looks like a badly alligned projector and clueless projectionist is the culprit. BTW, in a situation like this you'ld have every right to request a refund from the theater since you didn't experience the picture the way it was meant to be seen.
Audiophilander - Thanks for the reply. I was waiting to hear from others before I approached the theater manager....Haoleguy
It was a supporting actor in The Parent Trap remake a few years back. Strange that this sort of thing happens in big budget movies.
Dan C
...projectionist had the movie improperly framed. Saw this flick last night and no one, er...lowered the boom. Must have been shot in Super35.
Harmonia - Your take on this was that the projectionist should have been able to frame the picture differently to leave out the mike? Also do film production companies make a few versions depending on the theater equipment or is it all standardized at this point? Thanks.
Haoleguy
It was probably the aliens doing it; it may have been intentional (i.e., part of the suspense)! :o)
Yeah, I don't much care, either. But he did give it four stars. So if you like this type of movie, it's probably worth seeing.The technique is apparently excellent.
.
... go to the Rotten Tomatoes site and just read the capsules. BTW, the majority of reviews are positive for Signs (80%) so I don't know how much creedence one should give a single review from the critic Mr. Johnsen seems to favor. When Clark has seen Signs for himself, perhaps he'll share first hand information with us! As for the other films reviewed I can't speak for Full Frontal or Tadpole, but Goldmember doesn't need to be reviewed for a prediction; here's mine: the movie probably sucks pond water but it will make it's producers lots of money.Cheers,
AuPh
Well that's very comforting. But Duncan Shepherd and I, we prefer the weird and excellent stuff so long as it's not shot on video.Oh, "80%" favorable? I checked out the "favorable" EW review by the usually critical Owen Gleiberman. He gave it a rousing B-! Time methinks to toss the Rotten Tomato.
... the typically overcritical Christopher Kelly who rarely likes anything but the most eclectic art-house fare gave Signs a four star review. That may or may not be good as an endorsement of the film since he knocks just about every film, even those I like, but M. Night Shymalan's track record suffices for me to want see the film before rendering an assessment.The fact that you and Duncan Shepherd like the weird stuff doesn't especially inspire confidence in my desire to spend money. Excellence is another matter and, arguably, one of individual tastes; I haven't compared Mr Shepherd's track record with my own, so I can't speak to his tastes, but I'll gladly express my own preferences and review Signs as well, once I've seen the movie.
Hi,
I love the Austin Powers schtick. But I hate bathroom humor. My favorite one liner from any movie for I don't know how long was that one about owning Starbucks. I was weaned on the screwball comedies of the 50's and 60's ("I asked you not to tell me that") and overlooking bad acting/plots/whatever is easy is the movie is breezy. The Spy who shagged me was over the top, into orbit, and more. I keep hoping they will offer a family friendly dvd, with the potty humor removed.
For instance, I love parodies like Spinal Tap which send up the heavy metal rock culture with brilliant all-too-true ironies, but the spy genre was already parodied to death back in the late 60's (i.e., through the Flint movies, Matt Helm, the last season or two of Man from U.N.C.L.E. and Get Smart! among others). All that was left by the time Austin Powers showed up was silliness, raunchy humor and poking fun at the entire psychedelic era. Having come of age in the late 60's I find this kind of send-up more irritating than humorous.
the viewer has at least a tiny amount of grey matter between their ears.If you liked Spinal Tap (but this knob goes to eleven!)you will love And God Spoke. A comedy documentary/parody about the religious film industry--kind of like ED Wood (also fabulous).
I make exceptions to the rule for example I love the man with two brains (It was too silly) and just hit me the right way.
I think Mike Meyer's ship has sailed, a shame really, he did have potential (I liked him on SNL).
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: