Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

JJ79 Blog

  • Brokeback Mountain (2005)

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Let me just say this is one hell of an excellent film. This is exceptional in every sense of the word, a movie that should become a bonafide classic in short order. What we have are two cowboys, Ennis and Jack (Heath and Jake, respectively). Both are, from all early indications, straight. One night while on a sheep drive, they are freezing while asleep. They find themselves asleep together and, soon enough, they're making out.

    Well, let me rephrase that: Ennis is fucking the shit out of Jack in a scene that was nearly too hard to watch. The way the two went from kissing to Ennis flipping Jack onto his belly--hard!--and pounding him for all he was worth caused me to flinch. It's raw power and it sets the scene for the rest of the film. This scene is repeated almost exactly when Ennis has anal sex with his wife. That one is excrutiating to watch because you know she's not having any enjoyment; this is probably her first inkling something is different with Ennis.

    Long story short, both men marry and have kids. However, they still meet up once in a while for week-long affairs. Jack wants Ennis to leave his wife Alma (Michelle Williams) and live on a ranch with him. Ennis says no because, as a young boy, he saw a (presumably) gay man dead after being drug around by his dick courtesy of a horse. And, besides, no way is Ennis gay. But he continues, year after year, to cheat on his wife with Jack. Jack, for his part, knows what he wants and goes to lengths to get it. He goes to Mexico for sex and, we are led to believe, gets to make out with a married friend of his. Remember that.

    Jack wants something else, a life outside of Brokeback Mountain. After years of lying, Alma leaves Ennis. Then, Jack finally confronts his friend with the famous "I don't know how to quit you" line from the trailers. That scene, their final one on the mountain, is unnerving and, ultimately, the most powerful. Jack doesn't want to be kept on a leash, Ennis' little secret. He wants more than just the mountain. It's a tour de force performance for Jake Gyllenhall who, under the inredible aging makeup, has the rage pent up inside him for years. Why can't Ennis let down his guard enough to Jack to love him? Why won't they try to make a life together?

    They part ways, neither one happy with the other and both distraught. We know Ennis loves Jack because, when they came down the mountain the first time and parted company, Ennis broke down and cried on the side of the road. Ennis only comes to life with Jack's around; he has that schoolboy hop to him. Then, something happens. A postcard Ennis sent to Jack comes back with a stamp on it: DECEASED. Ennis calls Jack's wife who dispassionately tells him Jack died when a tire explosed and the rim hit his head.

    Instantly, Ennis pictures Jack being beaten and killed on the side of the road, not unlike Matthew Shepard a couple years ago. The recounting of what happened to Jack occurs in such a clinical, anesptic way that everyone knows the wife is lying. It's the cover story for what really happened. This sends Ennis into a tailspin. He visits Jack's parents, an old couple on a dilapitated ranch. They tell him Jack always mentioned a Brokeback friend of his who would help him repair the ranch. Then they said he found a new friend, presumably the married man from before, who was coming up. Ultimately, they never did.

    Brokeback Mountain is about the worst emotion in the world: loneliness. The loneliness that happens when you know where you want to be, you've been there but you can't have it. The loneliness of knowing no matter what, you can't have what you want because someone continues to deny you and themselves. The lonliness of knowing if we did one thing differently, the world would have proverbially changed. That is what Ennis has to wrestle with for the rest of his life: he let the love of his life walk away because he was scared. That's as simple as I can make it. Loneliness is personified by everything in the film, from the stark nature of Jack's parent's house to the longing look in each man's eyes for the other (and the wife's eyes for their husbands).

    BM is filmed expertly by Ang Lee in that he doesn't call attention to camera moves. And the few "skin" scenes there are (boys, don't start drooling...the movie is shot very tastefully) are done in such a way that the viewer never gets to see anything. While part of me wanted a full on frontal nudity scene or eight ( :) ), that would have detracted from the story.

    This is a powerful movie with no real weak links. Everything came together for this film to become a standout of the year. Let's just hope Oscar doesn't forget about it.


  • Candleshoe (1977)

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Candleshoe  (1977)

    The phrase "70s Disney movie" should be all you need to know about thie Jodie Foster vehicle centering around a little street urchin who is groomed to fool an old lady into thinking she is her long lost granddaughter. Really, this movie isn't deep nor is it a thriller (the search for missing treasure); it is completely by the numbers, the "bad guys" all get is coming to them, Foster has a change of heart that anyone with a brain can see coming an hour or so away, and, worst of all, it seems like every other Disney live action movie ever made.

    Candleshoe borrows from the classic story of Anastasia, as well as Pete's Dragon, Treasure Island and takes it's goofy "fight" scenes from Bedknobs and Broomsticks. The clues to the missing treasure are really the only thing to put any thought into, though Candleshoe does have a nice turn by David Niven as the butler who continually disguises himself as other mansion staff and a friend to the old lady.

    Passable entertainment for the family with no language, skin or real violence to speak of. Neither here nor there, which is unfortunate, because Jodie Foster shows she's always at the top of her game.


  • The Machinist (2003)

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    The Machinist  (2004)

    Now, this is a mind-trip. Made in Spain, The Machinist follows Trevor Reznik (a severely underweight Christian Bale) as he lives through a year without sleeping. He encounters one problem after another: being involved in two work accidents, a load of bloody fish heads in his freezer, a seeming stalker, a demented carnival ride and the aforementioned year without sleep. But it is really a year? We know, in reality, that a person can not survive for very long without sleep, let alone operate a car or heavy machinery without catching a ZZZ here or there. So that begs the question: what is making him think it's been a year? We definately don't see the passage of a year on the screen. Some event is making Trevor hallucinate and believe things that are not real.

    I expected something completely different when I popped The Machinist in the player. I thought it was going to be a serial killer-type thriller, not a psychological thriller. Is it a bad movie? No. Is there some other layer I'm probably not understanding? Most definately. I can mesh a lot of the things Trevor experiences to being a hallucination or daydream of some kind. The one I can't is when he's taking the picture at the carnival. Why does he see someone else? I get that he's placing the mother and child from the end into his life (<-- that's a little oddly put, but I don't want to spoil the end), but from what I remember, he saw someone else in their place also.

    It's shot and acted extremely well. Nothing calls attention to itself, except the lack of any meat on Bale's bones. People, he looks like a skeleton--horrible, nasty, hungry...but real. There is no way this part of the movie would have worked without the actor losing the pounds. It's still grotesque, though.


  • Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    I was morbidly curious about this re-imagining by Tim Burton, considering I can't get certain songs from the original out of my head no matter how much I try. "Cheer Up Charlie", "The Candyman Can" and "Pure Imagination" are the highpoints to the original film, along with the first glimpse of the chocolate room we get. Willy Wonka is not a family film; it's dark, it's potentially scary, it promotes bad behavior. But it is a staple of television.

    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory still isn't a family material. It's supposedly closer to the novel, but in this case, I don't think it's better. To be sure, I think the original movie has zero flaws, no reason to remake it. This seems like Burton threw everything in the same pot just because he could with little regard as to whether he should. Johnny Depp, one of the truly great actors of our time, plays the candy maker so completely over the top that everyone else has to run to keep up. Not just the actors, but also the set designers, the costumers, the visuals...it's like a race. Depp keeps going above and beyond just to see what he can get away with. Frankly, and bluntly, he's a complete freak, from the way he mumbles almost everything, his aversion to children (see the first time they step into the factory) and his general creepiness factor.

    I kept hoping and praying he would break out of "icky" mode at some point; he doesn't. I was hoping we'd get a spiffed up rendition of "Pure Imagination" or something to liven up the entire flick; we don't. Even bringing vibrant colors to the screen after a half hour of depressing gray doesn't help. It's a visual explosion, but like an overdose of candy, it becomes too much for far too long. The major problem is that the entire film wants to say something about father/son relationships. Put bluntly, the storyline doesn't work. It's much more effective as a story about Willy and Charlie (or Wonka and the other children...his punishment of them as a means to changing their behavior). I just don't buy Wonka wants his father's approval that badly or his need for a family. Take out the flashbacks, Christopher Lee's Wonka Sr. and the STUPIDLY insipid ending where the family moves their shack into the factory and there's a good movie there. As is, aggrevatingly below par.


  • Bear Cub (2004)

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Bear Cub  (2004)

    When a very Bear-y Pedro's sister goes on vacation to India, she leaves her young son Bernardo with Pedro. Problem is that Pedro leads a very active social life involving all shapes and sizes of Madrid bears. Predictably, the sister runs into trouble, forcing Pedro and the boy to make a life for themselves.

    UGGHHHHH! This is painfully by the numbers. How many different outcomes could there have been for this film, really? It's a foregone conclusion that Violeta (sister) is going to get into some kind of trouble and leave Bernardo with Pedro. She's a new age hippie-type...someone who apparently does take good care of her son, but also likes the weedier things in life, if you know what I mean. She is god to her son, yet lets him down by running drugs across the border. Exactly why do people do this kind of thing if they have someone counting on them back home I will never understand.

    Then we have the entrance of the estranged grandmother, whose sole purpose is to manufacture drama for the second half of the movie. It's a tale of blackmail (Pedro has an encounter with a man in the park, is photographed and is blackmailed into letting Bernardo go to a boarding school...oh yeah, grandma finds out he has HIV...and uses that to blackmail him too). Despite the obvious manufactured drama, Bear Cub does service a sub-segment of the gay population that we generally don't get to see: bears. You see, it's generally not in vogue to think bigger, hairier men are attractive, let alone long term potential. This film, while it is in Spanish with English subtitles, gives credience to the idea that Americans are far too hung up on looks. This group is happy together. The first time Bernardo meets them they welcome him like they've always known him.

    Pedro, though, isn't a sympathetic character. A friend of his, Manuel, tells him there is a chance that he will be assigned to Madrid for his job. Manuel then tells Pedro he would like to be a couple, live together and all that stuff. Pedro shoots him down because he likes his orgies and one night stands too much. I have to wonder: if Pedro knew he would be faced with taking Bernardo, would he still have said no to Manuel?


  • The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe (2005)

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    Synopsis: Four children (Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy) are sent to safety by their mother during World War II. They travel from Britain to a non-descript manor house inhabited by a reclusive professor and his housekeeper. During a game of hide and seek one day, the youngest child (Lucy) hides inside a wardrobe and it transported to the land of Narnia. There, she meets Tumna, a half-man half fawn creature. He relates to her that the White Witch has plunged Narnia into perpetual winter. Despite spending several hours in Narnia, Lucy returns just seconds after she left. None of the other kids believe her, especially rebellious Edmund. Later, she returns to the wardrobe, followed by Edmund. However, he meets the White Witch, who calls herself the Queen of Narnia. She tempts him with sweets, saying there are more in her castle, which he can have as long as he brings the rest of his family with him. Of course, being the obnoxious selfish kid he is, Edmund agrees. Before long everyone is back in Narnia and embroiled in a civil war, led by Anslen the lion.

    Review: The first thing I have to say is I understand CoN is based on a book and the movie must adhere very strictly to the written word. The second thing I have to say is that the first half hour or so is dreadfully dull. So dull, in fact, that I'm surprised I didn't fall asleep. There's an inordinate amount of talking, exposition, whining, crying and general cantankerous attitudes from all the major players. Whereas the first half hour of Fellowship of the Ring sets up Gandalf, the ring, Frodo, Bilbo and the Hobbits, the first 30 minutes of TLTWaTW is spent moving the kids from Britain to the manor house and getting them into the wardrobe. It's not that the idea is bad (every movie must put its pieces into position) but it's just done in such a way that we never really care about any of the kids.

    Take, for example, the scene where Edmund runs back into their house, which is being bombed, to get his father's picture. Peter scolds him like a child for putting their lives in danger. That should have been the first time we, the audience, felt bad for Edmund. In reality, it was. But from then out, he turns into a little snot who I personally wanted to flog a couple times. There is no need to be mean to his sister Lucy after his first trip to Narnia. I know kids will be mean to one another, but by making her feel worse than she already does, he alienates the audience in such a way that any good feelings toward him we were feeling are summarily gone.

    Remember in The Wizard of Oz when Dorothy and Toto open the door to Munchkinland and the feeling we all got when we saw the beautiful, vibrant landscape of Oz? That's what I was expecting from Narnia. Maybe not the brilliant technicolor of Oz, but something more alive than dreary white snow and, later, a nondescript plain from Braveheart. It doesn't feel majestic or special, just ordinary, except for the talking animals, which are another story entirely. Even the latest installment of Harry Potter felt magical and special in the same way the Lord of the Rings movies did. Narnia, for better or worse, felt like King Kong for me. Not overblown or overlong, just unsure of what it really wants to do.

    However, after the first half hour, with all the kids in Narnia, the story starts to rev its motor. What follows is a chase scene created for a PG family audience between CG wolves, beavers and the kids. Then, we finally meet Anslen, only for him to die and in the greatest "what the ****" moment in recent memory, he comes back to life because the White Witch "misread" ancient writing. You have GOT to be kidding me. I know it's all based on a book, but there is something to be said for a character dying and STAYING DEAD. (Yes, Gandalf came back in LotR and Spock in Star Trek, but Obi-Wan Kenobi died in A New Hope and summarily stayed dead.)

    In the obligatory action finale (which is curiously bloodless and just downright boring), when all seems lost, Anslen rides in with more troops, a la Gandalf in The Two Towers. Alright, enough. The thing that ran through my head throughout the movie is that this is The Return of the King-lite. If Peter Jackson had wanted to make this movie with a PG rating and less than 3 hours, he would have come up with Narnia.

    Another case in point, when he returns with another army, Anslen attacks the White Witch. We see him just toward the camera, presumably onto her, and then nothing else. The assumption is that she is dead, but we don't know that for certain. I know, I know...PG rating. It's just frustrating that something with such potential was wasted.

    Everyone made this out to be some great flick that reflects Christianity and Jesus. I was looking for this theme the entire time and an argument can be made that Anslen's "resurrection" was Christ-like while Edmund's betrayal of his brother (and sisters) was also Biblical. But if you're not thinking on that track, you're not going to see it. This is not The Passion of the Christ from last year; like I said before, this is Lord of the Rings-lite.

    One last point, the ending in which the grown up kids find their way back into the wardrobe after "forgetting" about it is bogus. It is the ultimate cop out in that we have spent the better part of the picture freeing this place with these characters and we're supposed to stomach they conveniently "forgot" about their former home? Are you kidding me? And the give up their kingdoms (they fulfill prophecies...) to return home without telling ANYONE...and then they're magically kids all over again? I don't think so.

    This is just banal, family-friendly entertainment that suits the people who can't stomach a little blood or are too pious to sit and watch something like LotR with the rest of us. Insulting, pedantic and ultimately a forgettable movie.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<June 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
25262728293031
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293012345


Categories
 


Advertisement