Frem Here To Awesome Festival
Advertisement

Reel Thoughts

  • Revisiting the Ratings System

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

    A while back, I wrote a blog about how I work my ratings.  I think I have to revise it because, of late, I've been using ".5" ratings, so I feel a bit more explanation is called for.  Here's the excerpt from the last entry, posted in November 2006, and the expansion follows:

     

    You also may have noticed, if you read my blog, that I refer to something called "the test."  The test is what I use to determine whether or not the film is so good, I'll actually be buying it.  This is my personal test and sometimes has nothing to do with the rating.  I may love a movie but decide that I can't buy it because I know I won't rewatch it.  I may not be as impressed with a movie but still decide to buy it because I already have the first two damn movies, so why the hell not (think X-Men and the Matrix).  I may just find a movie for cheap, even if I wasn't planning to buy it beforehand, like the Untouchables.  The test refers to whether I can see myself watching it repeatedly.  I tend to own movies that aren't so artsy and important, but I have a few.

    So, without further adieu, then, here is my, pippin06's, patented, registered trademarked and copyrighted rating system.  That's right, I said this rating system is copyrighted, so go find your own!  Or, just ask nicely and give some credit where credit is due.

    On a scale of 10 to 1:

    10 - The movie is perfection, or as I like to call it, a masterpiece!  There's nothing wrong that I can see, and I defy anyone to try.  Movies I have rated as masterpieces: Walk the Line, To Kill a Mockingbird, Lord of the Rings, Good Night, and Good Luck, Gladiator, Crouching Tiger, and so on.

    9 - The movie is not quite perfect, but it has very little wrong with it.  Chances are, it is at least perfectly entertaining.  Movies I have rated as "perfectly entertaining": Love Actually, Bridget Jones' Diary, Chicago, Scent of a Woman, Oklahoma!, Cars, and so on.

    8 - The movie has minor flaws but is still very good.  Many of the films in my filmblog have received 8's or "very goods."

    7 - The movie has some major flaws, or the work of the film is shaky, but I still felt entertained watching it.  I rated the DaVinci Code as "shaky", for example.

    6 - The film is flawed to the point of mediocrity, but it had something about it I liked, so I tend to call it "cute."  Often, "cute" films have recycled plots, such as predictable romantic comedies or the rash of CGI films that aren't very good lately.  I gave Elizabethtown and Two Weeks' Notice 6's.

    5 - The film is utter mediocrity.  It's not horrible, but it can't be called good, though it was a decent effort.  I rated films like The Kid, Wedding Crashers, and the Pink Panther as "mediocre."

    4 - Fair, or less than mediocre.  These films were based on good or intriguing ideas, but the idea was not pulled off at all.  I gave Unbreakable a "fair."  I still hold to that to this day.  Nothing can convince me that Samuel L. Jackson was a good casting choice for that flick.

    3 - This is what I call the "what'choo talkin bout Willis" rating, or simply, the WTF category.  The concept is nonsensical or preposterous; the filmmaking does not make up for it; the concept, therefore, is lost and so is the movie.  I can't remember a recent movie I gave a 3 to, so I'll have to think about this one.

    2 - This film can only be called Bad.  There's nothing else to say other than don't bother with the rental.  Pauly Shore movies tend to get 2's from me.

    1 - This rating is rare but is subtitled, "So bad that anyone involved in this movie should be shot."  Sorority Boys is a good example of this type of movie.  I don't usually go there, but sometimes it has to be done.

    [end quote]

    Like I said, lately, I've been expanding to "half" ratings.  I've been using the .5's because sometimes, I think the movie tends to fall in between two of my ratings.  Let's take the Prestige, which I gave a 7.5.  Based on my initial definitions, an 8 is minor flaws and a 7 is shaky/major flaws but still entertaining.  I kind of saw the Prestige as having more than minor flaws but maybe one or two major flaws, and I was entertained in a way.  I didn't think it fair to rate the movie either one, so I landed in the middle.

    Clerks II (another recent example) I rated a 5.5.  It was a shy better than utterly mediocre, but I didn't find donkey sex or the rest of it "cute."  I laughed some, so I felt the half point was more reflective.

    So, if you're wondering, that's where the ratings system has come, since everything must necessarily evolve.  Plus, if you're new to this blog, this is a more recent reminder of the meanings behind the ratings.  Oh, and yes, I'm a nerd like that.

    Thank you for your time.


  • My Feet Aren't That Happy

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

    Happy Feet  (2006)

    Happy Feet came to me by way of that co-worker who owns a gajillion movies and lends them out to people, particularly me.  I told her I wanted to borrow this one because it won the Best Animated Feature Oscar, so I thought it had the potential to be really cute and kind of original and worth my time, and she thinks it's a cute movie too.  I mean, the name "Happy Feet" and a cute-looking penguin on the DVD cover were extremely inviting elements to me, and I thought I'd be left with happy feet of my own.

    If you recall, Happy Feet was up against Cars and Monster House in the relevant Oscar category.  The feeling I'm left with is that this movie was mediocre, kind of boring, and definitely not the movie to which I would have given the Oscar, of the three available nominees.  Cars and Monster House were both superior films on every level, and after viewing this movie, I can't for the life of me fathom why Oscar decided to favor the penguins.  Perhaps it really was a snub on Pixar.  We'll see what happens when Ratatouille gets its inevitable Oscar nomination for this category.

    In this, the Oscar-winning movie, Mumble (voiced by Elijah Wood - Frodo!) is an Emperor Penguin who, unlike other Emperor Penguins, can't find his heartsong.  See, apparently Emperor penguins are driven by mating calls that resemble well-known popular tunes.  Who knew?  Yet,  I digress.  Anyway, it seems his dad, Memphis (Hugh Jackman, in an obvious nod to Elvis) dropped poor Mumble during the gestation period, when the father penguins are responsible for caring for the eggs while the mother penguins are off fishing.  When Mumble hatched, he found he couldn't sing a lick, but yet, he couldn't stop dancing.  Tap dancing, no less, which, lo and behold, is very unpenguin-like.  And while his mother Norma Jean (Nicole Kidman, in an obvious nod to Marilyn Monroe) and potential love interest Gloria (Brittany Murphy) can find it in their hearts to forgive him this quirk, Memphis and the rest of the penguin clan (including an elder voiced by Hugo Weaving) accuse him of being responsible for depleting the fish with his odd ways.  So, Mumble, with the help of other penguins who are apparently Latin, and with the exception of Robin Williams and another Al Sharpton-like penguin named Lovelace, also voiced by Robin Williams, set out to win back Mumble's rightful place in his little penguin colony and find out why "aliens" are stealing the fish.  Or something like that.

    Do I sound kind of disdainful?  Well, I kind of am.  This movie had the potential to be really good, and there were some very realistic CGI renderings of penguin movement, but I was completely snoozi-fied (it deserves this made-up word) by this movie.  I fought to stay awake and kept thinking that this must be animation's equivalent of Moulin Rouge, with a score and soundtrack yanked, if not stolen, from popular culture and dizzying penguin dancing and Nicole Kidman to boot.  I really was very uninterested in little Mumble's plight, even though the point of the movie is really to listen to one's own heart and celebrate individuality, a worthy message if nothing else.

    Little children will probably like this movie.  The Latino penguins are kind of funny, and there's slapsticky penguin antics galore, but the film was short on dialogue; the dialogue used was a bit stunted; and there was nothing truly original or breathtaking about the animation.

    Which prompts me to cry foul! (or fowl!) at Oscar for picking this film over the brilliantly animated Monster House or the brilliantly written Cars.  What were they thinking?  That penguins are cool, so they should just pick the penguins?  Oscar disappoints again, not that this is a new concept or mode of behavior for the Academy.  I might go start a discussion in the Oscar group (request membership!).

    For now, I rate Happy Feet an undanceable 5 for utterly mediocre because that's what I'm left with.  As such, it does not pass the test.  I was not even a bit amused by this movie.  Maybe if I had children, I would one day change my mind and buy it for them.  The movie is largely unobjectionable and is probably an enjoyable family movie.  Currently, I'd rather watch movies about non-dancing penguins or other movies about cars, people-eating houses, and rats.  Those movies are what make me, and my feet, happy.


  • The Pledge Intriguing, the Turn Effective, the Prestige Predictable

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

    The Prestige  (2006)

    Don't get me wrong from the title of this entry.  I liked the Prestige.  I liked the misdirection and twists and turns that director Christopher Nolan visits upon the viewer.  It was a great Saturday-afternoon, sit-on-the-couch and eat popcorn rental.  I was looking forward to this movie because I'm such a fan of Nolan, but ultimately, I can't say this was his best effort.  This movie was slow and predictable, even if the path to the predictable outcome was not as predictable as the outcome itself.  That is to say, the movie was one grand illusion with it's setup (the pledge) and its misdirection (the turn).  Yet, the inevitable outcome (the prestige) I actually saw coming.  It was one of the few movies where I smelled the ending a mile off, and it took such time to get there, I was ultimately unimpressed.  What's more, the movie was released at or around the time of the release of the Illusionist, which contained similar plot elements but, I thought, was an ultimately better movie (though ultimately just as predictable).  I guess I'm so jaded that magicians' tricks don't work on me so well.  Unless done by David Copperfield.  That's another story.

    Rupert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) are top-notch illusionists who succumb to a bitter rivalry, endlessly envious of each other's abilities. This rivalry culminates when a trick of Borden's leads indirectly to the death of Angier's wife, once their beautiful assistant.  The two then spend the entire movie trying to delve into each other's secrets, particularly each's individual take on the "Transporting Man," though each strike upon the other becomes a more serious and more harmful plot of revenge.  The title comes from the explanation provided by Michael Caine's character, which indicates that each magic trick is comprised of three parts to which I've already cheekily referred: the setup or the Pledge, the misdirection or the Turn, and the payoff or the Prestige.  At the beginning of the movie, we see Borden on trial for the murder of Angier.  Flashbacks follow to set one up for the ultimate conclusion, and each flashback is punctuated by Angier or Borden's individual quest to best their rival, though Angier is painted as the more obsessed of the two (though Borden is apparently the more violent).  Along the way, they meet David Bowie, Andy Serkis (aka Gollum), and Scarlett Johansson, an erstwhile lover and assistant first to Angier, and then to Borden (at Angier's curious, obsession-fueled request).

    This movie was smartly filmed and never pandered to the viewing audience, which I appreciated.  Nolan is the master of subtlety, and that subtlety was evident here.  Hints and clues were sprinkled into each flashback.  I love this director (and screenwriter) because non-linear storytelling seems to be his specialty and makes it appealing when my logical brain ultimately prefers linear storytelling.  Memento was a superb movie and one of my favorites. 

    I think I started to get bored when the story attempted to humanize, albeit in a cursory, almost obligatory manner, the two lead characters.  Magicians are people too, naturally, but these two magicians were less concerned with humanism than with their individual obsessions.  Yet, they were presented in such a way as to try to force you to sympathize with one character or the other depending upon the flashback at hand.  I guess I got bored with the ping-pong in that respect; the movie lost me when it tried to depict each character's failed attempts at being something more than magicians.  I don't know if the actors or the director are to blame, but I ultimately felt no sympathy, at all, for either one and did not care what happened to either of them by the end of the movie.  If that was the intention of the film, then it succeeded admirably, but I don't enjoy a movie where I am supposed to decide (or not) what is the lesser of two evils.  If it was not the intention of the film, if it was all just an aim at cinematic illusion to match the obsessions of the two primary characters, then I was simply unimpressed by the trick.  Yet, I still enjoyed the story and, to some extent, the ride.

    I think I have to rate the Prestige a 7.5, somewhere between "shaky" and "minor flaws/very good."  So, it's more like a "good" without the "very."  As for my test, I don't think that it passes, unless I could buy it for, say, 5 bucks.  I loved the idea and was intrigued by the movie, but it left me feeling less than awestruck in the end, and that was a bit disappointing.  Still, with my love for Nolan, I may change my mind.  Maybe I was in no mood for magic tricks when I decided to watch this film.


  • Haunting, Stunning, and Beautiful

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

    Pan's Labyrinth  (2006)

    Argh.  I had this whole review written, and the Spout site lost it in the saving process.  I will have to rewrite it and will edit this post when I'm not as frustrated by the fact that it was lost.

    The moral: I did love this movie.  Details to come.

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

    Ok.  I'll try to remember what I wrote.  Essentially, I had been wanting to see Pan's Labyrinth for awhile now, ever since the Oscars and noticing the film's many awards and nominations. I hadn't had the chance until last night; it was a rental.  I can say that it was definitely worth the wait (and I wish I'd seen it sooner).  This movie was visually stunning, and the story was of an emotional brilliance that haunts you long after the credits roll.  I think anyone who walked into this movie expecting children's fairy tales was gravely mistaken, and, frankly, I don't know how where that perception was created.  I knew always that this was a dark fantasy, but the darkness did not overwhelm.  It was presented as a parallel to the fantasy world, and the two storylines juxtaposed created a multilayered, multitextured cinematic experience that I absolutely loved.

    Ofelia is a 12 year old who loves fairy tales (I immediately connected with this character.  I'm still there, and I'm 30).  She escapes to these stories in light of the fact that her pregnant mother is transporting her to the Spanish countryside to live with her sadistic, trigger-happy stepfather, a loyalist general in the Spanish Civil War.  Here, Ofelia encounters Pan, a guardian of an underworld kingdom, who informs Ofelia that she is actually the embodiment of an immortal princess, awaited by her true father, the king of this mystical kingdom.  In order to prove her identity and royal birthright and to open the portal to this new world, Ofelia must complete three dangerous tasks, all while suffering the scorn of her misogynistic stepfather, captain Vidal, and while distracted by the fatal complications of her mother's pregnancy and the resurgent force attacking the captain led in secret by his primary servant, and Ofelia's friend, Mercedes.

    First, the performances in this piece were breathtaking.  The young actress who played Ofelia was mesmerizing, and the woman who played Mercedes was equally enchanting.  They drew me in from the first.

    The visual effects, cinematography, and aesthetic presentation of this movie were beautiful.  What I particularly enjoyed was how the light and darkness were used to eschew the viewers' perspective.  Pan only came out at night, for example, while evil Captain Vidal tortured captors in broad daylight.  The photography of sunlit woods and the interior of a decaying fig tree was masterful and served to blend fantasy and reality effectively, making it as fluid and seamless a world as possible.  The blue hue of the darker scenes punctuated that dream-like quality. 

    The most impressive and captivating element of this story, though, was how the fantasy could be interpreted as real events, happening to Ofelia though unbeknownst to anyone she knew, or could be interpreted as true fantasy, living hallucinations that Ofelia escaped to in lieu of the war and despair around her.  The movie left enough open to interpretation where the viewer can choose the vantage point that best suits them because I do not think there is meant to be a right or wrong answer here.  What the viewer does come to realize is that these events are real to Ofelia, real enough to define her existence, which creates a lovely message when considered more deeply.

    This is my first Guillermo del Toro film, and now, I'm thoroughly interested in exploring others.  I personally felt that this film was nothing short of a masterpiece, so for that reason, I rate the film a 10 (for masterpiece)!  Also, it totally passes the test.   I would love to watch this movie more than once, though the graphic violence was a bit hard to watch (it served a purpose, but it was very graphic).  I loved this film at any rate and would gladly add this to my fantasy collection because it was such a beautiful film in every labrythine way.


  • I Wasn't Supposed to Be Here Today

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

    Clerks II  (2006)

    More confessions: I am also a Kevin Smith fan.  Not a big one.  I own the original five View Askiewniverse films.  Some are better than others.  I tend to rate them, my favorite to least favorite, in this order: Dogma, the original Clerks, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Mallrats, Chasing Amy.  Say what you want about Jay and Bob Strike Back, but I thought it was a fitting end (or what I thought was the end) of this odd assortment of films, which celebrate male insecurities, fanboyism, and vulgarity in ways that should not appeal to me, yet they do.  Some of the films broached complicated subjects (faith in Dogma, love and sex in Chasing Amy), while others were pure joyrides of testosterone (Jay and Bob).  Yet, what charms me, a female, about Kevin Smith and his unique sense of humor is the balance he strikes between the vulgar and mundane with the intelligent, witty, astute, and even tender or sentimental.  Jay and Bob are comic relief, but they have heart, can be gentle, and are the arguably iconic characters that tie the whole thing together.  It seemed appropos to end with them getting their "motherf---ing movie check "and going about their pointless, drug dealing, sex-starved lives.

    Apparently, K. Smitty had other ideas in mind.  I guess he felt no closure about Dante and Randal, characters introduced in the original Clerks, which is now kind of a classic in its own right.  Either that, or the tanking of Jersey Girl and the apparent limits of Kev's imagination (and of his financial security) prompted him to revisit these characters, Jay and Bob in tow, for whatever it was worth in the end.  Confoundingly, in the introduction on the DVD, Smith says this is his favorite film of the View Askiewniverse.  After renting the movie as a fan but with reasonably low expectations, I don't see how he can say that, and I'm being as non-critical as possible given the sort of film he typically creates.

    Ten years later, Dante is still a counter-jockey at the Quick Stop, while Randal is still overseeing the neighboring video store.  That is, until the strip mall catches fire (Randal's fault of course).  Pan to one year later, and the two friends have been trying to forage ahead as thirtysomethings in the fast food industry (hello Mooby).  Jay and Bob have followed them; Jay's apparently found rehab and God but is otherwise the same smartass he always was, and the two stoners stalk Dante and Randal at their new jobs.  Dante (who was never supposed to be here today!) is engaged to Emma, played by Kevin Smith's real-life wife Jennifer Schwalbach-Smith, a woman he doesn't really love, and is about to move with her to Florida at the behest of her parents.  He must, thus, cope with his last day at Mooby Burger, pestered by Randal and mooning over his erstwhile one-night stand and true love, manager Becky (Rosario Dawson).  In the meantime, there's this weird kid named Elias who's really in love with the Lord of the Rings, sex with a donkey, and random cameo appearances by K. Smitty's friends, including Ben Affleck and Jason Lee, staples of his previous movies.

    Much has happened since 1994, and it's this lapse of time that really renders the whole movie a stale exercise in growing up, albeit a little late and unconvincingly.  What made the original Clerks such a good movie was the fact that these two characters became voices of Generation X from opposite sides of the spectrum.  The movie was largely dialogue-driven, shot as it was for a few thousand dollars and during the night shift of Kev's former employer, the QuickStop. While sometimes vulgar, the film actually contained witticisms, pointed nuggets of wisdom, and critiques about being a 20-something in the 90s.  Also, who can forget Randal's semi-iconic waxing about how Return of the Jedi is superior to the Empire Strikes Back (he disagrees with Dante by saying "blasphemy") and how he feels sorry for the as-yet unfinished and ultimately destroyed second Death Star workers and officers, who were no doubt there on contract to make a buck and without any true allegiance to the Empire or Rebellion ("innocent bystanders in a galactic war").

    Clerks II has none of the originality of the first film, and though it's a sequel, it doesn't adhere to any of the rules (more is better, recycle as much as you can).  Dante and Randal, and the actors who portray them, are washed up.  Kevin's wife is not a convincing actress.  There's not much said about being a 30-something in the new millenium, other than what expectations are versus what reality is.  There's one sincerely funny exchange between Randal and a fanboy played in cameo by Alias' Kevin Weisman, who comes to Elias' defense about the Lord of the Rings, much to Randal's chagrin, who believes the only true trilogy is that of the original Star Wars (this is an argument I really don't feel comfortable taking sides on myself).  There's a cringeworthy exchange on what constitutes a racial slur, a dicey subject, even if endorsed by Wanda Sykes, who also appeared in cameo.  Otherwise, I didn't really laugh.  It was not funny like other Smith films have struck me, and that alone was the most disappointing part.

    Plus, we never learned what happened to certain characters.  We assume Caitlin Bree is scarred for life after having sex with a dead guy in the QuickStop bathroom in the last movie, but no further word?  What happened with Veronica? 

    And I have to and hate to say: sober Jason Mewes or sober Jay, if you can separate the two, is simply not as funny as his drug-addled counterpart.  His impression of Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs was not really all that funny as much as creepy.  Silent Bob also did not have much to say when he finally did talk, and if this was Kevin Smith's favorite film of his, then I would like to know why he didn't bring more to the table?

    All in all, this feels like an exercise in underselling oneself and selling out in a way.  These characters should have been left alone.  Happy endings abound, but I didn't feel satisfied after watching it, and I wonder if K. Smitty can concentrate on a truly original idea in the future rather than trying to eek more from a well that's clearly run dry.

    Is this scathing?  I don't know.  I do know that I rate Clerks II a 5.5, between utterly mediocre (I mean, it was funnier than Wedding Crashers) and cute (because it tried to be cute but kind of failed).  Does it pass the test?  I don't know.  I own all of the other ViewAskiew movies, and I kind of want to keep it complete, but I'm not in any rush to buy this movie or to watch it again.  It fell flat, which explains why it didn't do so well in the theater.  Maybe it wasn't even supposed to be here today.


 


Advertisement