Slay's Reviews

I can see your reasoning with that point. However, there are people in real life that, by their very mannerisms, are comic relief. With Zellweger's character, I could easily believe that that is just the way she is naturally, so I didn't feel distracted. With Hoffman, I agree with you more. Even under duress, he was comedic by nature, and that was less believable. But he wasn't like that always...the tree for example. I don't know it's been over a week since I've seen it. I thought he did admirably. Portman is the only character that made my heart hurt though, she was a shining moment in the film. I haven't seen her do so well since all the way back to Leon. I'm glad you enjoyed the film, Kong.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

I actually really enjoyed Zellweger and Hoffman in this. Sure, they weren't completely on the same note as the rest of the movie, but I liked seeing them very much on the screen.

__________________
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" - Howard Beale

Zellweger for sure was enjoyable. Kong wasn't criticizing her at all. It's the way the parts were written that Kong didn't like. Hoffman never quite overcame the writing, but Zellweger did.

__________________
Kong's Reviews:
Stuck On You
Bad Santa

THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT **



Let me begin by saying that I am not an Ashton Kutcher fan. Actually, I was the president of the “I hate Ashton Kutcher Club.” Well, not really, but you get the point. I went to see The Butterfly Effect more out of curiosity than any real desire to see the film. Could Kutcher actually pull off a role where he was to be taken seriously? Could he actually be believable as an intelligent human being? Would he say, “Dude”? I wanted, so very much, for all the answers to be negative because I really, really, don’t like him. Though he wasn’t that great, he wasn’t that awful either. I was thoroughly surprised to say the least.

The Butterfly Effect is a time travel story with a twist. Instead of traveling in time physically, Evan Treborn (Kutcher) can somehow travel back inhabiting his own body and manipulate events in his life, which have effects on the people around him as well. The story begins with his childhood, where strange things happen to him that no one is able to figure out. Strange fugue states make his life difficult but not entirely unlivable. Later in life, when he is in college, he tries to find the reasoning behind these blackouts and stumbles onto his talent. I say stumble because his ability is never explained, even though it shows him on the road of enlightenment.

Evan’s main motive for going back in time is to fix the things that he had done wrong that may have led to the tragedy involving the first, and only, girl he has ever loved (Amy Smart). It is through his compassion for her that a series of events transpire that prove that he has not the wisdom to play God, though he keeps trying when things go from bad to worse.

There are a lot of things wrong with this movie, first and foremost is the fact that the entire theory behind the time traveling doesn’t work. The way that he does it and the effects that are generated are implausible at best. I don’t mean that time traveling itself is implausible, but the effects of it portrayed in this movie contradict each other from scene to scene. Whether Eric Bress and J. Mackye Gruber, who both wrote and directed the film, didn’t see these contradictions, didn’t care, or thought the audience would not be swift enough to catch on, is something to be debated. All I know is that it just doesn’t work. I won’t go into detail here because it would ruin the movie, but if you stop to think about it after seeing the film, you will probably find that these contradictions are quite apparent.

Another thing wrong with this film is that none of the actors involved are very good. Ashton Kutcher has about as much talent as a bag of paint chips, and Amy Smart in her different guises are about as believable as Satan on a snowboard. The other two central characters affected by Evan’s foibles are equally bad, regardless of what age group they belong to. All four characters are shown at eight, thirteen, and adult ages, and all are mediocre at best. I don’t wish to be needlessly cruel, but no matter how intense a scene was supposed to be, I could feel absolutely nothing. There is a scene where Amy Smart screams and cries and flails her arms about, but there isn’t a single tear in her eye. Not even a promise of one. I thought I was watching some has-been TV show from the eighties the acting was so poor. Nevertheless, I will give it a single mark in its favor because I could tell they were all doing their best. Call me a softy. Actually, there was one aspect of Kutcher’s character that was totally believable, that is that he is a wuss. Throughout the movie he gets his ass kicked, runs away, and begs people to protect him. It makes me wonder if that was the only part of the character Kutcher could relate to. Who knows? But in this movie he would have ran away from a cross-dressing Nazi dwarf killing a puppy.

So, I’m sure you’re wondering, “Apart from the poor acting and the ridiculous concept, what else did you love about it?” The answer to that is that it ended. Okay, okay, I’m being a bit harsh. To be honest, I don’t think I walked away any dupister than I already am, and I did find that I actually did enjoy it a bit, and above all…you can really tell that everybody involved with this project tried his or her best. It was a bit of a failure, but I’m going to give it a “fair” review because of the effort put into it. There were a lot of things I didn’t like about it, but there is one important thing that I did like. Ashton Kutcher didn’t say, “Dude!” Not even once.

Dude... that was one good review...



Sorry, I couldn't resist...

__________________

Thanks for the Butterfly thingy review, but i will wait until it comes on pay tv.

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

I understand. U bitches must do 'dat ***** sometimes.

Thake this......from one of the "U Bitches"

Great review, Ashton is terrible again it seems, and I want some cool smilies like Neb has!

__________________

Brian I love your reviews alot. Though, with The Butterfly Effect, I have been waiting to it see for a long while now. I am going to have to wait and see it to then then, come back to your review.

THE BIG BOUNCE **½



From the mind of Elmore Leonard (Get Shorty, Out of Sight), comes the next adaptation from one of his many novels. Directed by George Armitage (Grosse Pointe Blank, Miami Blues), The Big Bounce is another story of who is scamming who and who can you trust. This one is set in the lush tropics of Hawaii where nary a cloud shows its face and only the beautiful reside.

Jack Ryan (Owen Wilson) is a construction worker and a part time thief. After a problem with a co-worker (Vinnie Jones), he finds himself out of a job and wondering where his next score will come from. Meanwhile, the foxy Nancy Hayes (Sara Foster) bides her time as a mistress to the wealthy, and previously boss of Jack, construction mogul Ray Ritchie (Gary Sinise). Nancy knows where Ray stashes his laundered money on its way to oversea accounts and all she needs is a partner to get it, fortunately there’s Jack.

What makes matters a bit, if not a lot, difficult are the presences of Judge Walter Crewes (Morgan Freeman) and Ray’s right hand man, Bob Rogers, Jr. (Charlie Sheen). Both of these men routinely get in the way of Jack and Nancy’s plans, though one does it unwittingly and one may, or may not, have ulterior motives of his own. That’s the whole plot of The Big Bounce; that no one knows who is part of a scam, or even a larger scam, and that betrayal may be around the corner at all times, but no one knows from which direction, or if at all, it may come.

I liked The Big Bounce, but not nearly as much as I like Get Shorty, Out of Sight and Jackie Brown. The predecessors are much wittier and smarter over all, and show themselves of having much richer plot lines. There isn’t as much pizzazz with The Big Bounce compared to the other movies, with their other directors and screenwriters, and the dialogue was kind of blasé to boot. I remember having a better sense of timing and delivery listening to the conversations with the older films, yet the lack of these things didn’t make me dislike it at all. Even though it is flat in comparison, it does well with what it has to offer, or at least well enough. I would consider The Big Bounce a perfect date movie. Even if you miss something, you still can follow along well enough. It also delivers some funny moments, but nothing like Travolta knocking a bad-ass bodyguard down a flight of stairs.

As far as the acting is concerned, no one can ever say that Morgan Freeman has ever given anything but a worthy performance in his career, and even though I’m not a huge fan of Owen Wilson’s slow delivery, he does quite well as a down and out petty thief and ladies man. If there is a weakness as far as acting, it belongs to Sara Foster. She is absolutely one of the sexiest con women in modern film, but there is absolutely no depth to her performance. It seems that she is not only eye candy, but ear candy as well. Most of her performance is silly girl with a motive. I assume that she would need to be much sharper, when it comes to dialogue, if she is to be the central, and smartest, scammer among the lot. However, she is the only character that seems to never have anything deep to say. It’s kind of a let down. But me, being a red-blooded man, forgave her easily since she is just so entertaining to look at.

Overall, The Big Bounce is a fun, light-hearted film, that doesn’t have much depth, but has texture. Even though it doesn’t have a lot to say, it says what it does have with a little flair, and a lot of fun.

MONSTER ****



Monster is an intimate look at Aileen Carol Wuornos’ (Charlize Theron) transformation from victim to victimizer, and also a realistic look into the mind of a serial killer. Raised in a home of constant abuse until the tender age of thirteen when she is thrown away like so much trash, Aileen turned to prostitution, the only profession that offered her any hope of survival. Years later, she sits on the side of a freeway where she decides that she’s had enough and is ready to commit suicide. What saves her and condemns 7 men to their deaths is the chance encounter with the only person to say, “I love you” and to mean it. Selby Wall (Christina Ricci) is that person, a lonely young woman who is desperate to escape her religious zealot father who wants to cure her from her homosexuality. Their meeting is the beginning of the end for Aileen who sees Selby as a way out of her destiny, and will do anything to keep her.

There are three things that I feel need comment in this film, the first being the fact that the ever lovely Theron turns in her most powerful performance to date. Not only does this role prove that she has the chops to play the meatier roles, but it also shows how Oscar worthy she really is. Theron has usually been cast as second fiddle to the male lead in just about every movie she has ever been in. She’s also usually glamorously beautiful, but without much depth. I’m not saying that’s her fault, but that’s the work she seems to be offered more often than not. However, in this movie she is a powerhouse. Not once did I see an actress up on the screen, I saw Wuornos. The realism that she lent to the role is phenomenal given the range of emotions that Wuornos went through during her time with Selby. There is a scene near the end where Aileen tries to tell Selby that she didn’t mean for things to turn out the way they did, and she can barely get the words conveyed through the racking sobs that she can’t stop. It seemed voyeuristic watching that. Like I was accidentally eavesdropping on a conversation that I wasn’t invited to be privy to. That’s just how real she was.

Secondly, there have been a number of reviews and comments on how poorly Ricci did with her role. I couldn’t disagree more. She has been accused of being wooden and insincere portraying the emotions of Selby. Again, I couldn’t disagree more. I believe she played the role perfectly. Selby was never in love with Aileen as much as Aileen was in love with Selby. Aileen saw Selby as her savior, the person that gave her life a meaning, and brought her back from the edge, for that reason she fell in love completely with the force of a charging bull. Selby, however, saw Aileen as a person that could rescue her from a tedious life and give her some excitement. I believe that Selby was more in love with the idea of adventure than she ever was with Aileen herself. I think she may have thought she loved her, but it was never as powerful as Aileen’s love for her.

The last thing I’d like to touch on is the reasoning for the title. Some have said it is Aileen’s moniker because she was a killer, while others have said it was named after the roller coaster she mentions in the movie. I have a different idea of why the name was chosen. I wonder if the title is really a question and not a statement after all. Monster does a superb job at showing us the making of a killer. Aileen wasn’t born bad, but with a life that had never shown her a break from abject misery, she was led down the path to hell, rather, shoved down. Even during her killing spree, we can see that she isn’t evil in the way you would say someone like Hitler was. She is full of despair, anguish, and a deep rooted rage. Being shown how human Aileen was may be hard to accept, because if we acknowledge that circumstances in her life made her the way she was, then how fair is it to call her a monster? She was really just a person, not too different from you or I, but the life led was amazingly different. How would we have turned out if we were dealt the harshest cards imaginable like Aileen was? Sometimes, to make matters even worse, people are born with chemical imbalances in their brain that causes them to behave violently. It may be their nature because of this defect to behave that way, but is that really their fault either? This is a difficult topic for many people because in order to accept it, they would have to humanize even the worst people known in history. Maybe it is easier to just call her Monster.

READ ANOTHER REVIEW OF MONSTER BY LONER, HERE

THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE ****



Thank you Sylvain Chomet! You just gave me one of the most enjoyable movie theater experiences ever!

The Triplets of Belleville tells the story of a grandmother’s desperate rescue of her grandson, who is kidnapped to help a mafia boss make a killing in the betting industry. On her journey she meets the triplets, a musical troupe that was all the rage from what appears to be the twenties and thirties. It’s hard to tell when and where everything, and everybody, actually belongs, because it all is so unique and completely original. It’s as if I was watching a story set in a parallel universe that merely resembles our own. If there is any other animated film style that resembles the style used here, I would have say that Ralph Bakshi’s brand of animation would be the closest. Some have compared it to early Disney and Looney Tunes, but I only saw that in the opening sequence, which is a black and white showing of the triplets in their heyday. After that, it loses any similarities all together.

To call the film a comedy is a vast understatement because it is so much more. Some of it is sick, some of it is twisted, then all of a sudden you find it endearingly cute. It tends to not settle for any particular trend and just runs the gambit of all genres. I was literally stunned by the vast array of styles used in interpreting the story to the screen. It is luscious and barren at times, and completely defies any stereotype that could possibly be attributed to it. One moment I was so charmed by Bruno the lovable dog that I was feeling all warm and fuzzy, then the next scene comes on where the triplets are licking frozen frogs on a stick making me feel kind of creeped out. I liked the way they made a number of the characters animal like, and then made others completely inhuman.

One of the strengths of the film is that there is so little dialogue. Never in the history of Disney movies has that ever been attempted. There is perhaps only 30 words spoken in the entire movie, Chomet completely respects the audience by doing it this way. Another major strength is the music. It’s absolutely enchanting. I’ve never really heard music quite like this before. It’s melodious, lovely, and at the same time, eerie. All I can say is that all the people who worked on this project really knew what the hell they were doing and made a masterpiece that is in a class of its own. In the history of animated film, there is nothing out there quite like this.

I wholeheartedly recommend this film to everybody. You will never see a film like this again, unless Chomet decides to get the same group together again to work some more cinema magic.

An incredible, insightful, thoughtful review. hey, where did that one come from, I haven't read that one yet I am talking about 'Monster' LordyLord, this will look an odd post, oh what the heck.

Hey Brian, what a outstanding review on Monster. It has to be the best one I have read in this forum! Why?? Well, I have seen Monster and I love the film. Your review is totally outspoken about it and I agree with Neb'....insightful and thoughtful

Awesome review Bri... Thank you… I am definitely going to see this one…

Bri...when I read your review for Monster last night I thought 'Wow', your review is amazing. You're fabulous at this. Unfortunately, I'll probably have to wait to see this movie on video whenever it's released.

I like your review of The Triplets of Belleville as well. I'll definately try to see this on the big screen. I don't get out much to the theater, but I love animation and you just wet my appetite to see it.

Thanks for taking the time to write such great reviews Bri. You have a real talent for this.

DIRTY PRETTY THINGS ***½



Okwe (Chiwetel Ejiofor), an illegal immigrant from Nigeria, and Senay (Audrey Tautou), a Turk with a temporary visa, both try to make ends meet working in a posh hotel in downtown London. Senór Juan (Sergi López) runs the hotel in a way that invites prostitution and other varieties of minor crime, anything to keep the customers happy. But when Okwe attempts to fix an overflowing toilet, he happens to find that a human heart is the source of the problem and soon discovers that there is more than minor crime happening in the hotel. Okwe is a man with moral integrity, so when Juan tells him to forget what he found, he is unable to, and instead begins an investigation to uncover the truth.

I really enjoyed this film. It is a bittersweet tale and Director Stephen Frears (The Grifters, High Fidelity) doesn’t follow the thriller standard by including any car chases, guns, or sex. What he relies on is exceptional story telling and the strengths of the actors. Instead of being flashy, it is quiet, but there is still a modest intensity as the story unravels.

Ejiofor is an exceptional actor. I hope that because of his work in this movie that he will get more starring roles. He certainly proved to me that he could carry a film. There is so much that he can convey without words just by the expression that he wears. He plays a man with a past who works hard for a motive he won’t share, that is, until his friendship with Senay strengthens and he feels compelled to tell the truth.

Tautou, who was so charming in Amélie, delivers a worthy performance of a desperate woman who only dreams of making it to America. Everybody wants to use her, with the exception of Okwe, and struggles with everything she has until, in a desperate act, she caves and agrees to something she should never have considered. Fortunately, there is a man like Okwe in her life.

This film could easily have fallen into typical stereotypes, but Frears didn’t let it. That is good news for us, the viewers, because instead of seeing something just like so many other films, we get a more unique experience that is much more rewarding.

DANCER IN THE DARK ****



Dancer in the Dark is the final installment in Lars Von Trier’s A Heart of Gold trilogy, the first being Breaking the Waves with Emily Watson and the second being The Idiots with Bodil Jørgense. Each movie in the trilogy features a female lead who makes a tremendous sacrifice for the people they love. In this movie, the woman is Selma Jezkova (Björk), an immigrant from Czechoslovakia who, after falling in love with American musicals, makes her way to the state of Washington to live the American dream.

Selma is sweetness personified with an ability to escape the harshness of the world by going into her own mind and turning life into the musicals that she loves so much. She needs to save all the money she can get her hands on because she is inflicted with a hereditary disease that is making her go blind, and she has passed on this disease to her adolescent son. If she can save enough money, then he can have an operation on his thirteenth birthday, which will arrest this debilitating condition. Selma works at a factory as a punch-press operator during the day and also fastens pins onto cards as a supplemental income. She sacrifices everything for the dream of saving her son from sharing her fate. The only source of enjoyment for her is to be in a local pay of The Sound of Music. At first the director doesn’t like her because she sings funny and doesn’t appear to be able to dance all that well. However, Selma has a way about her that makes everyone love her, and in short order, he’s among the people who do love her.

Selma and her son live in a small trailer on Bill and Linda’s (David Morse and Cara Seymour) property and they give her a break with rent. Bill supposedly has a large portion of a considerable inheritance left, so they don’t really need Selma’s money. Everything is going as planned for Selma until the day Bill betrays her in a way that is truly horrible. After that, life falls apart and Selma goes into her fantasy world of musicals more and more.

Trier made a movie quite unlike any other that I’ve ever seen. He seems to have a knack for that. This movie is shot with handheld camera’s except when the movie jumps to Selma’s fantasies. When that happens, the color brightens, the cameras are stationary (actually there are a hundred cameras at all different angles to give the viewer every perspective possible), and everybody breaks out into song and dance. Björk choreographed the dance routines and wrote all the songs used in the movie. It’s all very impressive and would mean some good fun, except the story is so terribly sad.

We, the viewers, can easily see that Selma is an angel of epic proportions, but by the end of the film, we are forced to watch the unraveling of her life and see almost everybody point at her, accusing her of things that she could never be capable of doing. I wanted to weep for this poor, lovely, creature, but in the end, just watched her descent into oblivion. Dancer in the Dark is a terribly depressing film, but excellent in spite (or because) of that. Björk shines as an actress and plays her part flawlessly. She has said that this will be the only movie she will ever do. Too bad for us.

Thanks for the nice comments guys, I appreciate it.