Short Review: Sometimes there are moments when the fast-forward button ain't fast enough.


I just sat there muttering, “Well, I don’t do that.”

It is easy to mock this film. It’s about gay cowboys (for you hypersensitive clods, yes I know they are sheepherders and there is a difference - settle down), the jokes are inherent. Furthermore, it is difficult to speak about this film without falling into juvenile double entendres (not that I’m above being juvenile.) Much of this has to do with the average person's reaction to homosexuality in particular when it is hung over a mismatched environment. Even more of this has to do with the unbelievably stupid marketing that surrounded the release of this film.

Much has been said about the agenda framing this production and I have nothing new to add there. The main thrust of the piece is to deconstruct the American image of the cowboy. The point is to muddy the image. This is the well-worn path of post modernists. Impulsively reject a social construct, then remake it in your image by lowering its standards. Once the image has been dismantled, you can shove in a new icon or idea that is more to your liking. By now this kind of redefining of American culture, language and attitudes has become tedious in most respects. We have seen it constantly throughout the past decades. Superheroes like Superman and Batman are no longer heroic, they're conflicted and dark (Superman Returns, The Dark Knight). Cowboys don't wear white and black hats, they're either wolves or sheep being led to the same slaughterhouse (3:10 to Yuma).

This deconstruction is nearly mocked in this case. It is so over overwhelmingly obvious that the icon image of the rugged American man, in full cowboyesque dress is being tampered with and on purpose.

Ennis (Heath Ledger) and Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal) are sheep herders who fall in lust while monitoring a herd on Brokeback Mountain. These two characters could have been in any line of work, surrounded by nearly any environment, and this story would have still worked. The choice to make them rugged, outdoorsmen who are easily mistaken for cowboys is an intentional move - a move done to challenge our iconic thoughts and sully them publicly.

The social marketing aspect of this film is a shame because this is a fully realized and forceful film. Particularly impress is Heath Ledger who proved himself to be one of the best actors of his generation in his role as Ennis, a mealy mouthed loner who apparently likes to ride the range. Ledger coupled with Ang Lee’s masterful direction and Rodrigo Prieto’s heart stopping cinematography makes this one of the better made films of 2005.

But then there is all of that gay sex stuff.


Listen, I’ll be honest, I’m not reflectively against exploring all aspects of human behavior in art. The human experience is rich and interesting and should be discussed in film, but let’s be real about it. It’s one thing to speak to homosexual behavior, it's another to shove it down the audience’s throat.

This is by its nature a controversial film, but the way it was marketed was disgusting. At first it the whole gay cowboy thing was ignored and the original commercials simply played up the images of men herding their sheep. Once poor grandma and grandpa were lured in thinking they were getting a western to find two guys locking stirrups, the ads changed. The Oscars were coming* around and there ads splashed around claiming this to be the “date movie” of the year. No guy in his right mind is ever taking his lady out to see two confused sheepherders play slap and tickle. The first set of ads lied by omission and the second set just lied outright.

Something that irritates me about this film is people’s reaction. Liberals and gays tend to tried to use this as a social barometer of how “accepting” America was towards homosexuality. If you have issues with this film you’re a homophobe. If you mock the stupidity at the heart of the film, you’re hateful. This is unfair. The concept of two apparently straight (or at least one of them is) cowboys falling in love while on the job and doing whatever it is they do when they get together was laughable. Which explains why every one was laughing. This film was not a reflection on American values it was a reflection on how out of touch the elite class was with the world.

While there are many honest and believable moments, the relationship at the middle of the story is flimsy. The initial homosexual encounter between the two main characters Ennis and Jack Twist in the infamous “pup tent scene” is inorganic to say the least. I think we can assume that two men who supposedly are tough cowboys don’t rush into a homosexual adventure without due diligence. Even if they did, the way it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

The two guys are just hanging out and then decide to go for a test drive? I don’t know about you, but I’ve never been that drunk. Furthermore, the two leads don’t have a deep enough emotional connection to support the notion these two men being obsessed with one another of twenty years. If we’re to understand their love for one another, the roots of that love are not explained or shown. If it were simply lust and lust wouldn’t sustain the hell these two guys are forced to inhabit.

Speaking of hell, I watched the whole film. I do have to admit I found a surprisingly moral message if taken a certain way. The two men have an “encounter” otherwise known as “rough gay sex” up on Brokeback Mountain and spend the rest of their lives drowning in their obsession for one another. Their “love” destroys their lives and the lives of their families. I found this film to be less about homosexuality (actually these guys are bisexual but who’s keeping count) and more about sin.

The two guys commit a sin on Brokeback Mountain and ruin their lives trying to retain that moment. In fairness to the production, this is hardly an advertisement for homosexual behavior, as many believe it to be. While the film makes some lame attempts to blame the horror of these men’s lives on society not allowing their love to speak its name - it ends showing what happens to those who are unable to turn from their selfish desires.

Do I recommend this film? No.

That no in place, I do have to admit this is a very well-done film and it has a humanity to it that is undeniable. The problem is that the bloated agenda at the core is undeniable. This is a social marketing movie. If one is able to get over the homosexual scenes (see my short review) and look at this film from the standpoint of sin more than gayness, one may get something from this production. Then again, dropping the homosexual aspects of this film is like trying to drop all of that icky “holocaust stuff” from Schindler’s List.


Related Reviews:
Heath Ledger movies
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)
Casanova (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Decent Films Guide
Roger Ebert



Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: Anne Hathaway, film, Heath Ledger, Jake Glyyenhaal, movie reviews, Randy Quaid, social marketing

Terry Gilliam is a brilliant designer. In most cases, he's a miserable director. His films a stuffed with visual goodies, and quirky performances, but they are completely lacking in any emotion or humanity. His films rarely investigate anything meaningful, instead they chase down esoteric philosophical points or overly complex plot situations. Gilliam is capable of some very good moments, but his overall body of work is over-hyped by people who confuse interesting with meaningful.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus tells the tale of the titular Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) who runs a theater troupe that travels London. Parnassus has made a deal with the devil (portrayed by Tom Waits) and has a wager to snare or save five souls. The ante? Parnassus' daughter Valentina (Lily Cole).

Patrons are lured into a mirror onstage, behind which they enter into a supernatural world where their morality is tested and they find pleasure or damnation.

The goofy plot provides Gilliam with plenty of canvas on which to apply his visual flair. The plot unfortunately also gets easily convoluted. Gilliam makes the error of presenting the universe of Parnassus without explaining the details early on. Instead, Gilliam loads the first half of the film with fantastic, but obscure imagery and scenes without explaining what is going on in a logical fashion. The average audience member will most likely tune out of the film before the plot's hook is revealed. For those willing to hang on, the explanation seems more like a cobbled together excuse than a intentional narrative.

The film had a short cinematic shelf life. It would have been completely ignored, like many of Gilliam's other films, if it were not for Heath Ledger's untimely death.

Ledger was working on this film at the time of his drug-induced passing. To complete the film, Gilliam introduced a cheesy element where Ledger's character Tony transforms into different physical forms. This permitted Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell to step in and complete Ledger's scenes.

The inclusion of these other actors is conspicuous. These scenes are also, mostly, unnecessary. The added actors are put into scenes where they deal with surreal chase sequences and conflicts. They all give stunted performances Their disconnect with the material is clearly seen in their work.

Ultimately this is a disjointed and unemotional film. Gilliam may have the ability to create quirky and strange designs but he has always flounder giving them any humanity.




Related Reviews:
Heath Ledger movies
Casanova (2005)
The Dark Knight (2008)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Film School Rejects
The Writer's Corner





Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: Andrew Garfield, Christopher Plummer, Colin Farrell, Heath Ledger, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Lily Cole, Peter Stormare, Terry Gilliam, Tom Waits

Like all Gilliam's films this is visually overwhelming.

Hopefully, unlike many of Gilliam's films, this will be watchable.





Screenwriters: Terry Gilliam (Brazil) and Charles McKeown (The Adventures of Baron Munchausen)
Director: Terry Gilliam (12 Monkeys)
Actors: Heath Ledger (The Patriot), Johnny Depp (The Libertine), Tom Waits (Domino), Jude Law (Sherlock Holmes), Andrew Garfield (Lions for Lambs), Colin Farrell (Phonebooth), Verne Troyer (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone), Christopher Plummer (Dracula 2000) and Peter Stormare (Fargo)

Labels: Christopher Plummer, Colin Farrell, film, Heath Ledger, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, movie trailer, Peter Stormare, Terry Gilliam, Tom Waits, Verne Troyer

"It feels like the movies I made when I was younger."

You mean it feels like one of the one's you finished?

I have an appreciation for Terry Gilliam as a designer. He creates very lush images. Its the stories that are lacking. The death of the film's star Heath Ledger will give this film more press than it otherwise would have received. Hopefully it will be worth the hype.




Screenwriters: Terry Gilliam (The Fisher King) and Charles McKeown (The Adventures of Baron Munchausen)
Director: Terry Gilliam (12 Monkeys)
Actors: Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight), Johnny Depp (Finding Neverland), Colin Farrell (Phonebooth), Jude Law (Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow), Chrisopher Plummer (The Lake House), Tom Waits (Short Cuts) and Verne Troyer (Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me)

Labels: film, Heath Ledger, movie trailer, Terry Gilliam

Disappointment. That's the word that swims through my head when I think of this film. I have disappointment over the opportunity that was missed. What should have been a tale of chaos versus order, good versus evil, winds up being a unfocused yarn that tries way too hard.

Disregard the gleeful, fanboys wetting their trunks who claim this is the best film ever. This simply is not as great as people desperately want it to be. This film has little to do with the battle between The Joker and Batman and has everything to do with Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). Structurally speaking, Dent is the hero of the film and a tragic hero at that. Batman himself is a bystander in his own story. He doesn't drive or control any aspect of the narrative. His choices do not bring about the climax. These things fall to Dent, who, if this thing was written properly, would have been a supporting member until the final moments. Dent's fall from political hero to the evil Two-Face should have been saved to set up the next film. As it is, he acts as Batman's stand-in for the whole movie.

The real shame to this film comes with the handling of The Joker. First, he simply does not have enough screen time. Writer/Director Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins) has to spend so much time developing Dent that he has to sacrifice displaying The Joker. The result is what appears to be a stunning performance by the late Heath Ledger is choppy and incomplete. The conflict between Batman and his eternal nemesis is well known to the audience and little development would be needed to get to the meaty parts of the story. Nolan, if he would have keep himself in check, could have given The Joker his due and allowed him to play in all of his trickster glory. Instead, Ledger's rendition feels forced at times with his jerky speech patterns and stabbing tongue. Given space to grow, Ledger's performance could have flowered into something special.

Opposite Ledger, Christian Bale's Batman seems like a faded copy of his former self. With nothing to do but watch those around him, this outing leaves the caped crusader sulking in the shadows. Reduced to little more than a gruff voiced prop.

Nolan's problem is the same one that tanked Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3. Having multiple villains, multiple stories, and multiple themes is like tying three baskets to the bottom of a hot air balloon and expecting it to fly. A story needs to have a singular point supported by related themes and represented by a lone conflict between an individual hero and villain. It would be nice if multi-arced stories worked but they don't. This is the way of the world. Nolan exhausts all his time chasing down all of his narratives. He can't move his story forward.

Beyond the multifaceted plots, Nolan weighs the film down with obtuse references to the War on Terror™. IEDs, the burning 9/11-esque wreckage, hostage videos, concerns over spying and on and on the references come. These references have a place in the film but the film is so crammed with other competing points that they aren't fully explored and only provide rude nudges to the audience. Look see, he's waffling on spying on Gotham because spying is wrong - just like when we do it. Again, the references to the War on Terror™ are perfectly fine and I don't have an issue with them if they were allowed space for explanation.

Ridiculously, Nolan has been telling the press that the political overtones to the film are essentially unintentional:

"To be honest with you, in the writing of the films we try not to be too conscious of any political parallels or any thing that we might want to include from the real world because I think the terms of the storytelling demand that you be a step removed from today's political environment." - Christopher Nolan, Director Christopher Nolan on The Dark Knight, Crave Online.com

Its fine if he wants to make these arguments, but please have the manhood to stand next to your own work. The problem here is that his War on Terror™ branch seemed wedged in and obscures the real reason for the film - to watch Batman and The Joker kick each other's back ends across Gotham.

Overall, this is a flashy movie that is good enough to entertain. The same can be said of many films. Most people will probably find it worth their while. My stance is that it could have been a thousand times better and Nolan dropped the ball. This is not a great film. Its not even a great superhero movie. Sure it is big and it is flashy, but in the end it's nothing special.

Labels: Aaron Eckhart, Batman, Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, film, Gary Oldman, Heath Ledger, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, movie review, superhero

Disappointment. That's the word that swims through my head when I think of this film. I have disappointment over the opportunity that was missed. What should have been a tale of chaos versus order, good versus evil, winds up being a unfocused yarn that tries way too hard.

Disregard the gleeful, fanboys wetting their trunks claiming this is the best film ever. This simply is not as great as people desperately want it to be.

Amazingly, this film has little to do with the battle between The Joker (Heath Ledger) and Batman (Christian Bale) and has everything to do with Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). Structurally speaking, Dent is the hero of the film and a tragic hero at that. Batman himself is a bystander in his own story. He doesn't drive or control any aspect of the narrative. His choices do not bring about the climax. These things fall to Dent, who, if this thing was written properly, would have been a supporting member until the final moments. Dent's fall from political hero to the evil Two-Face should have been saved to set up the next film. As it is, he acts as Batman's stand-in for the whole movie.

The real shame comes with the handling of The Joker. First, he simply does not have enough screen time. Writer/Director Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins) has to spend so much time developing Dent that he has to sacrifice displaying The Joker. The result is the acclaimed performance by the late Heath Ledger is choppy and incomplete. The conflict between Batman and his eternal nemesis is well known to the audience and little development would be needed to get to the meaty parts of the story. Nolan, if he would have keep himself in check, could have given The Joker his due and allowed him to revel in his trickster glory. Instead, Ledger's rendition feels forced at times with his jerky speech patterns and stabbing tongue.

Opposite Ledger, Christian Bale's Batman seems like a faded copy of his former self. With nothing to do but watch those around him, this outing leaves the caped crusader sulking in the shadows. Reduced to little more than a gruff voiced prop.

Nolan's problem is the same one that tanked Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3. Having multiple villains, multiple stories, and multiple themes is like tying three baskets to the bottom of a hot air balloon and expecting it to fly. A story needs to have a singular point supported by related themes and represented by a lone conflict between an individual hero and villain. It would be nice if multi-arced stories worked, but they don't. This is the way of the world. Nolan exhausts all his time chasing down his narratives ans can't move his story forward.

Beyond the multifaceted plots, Nolan weighs the film down with obtuse references to the War on Terror™. IEDs, the burning 9/11-esque wreckage, hostage videos, concerns over spying and on and on the references come. These references have a place in the film but the film is so crammed with other competing points that they aren't fully explored and only provide rude nudges to the audience.

Ridiculously, Nolan has been telling the press that the political overtones to the film are essentially unintentional:

"To be honest with you, in the writing of the films we try not to be too conscious of any political parallels or any thing that we might want to include from the real world because I think the terms of the storytelling demand that you be a step removed from today's political environment." - Christopher Nolan, Director Christopher Nolan on The Dark Knight, Crave Online.com

It's fine if he wants to make these arguments, but please have the manhood to stand next to your own work. The problem here is that his War on Terror™ branch is wedged in and obscures the real reason for the film - to watch Batman and The Joker kick each other's back-ends across Gotham.

Overall, this is a flashy movie that is good enough to entertain. The same can be said of many films. Most people will probably find it worth their while. My stance is that it could have been a thousand times better and Nolan dropped the ball. This is not a great film. It is not even a great superhero movie. Sure it is big and it is flashy, but in the end it's nothing special.







Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: Aaron Eckhart, Batman, Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, film, Gary Oldman, Heath Ledger, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, movie review, superhero

Short Review: Political correctness turns Casanova into a simpering castrato.



This film wants to be a bawdy romp but ends up being a pandering and predicable bore. Despite this, the hook to the story is quite good. Famed lover, Casanova is driven to engage a young woman to save himself from condemnation resulting from his lustful ways. After getting engaged, he falls in real love with another young woman named Francesca and wants to dump his new fiance. Francesca's insecure brother is in love with the young woman Casanova has just engaged. The answer? Casanova must teach the insecure brother how to swoon Casanova’s fiance so Casanova can then chase after Francesca. This is a tight plot that could hold a fun story. Unfortunately, this film wanders around for the first act and seemingly stumbles into this clever situation. After acknowledging this delightful plot, it hurriedly moves to forgetting it brought it up in the first place. We are presented with an actual good story to have it brushed away like an annoying gnat. It is clear the film is so intent on being layered with meaning and full of twists and turns that it becomes a knot of plot complications that becomes impossible to untie.

I wanted to like this story, but it wouldn’t let me. The first act is very difficult to sit through with thanks to underdeveloped scenes and tone issues. On one hand, the film wants to have a message and to be taken seriously while on another it wants to be a ribald comedy. MAKE UP YOUR MIND! I say if you’re making a film about Casanova, go ribald and be fun. This film isn’t fun. There is the huge weight of The Inquisition dragging the piece down. Instead of making Casanova’s nemesis a snooty rival, angry father or nervous husband, the bad guy is Jeremy Irons as a sadistic, cruel Inquisitor. Instead of making Iron’s character a farcical, overblown cartoon, he’s a sneering and threatening figure. Against the lighter scenes and themes of the piece Irons and his minions are desperately out of place. The more Irons’ character gets involved in the piece the less fun and the less coherent the story grows.

Another important issue with this production is the abject hate it show for Catholics and The Catholic Church. Every member of the church is a liar, sexual deviant or sadistic, power mad villain. Iron’s character continuously admits that sin and/or heretical behavior is what he decides it is. The church is shown as a gaggle of vicious killers and antagonists. This is done to show that having social restrictions on personal behavior is evil and man made. This is the usual reason why filmmakers utilize Christians as bad guys. The church is the opposite of Casanova’s continual deviant rutting. However, the attention paid to make certain we understand that not only is the Catholic Church bad, but its members are bad as well, is disturbing. Members of Al-Quedia would find more even-handed treatment in film today. The filmmakers are so intent on overplaying this anti-Catholic hand that they spoil their own film. Is everyone in the Catholic Church a saint? No, of course not. This film would have you believe that everyone in the church is insincere and wicked.

This bloated production wastes the collective talents of a great cast. Heath Ledger is well placed as Casanova and appears to revel in the role. Supported by the likes of Oliver Platt as lard tycoon Paprizzio, Sienna Miller as the apple of Casanova’s eye, Francesca, and Lena Olin as Francesca’s plotting mother. Ledger and his nemesis Pucci overplayed by Jeremy Irons, have plenty of talent to play off of. As mentioned however, a droll script and inept direction can stifle all of the acting talent in the world. Each of these actors does well with what they are given but it is all for naught since the production leads nowhere in particular.

This film is forgettable because it was handled poorly. This should have been a big, fun film that toyed with the laughable side of human nature. Lust, jealousy and general human frailty should be mined for humor when possible. This film misses the mark, which is a shame because a good opportunity has been lost. Even after its release, this film begs for a full rewrite.


Related Reviews:
Heath Ledger movies
The Brothers Grimm (2005)
The Lords of Dogtown (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
PopMatters
The Chicago Tribune

Labels: film, Heath Ledger, Jeremy Irons, Lena Olin, movie review, Sienna Miller

Labels: Batman, Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, Heath Ledger, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, movie trailer, superhero

Short Review: A whitewashing “true story” movie stemming from a critically acclaimed documentary about the birth of a dumb “sport”.


The writer of this film, Stacy Peralta made a documentary called Dogtown and Z-Boys in 2001. It is one of the better documentaries of that year. This fictionalization of the same story presented in Peralta's documentary, shows a gaggle of wastoids in Venice Beach, CA in the 1970’s as they drop their surfboards in favor of skateboards. The actions of these boys and their handlers led to the broad marketing of skateboarding throughout the U.S.

To water this down, this film and the documentary would have us think of these troubled kids as heroes and legends. While each has the relatively useless talent of performing interesting tricks on skateboards, they are hardly legends outside of their specific group. To look at them honestly, they were nothing more than marketing tools. This film does a good job of showing that aspect of the “legend” of the Zephyr skating team. From the inception of the team, to the wide commercialization that it spawned, this whole exercise was executed for one purpose: get easily led kids to think skateboarding was cool so they would get their parents to buy them a board and the accessories that comes with it.

While I enjoyed much of this quirky and uneven film, I just can’t get myself to take it too seriously. Having seen how well done the original documentary was and knowing that this film skips some pretty significant pieces of the actual story (many of the major players are missing or reduced in their prominence,) kills the buzz a bit. Then there’s that whole thing about not being able to pretend skateboarding is actually a sport. Please, grow up and be serious. Skating is a skill, not a sport.

Overall, this is an interesting little film but thanks to over-acting teenage thespians and a disjointed plot line, I cannot recommend it too highly. The only performance of note is Heath Ledger's as shop owner Skip. Ledger's offers some humor and a grounded performance in this movie littered with pedestrian acting.

If its there in front of you and you can see it for free, knock yourself out. If someone wants you to pay to see it, knock them out.


Related Reviews:
Other odd sports movies
Chariots of Fire (1981)
Murderball (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
The Cinema Source
Film Jerk

Labels: Emile Hirsch, film, Heath Ledger, Johnny Knoxville, movie review, Rebecca De Mornay, sports

Labels: Batman, Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, Heath Ledger, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, movie trailer, superhero