Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[Houston]

I'll send you the money via paypal to buy a ton of babysitter hours.

Too many hyped movies coming out recently that I need reviews for.

 

[dell71]

Dell's Classics Presents:

Requiem for a Heavyweight
<strong>Directed by Ralph Nelson</strong>
<em>1962. Not Rated, 95 minutes.
Cast:
Anthony Quinn
Jackie Gleason
Mickey Rooney
Julie Harris
Stanley Adams
Val Avery
Herbie Faye
Muhammad Ali
Jack Dempsey</em>​

After 17 years in the ring and 111 fights, Mountain Rivera (Quinn) is a shot fighter. In his last fight, he takes a beating at the hands of one Cassius Clay, a very young Muhammad Ali playing himself even before his famous name-change. Rivera is left with damage to his left eye. It is enough that the doctor present at the arena tells his manager he won’t allow Mountain to fight ever again. His speech has become permanently slurred from all the pounding his head has taken. With that, almost no formal education and no skill beyond boxing, Rivera has to try to find his way in normal society.

Rivera’s manager, Maish (Gleason) is in deep to a bookie after a startling bet doesn’t pan out. Since his mule can no longer work, his mad quest to come up with the money he owes, and just what he owes it for, hangs over the proceedings.

Owing is a huge factor in everything that goes on. Just who owes who is the cause of much debate and the reason for many of the actions taken. When the film ends, the scale has been tilted to one side, but we’re saddened by the way in which this comes about. It’s odd that the person we come to hate the most gets a sort of come-uppance, yet we’re still not happy.

The movie weaves its way up to that amazing conclusion through a tapestry of great writing and outstanding performances. Strangely enough, it’s written by Rod Serling. To people of my age and older, that name is forever linked to <em>The Twilight Zone</em>, not hard-hitting human drama. At only 95 minutes, <em>Requiem for a Heavyweight</em> is wound tight as a drum, yet still lets us know these people intimately. We know what drives them, what scares them and what repels them. We have strong feelings about each of our four principals.

Our strongest feelings are reserved for Mountain. It seems his whole life has been spent being used to get what other people want. Even at this stage, he’s torn between two people who want very different things for and from him. What does he want for himself? That’s hard to say. Other than know what he doesn’t want, he seems to lack original thought. To pull this off, Anthony Quinn gives one of the best performances I’ve ever seen. His work here is pretty clearly a major inspiration for the way Sylvester Stallone would portray Rocky Balboa fourteen years later.

Much to their credit, Quinn’s supporting cast is never overshadowed. They, themselves, turn in powerful portrayals. Mickey Rooney (Army) is our mouthpiece. He says what we’re thinking with blunt honesty. Julie Harris (Ms. Miller) is Mountain’s possibly bright future, full of happiness and love. Then there’s Maish, played by the incomparable Jackie Gleason. I’ll just say he’s as brilliant as he always is and leave it at that.

The passage of time has given <em>RfaH</em> great irony. The easiest to spot is the cameo of Muhammad Ali, then known as Cassius Clay. He’s since become Mountain Rivera, in a physical sense. He was once so verbose and articulate that even in a post-ESPN, soundbite driven world his rantings and spontaneous verse remain among the most famous quotes in sports history. Yet, who really knows how many too many fights have robbed him and us of his vibrance, rendered him seemingly less than a shell of his former self. Luckily for Ali his legacy sustains him, both financially and in our mind’s eye. We’ll never forget him floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee.

Mountain Rivera has no such luxuries. The game of boxing that he loves so much has robbed him of many possibilities outside the ring and keeps taking from him. How many boxers over the years have suffered the same fate? Many of them aren’t even as lucky as Rivera. He’s enjoyed a measure of success most never do. As he would proudly tell you, in 1952 they ranked him number five in the world.

Another fairly obvious irony is the fact that it’s a boxing movie with almost no boxing. It all takes place in the first few minutes. A greater irony is how this mirrors the entire sport today. There is much talk of boxing’s demise and very little actual boxing, at least on the biggest stages. Boxing’s speech is slurred, it’s movements no longer sharp as MMA has it on the ropes poised to deliver a knockout blow. It’s fighting for its survival, trying to make its way in a ready to move on without it, much like Mountain Rivera.

<strong>MY SCORE: 10/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

My Year Without Sex
<strong>Directed by Sarah Watt.</strong>
<em>2009. Not Rated, 96 minutes.
Cast:
Sacha Horler
Matt Day
Jonathan Segat
Portia Bradley
Maude Davey
Sonya Suares
Roy Davies
Eddie Baroo
Chloe Guymer</em>​

Natalie (Horler) and Ross (Day) are your typical middle class married Australian couple with a pair of kids, a boy and girl. We meet them one morning in May when the children walk in on them while they’re starting the day off right. Due to the movie’s title, this is presumably the last time they get it on for quite a while, but why? Well, shortly after this little rendezvous, Natalie suffers a near-fatal aneurysm and spends a few weeks in the hospital. Her doctor informs our lovebirds that orgasms are one of the things that might trigger a reoccurrence. So, they abstain while she recovers physically and they both do some psychological healing.

Okay, I’ve gotta stop right there. To paraphrase the late Malcolm X, I’ve been bamboozled, led astray. I didn’t land on <em>My Year Without Sex</em>, <em>My Year Without Sex</em> landed on me. As the movie plays I do something I try not to do while watching a film, start reading the back of the DVD cover. Yup, there it is. Right there, it tells me how great a romantic comedy this is. Romantic? Maybe, eventually. Comedy? It’s nothing of the sort.

Natalie’s recovery puts a serious strain on her marriage. Her union with Ross is stretched very near the point of breaking. Likewise, for this movie’s sense of humor. That’s because all of this is rendered in painful detail. How painful depends on the viewer. <em>MYWS</em> is far more depressing than any movie willing to call itself a rom-com should be.

There are some comic moments. Most of them revolve around how oblivious the children seem as their lives continue without missing a beat. Other humor comes in the form of point-blank sex talk by Natalie’s sister who is half of the only other couple our heroes spend any time with. This threatens to bring it to the level of dramedy, but doesn’t quite do the trick.

How is it for what it is? It moves along nicely, helped by placards that mark the passing of the months. Each has clever titles like “I Have a Headache” or “Missionary Position.” The performances are excellent throughout, particularly Horler as Natalie. She is outstanding. Together with Day as her husband, they feel like a genuine couple. However, it’s still a downer, making it a struggle to wade through.

It’s also rather heavy-handed with its atheism. Just as other movies can be overbearing with their religious messages, this is as much with it’s antithetical stand. Through a female priest, Margaret (Davey), the movie repeatedly questions any notions of God. It uses her as an example that’s intended to disprove the existence of a superior being. The ending is also one last thorn in the paw of the lion know as organized religion. The biggest problem with all this is it doesn’t sufficiently support its own argument. It would seem that the movie subscribes to the idea of science in favor of the hocus-pocus of religion, but never fully enables the doctors as it needs to to solidify its point.

Despite what some would say, there can be good movies with an atheist slant. <em>The Invention of Lying</em> is one. That movie doesn’t dwell on it for an hour and it’s actually funny. This is like a sledgehammer to the base of the skull. There’s no punchline to soothe us, just repetitive blunt force. The rest of the ride is well done, but less than enjoyable.

<strong>MY SCORE: 5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Inception
<strong>Directed by Christopher Nolan.</strong>
<em>2010. Rated PG-13, 148 minutes.
Cast:
Leonardo DiCaprio
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Ellen Page
Ken Watanabe
Tom Hardy
Marion Cotillard
Cillian Murphy
Dileep Rao
Tom Berenger
Michael Caine</em>​

Dom Cobb (DiCaprio) is a unique sort of criminal. He’s often hired by companies to steal secrets from their competitors. What makes him uniqe is that he actually enters a person’s mind through their dreams to unlock these treasures. His latest employer, Mr. Saito (Watanabe), wants something different. Mr. Saito wants him to do the opposite and plant an idea in the mind of his biggest competitor’s son Robert Fischer (Murphy). Putting an idea into someone’s mind, we learn, is called “inception” and thought by most to be impossible. Cobb says he can deliver and sets out hiring a crack staff to help him do so.

At any given moment we are thrust into and kicked out of dreams. We watch land and cityscapes change before our eyes, often in impossible ways. We see how time operates on different levels of consciousness. We see Dom’s own sanity slipping as too much time spent in other people’s minds, along with the things going on in his own, take a steadily increasing toll on him and threatens his and the team’s ability to complete the mission.

This is far from a simple movie. Like many fantasy or science-fiction films, it asks us to accept something seemingly preposterous as a sort of reality. The difference between <em>Inception</em> and the majority of others is simple. For the two hours or so we’re watching those others, it’s mutually understood that the reality on screen is wholly separate from our own. We know that no amount of exposure to gamma rays is going to transform us into The Hulk. Here, we’re given cause to wonder about our own dreams and the odd events that occur during the portions we can remember. And what about those parts we can’t remember?

Amazingly, even with all the jumping in and out of dreams and playing with reality, <em>Inception</em> is not nearly as convoluted or complicated as it could’ve been. Like I said, though, nor is it simple. With incredible special fx, astute storytelling, enough action infused into the proceedings and another great performance by DiCaprio, it strikes a perfect balance between entertaining us and challenging us.

Speaking of DiCaprio, he’s becoming the go-to-guy for leading men with less than a firm grip of reality. Here, as well as in <em>The Departed</em> and most recently in <em>Shutter Island</em>, he plays a guy who struggles with the concept. Kudos to him for being brilliant in all three.

As I’ve mentioned, the special fx are also brilliant. Worlds coming together and falling apart as we watch provide splendid visuals. In particular, the city that folds over on itself is an awe-inspiring moment. My only gripe is that I didn’t see it on the big screen. I may not ever get to see it in a theater, but I definitely plan on seeing it on something bigger than my 32” television. Yes, I’m putting my pennies aside.

All of the great things <em>Inception</em> does would be for naught if it blew the ending. Thankfully, it does nothing of the sort. Surprisingly, it leaves us right where it tells us it will and somehow, it still works. It works because we hope against hope that that’s not how it will end. Still, when it does we’re left to wonder and debate what’s next. It’s a perfect ending that I hope isn’t ruined by <gasp> a sequel.

<strong>MY SCORE: 10/10</strong>​

 

[NAHSTE]

Surprised you went the full 10, but I love the hell out of it. The four separate climactic scenes layered on top of each other is such an impressive feat in editing, IMO.

 

[BigHouseUSA]

In an effort to change your mind on Franco, have you seen Howl or do you plan to?

 

[dell71]

In an effort to change your mind on Franco, have you seen Howl or do you plan to?

Neither, at this point. I will eventually see <em>127 Hours</em>, for sure.

 

[dell71]

Splinterheads
<strong>Directed by Barnt Sersen.</strong>
<em>2009. Rated R, 94 minutes.
Cast:
Thomas Middleditch
Rachael Taylor
Christopher McDonald
Lea Thompson
Dean Winters
Jason Rogel
Edmund Lyndeck
Pamela Shaw
Frankie Faison
Jason Mantzoukas
Lennon Parham</em>​

Justin (Middleditch) is a bit of a loser and a lot of a slacker. He’s grown but lives at home with mom and works for his best friend as a lawn mower. When an attractive girl hustles him for sixty bucks he still takes a shine to her. Well, I did say she’s attractive, right? When she hustles him a second time at the carnival where she works, he falls flat out in love with her. Okay, having a thing for her after she gets over on you once, I can see. Twice? She just isn’t that dang hot. Oh well, such is the way with lonely boys when a real live female that’s not related to them pays them the least bit of attention, I guess.

The girl’s name is Galaxy (Taylor). In case you were wondering, that’s the first clue this is a quirky indy comedy. I think her name is supposed to symbolize the enormity of her presence in Justin’s world, or something. It really just feels like her parent did a lot of drugs.

Anyhoo, to shorten this up a bit, the carnival Galaxy works at is a traveling one, in town for a couple weeks. She has a nasty, tough guy boyfriend named Reggie (Winters) that even she doesn’t like, but is obviously scared to death of. There’s also Bruce (McDonald). He seems to be the only cop in town and is still smarting from his breakup with Justin’s mom (Thompson). Add in the horny aunt (Shaw), the terrible carny magician known as the Amazing Steve (Mantzoukas), his assistant/girlfriend Wyoming (Parham) and Justin’s bestest buddy, Wayne (Rogel) and you have the whole dag-nabbit crew. In case you were wondering, though I don’t know why you would be, Wayne is of Asian descent and his full name is Wayne Chung. Someone who is too clever by half did this so they would have an excuse to use the song <em>Everybody Have Fun Tonight</em> by the group Wang Chung. Whatever.

Oh, I almost forgot the best character. That would be Justin’s 116 year old grandfather Albert (Lyndeck). Through a fortunately unfortunate event, he’s just become the world’s oldest living man. His scenes are consistently among the best.

As for the rest of the movie, it tries real hard. It efforts mightily for our laughs, but rarely earns them. It never gels into a cohesive piece of work. It’s also rather cliché despite all its surface quirkiness. Even worse, since much of it takes place at the carnival, it can’t avoid comparisons to the far superior <em>Adventureland</em>. In fact, I suggest you see <em>Adventureland</em>, instead.

<strong>MY SCORE: 4.5/10</strong>​

 

[Maynard]

i guess i should watch inception...a 10 huh

 

[dell71]

I loved it, obviously.

 

[Champ]

Dell. Have you seen the South Park version of Inception yet?

 

[NAHSTE]

Dell. Have you seen the South Park version of Inception yet?

It was really good, it almost ruined the movie for me because they pointed out how convoluted it all is, but I still love the movie. South Park did a good job of lampooning it though.

Fucking contrarian bastards.

 

[Palooza]

BRAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMM

 

[dell71]

Dell. Have you seen the South Park version of Inception yet?

No...honestly, it's been a long time since I've watched SP.

 

[stevsta]

No...honestly, it's been a long time since I've watched SP.

their last one was filled with laughs creme fraiche

 

[Fox1994]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mKaWqDqXak[/ame]

 

[Golden Taters]

Why the hell out of all people did South Park use Matt Hasselbeck?

 

[SethMode]

Not to sound like an Inception fanboy, but upon my 3rd viewing, it's all about Cobb's perception/misconception of the world.

 

[BigHouseUSA]

Neither, at this point. I will eventually see <em>127 Hours</em>, for sure.

He was pretty much dead on Ginsberg in it. Not the perfect portrayal of another person ever, but a very good one. If you ever get the chance you should see it, I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

 

[dell71]

The Girl Who Played with Fire
<strong>Directed by Daniel Alfredson.</strong>
<em>2009. Rated R, 129 minutes, Swedish.
Cast:
Noomi Rapace
Michael Nyqvist
Lena Endre
Sofia Ledarp
Georgi Staykov
Peter Andersson
Michalis Koutsogiannakis
Hans Christian Thulin
Yasmine Garbi</em>​

After the unbelievable adventure that was <em>The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo</em>, Lisbeth Salander (Rapace) understandably needed some time away. She took a year to do some traveling and, presumably, get a little R & R. Upon her return home, she visits some old friends and starts to take care of some unfinished business. This means going to see her probation officer and making sure he keeps up his end of the bargain they painfully came to agree upon in the first movie. However, when he turns up dead, along with a young journalist and his criminologist wife, Lisbeth becomes the top suspect in all three murders. They are all killed by the probation officer’sgun which has her fingerprints on them. Lisbeth trying to clear her name ensues.

Her biggest ally is the one friend she can’t bring herself to actually go see, Mikael Blomkvist (Nyqvist). The two worked closely together, even became lovers during the first movie. Here, he aids her from afar. Though she keeps her distance, he’s still supremely confident in her innocence.

For the genre of movie it finds itself in, it’s a very solid entry. It’s well written, moves at a brisk pace and gives us intriguing enough villains to root against. Lisbeth continues to be an amazing character, hellbent on living by her own rules. Where <em>Fire</em> suffers is in comparison to its predecessor. <em>Dragon Tattoo</em> is electrifying because it takes an unflinching look at the rawness of its characters and the situations they’re in. It leaves almost nothing to your insinuations and uses the camera’s trained eye to create empathy while resorting to normal movie manipulations as little as possible.

This time around, everything feels much more conventional. The plot machinations are more easily visible and feel culled from standardized Hollywood protocol. So too, do the revelations that pop up along the way. There’s little surprise here. In fact, at the risk of spoiling things, it’s almost like much of <em>Star Wars</em> lore has been adapted to this set of characters in present day Stockholm.

With all of that said, it is still a solid, if unspectacular, sequel. A good movie in its own right, it only loses points because fo the greatness of the original. I still recommend seeing it if, for no other reason than being thrust back into the world of Lisbeth Salander. It’s a dark, seedy place filled with the smoke from her constantly lit cigarette. Rapace gives another marvelous performance in the lead role. She alone is enough to keep us anxiously waiting the completion of this trilogy with <em>The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets Nest.</em>

<strong>MY SCORE: 7/10</strong>​