Ursus Pacificus

Originally posted a long time ago on Paul’s Reviews Page

I’ll be rating movies on a three zone, 5-star scale. Each movie will be rated
on “Visual Appeal”, “Audio Appeal” and “Story Appeal”. Each of these three
zones can be rated up to 5 stars (or asterisks…. they load faster than
.GIFs)

Zoolander
V: ****

A: ***

S: ****

Synopsis: Derek Zoolander, an iconic, legendary male model comes to the realization that younger, more in-touch models may soon displace him. He retires, and is called out of retirement by a sinister fashion designer to, ostensibly be the signature model for his new collection, but he (the sinister designer) really has other plans.

Thoughts: Zoolander is funny. Is that enough? Yes. That’s enough. But the movie
doesn’t stop there. There is significant commentary on how our society values vanity, youth and novelty. Owen Wilson is fantastic as Hansel, the young upstart model who threatens to unseat Derek Zoolander from his throne as the greatest male model the world has known. Will Farrell is a frightening, yet strangely ineffective villain, as Mugatu. Milla Jovovich, who you may recalls was “Leeloo” in the remarkable freakfest “The Fifth Element” played a delightful
“Mustafa” to Farrell’s “Doctor Evil” as Katinka.

Ben Stiller stars in, directs, co-writes and co-produces this gem. Cameos from Donald Trump, Billy Zane, David Duchovney, Jon Voight, Anne Miera and a mountain of others (just watch for all the “Himself”s and “Herself”s in the credits) kept me guessing… While this was not Stiller’s Directorial debut (his first feature-length film was “Reality Bites”), it’s certainly a film for which he’ll be long remembered.

Even though Zoolander was something of a sleeper at the box office (grossing $45M on a $28M budget) I suspect it will do very well in home video, as it is the slow word-of-mouth buddy-system grass-roots propagation that will keep
people watching Zoolander. I hope Stiller got a good deal on the residuals, cuz he could retire on this one…

Originally posted a long time ago on Paul’s Reviews Page

I’ll be rating movies on a three zone, 5-star scale. Each movie will be rated
on “Visual Appeal”, “Audio Appeal” and “Story Appeal”. Each of these three
zones can be rated up to 5 stars (or asterisks…. they load faster than
.GIFs)

Hearts in Atlantis
V: ***

A: ***

S: ***

Synopsis: The death of a friend brings photographer Robert Garfield back to the town he left at the age of 11, where he recalls the last summer of his childhood.

Thoughts: Based on a Stephen King story, Hearts In Atlantis touches on matters of trust, faith, goodwill, cruelty and freedom. There is a supernatural element which initially turned me off. Many of Stephen Kings stories are, to some degree or another, rooted in supernatural stuff, and for that reason, I tend to shy away from most of his stuff. Hearts In Atlantis had a sort of Stand By Me quality to it about 50% of the time, and that was what kept me
interested. The “special ability” of the stranger who moves in upstairs turned me off, and since it was so pivotal to the basis of the story it made watching the movie a tad tedious. He appeared wise at first, but in the context of the story, his wisdom lacked credibility until his “special ability” is revealed. That annoyed me.


Taking an unbiased view of the film, it was OK… Anthony Hopkins, Anton Yelchin and Mika Boorem put in admirable performances.


As movies based on Stephen King stories go, Stand By Me and The Shawshank Redemption are my faves. This was OK, although I’m not in any hurry to see it again.

Originally posted a long time ago on Paul’s Reviews Page

I’ll be rating movies on a three zone, 5-star scale. Each movie will be rated
on “Visual Appeal”, “Audio Appeal” and “Story Appeal”. Each of these three
zones can be rated up to 5 stars (or asterisks…. they load faster than
.GIFs)

Tron 20th anniversary special edition DVD

V: ****

A: ****

S: ****

Synopsis: A disgruntled former employee breaks into ENCOM’s computer system hoping to recover evidence which would prove his wrongful termintation, but is, instead, pulled into the computer, where elements of the games he’d written are used against him.

Thoughts: Tron is a niche movie. If you like it, you love it. If you don’t like it, you hate it. Tron’s dialoge has a sappy sort of quality, particulary Alan Bradley’s (Bruce Boxleitner) “real world” dialog. When you look at other “Pop” movies of that era, like Xanadu and Grease… they were pretty much all in the same boat with regard to dialoge and fashion.


In its day Tron was dazzling, not just because of the special effects, but because the story so deeply involved computers. In 1982, computers were still big scary things that took up entire rooms and required special climate controls and flooring. Now, 20 years later, computers have become far more pervasive in our society, but, strangely, people, in general, aren’t much more at ease around them. In that sense, Tron has not lost its visceral, base appeal. Where Tron has slipped over time is in its frame of reference. Nowadays, a “PocketPC” has more computing power than a VAX, which, 20 years ago, was a pretty hot computer. The common idea of computers has changed, and so Tron has lost some of its bite.


This edition of Tron is great. The movie, itself, has been cleaned up and restored immensely. Prior to this release, I’d only seen Tron on videotape, so the transfers I’m used to watching have been pretty bad. This one is stupefyingly good. In addition to the quality of the movie itself, the special features on the DVD are very engaging. When Tron was first released, I was 13 or 14. The special effects were amazing, but I had no idea how much work was involved. Now, in the documentaries included with this DVD edition, I’ve seen for the first time how much work went into making Tron. That was an insanely ambitious project…. and they pulled it off.

Originally posted a long time ago on Paul’s Reviews Page

I’ll be rating movies on a three zone, 5-star scale. Each movie will be rated
on “Visual Appeal”, “Audio Appeal” and “Story Appeal”. Each of these three
zones can be rated up to 5 stars (or asterisks…. they load faster than
.GIFs)

Brazil (The Criterion Collection DVD edition)
V: *****

A: ****

S: *****

Synopsis: At some unspecified time and place in the 20th century, a nondescript bureaucrat becomes involved with a woman he has seen in his dreams, and in doing so, jeopardizes his otherwise stable and boring life.

Thoughts: Brazil is quite a flick. There’s a lot going on. Directed and co-written by ex-Python Terry Gilliam, Brazil is an assault on the senses…. How’s that for an original notion? Brazil takes a grim look at how our world might look in the not-too-distant-future if the tendancy toward totalitarian government, blind faith in authority and the all-too-human preoccupation with matters of vanity are allowed to run their course unchecked. Sam, our hero,
struggles, both in the fantasy world of his dreams and in the nightmare of reality, against faceless but immensely powerful opposition, hoping to free the girl of his dreams and escape to a peaceful and self-sufficient existence far
removed from from the life he knew. Beyond the film itself, Brazil represents a triumph of artistic vision over blind adherance to corporate dogma. Director Terry Gilliam battled Universal Studios for months over the release of the film in the United States. The Criterion Collection edition of Brazil includes the “Director’s Final Cut”, a very-slightly-altered version of the 142 minute release the rest of the world saw, and which was ultimately released in the US, as well as the 94 minute “Love Conquers All” Univeral Studios re-edit, with its altered opening, “happy ending” and without most of the dream sequences. The Criterion Collection edition also has one entire DVD with special features, including a blow-for blow account of the struggle to release Brazil.


In the context of of being an anti-utopian black comedy, Brazil is a masterpiece. As a social commentary, Brazil hits its mark. If that was all there was to it, that would be enough, but Brazil is also monument to perseverence. Brazil is not for everyone, that’s for sure… but it does say a lot about people and about society and is, IMHO, as significant a story as 1984. The nature of the story is different to be sure; certainly 1984 wasn’t very funny.


***UPDATE*** At the time I’d written the above review, I’d not listened to the commentaries, nor had I watched the “Love Conquers All” edit as it appears in this edition. Gilliam’s commentary is
almost as dense with information as the movie itself. One theme that keeps coming up in Gilliam’s commentary is that critics and the general population frequently remarked at how “ahead of its time” Brazil was, but it wasn’t really.
The shoe-hats and the plastic surgery and the ducts all had a place in contemporary reality in 1983. They still do. If you’re a Gilliam fan, or just a general movie buff, this edition of Brazil is wonderful, if a little pricey….

Originally posted a long time ago on Paul’s Reviews Page

I’ll be rating movies on a three zone, 5-star scale. Each movie will be rated
on “Visual Appeal”, “Audio Appeal” and “Story Appeal”. Each of these three
zones can be rated up to 5 stars (or asterisks…. they load faster than
.GIFs)

M*A*S*H (30th anniversary restored special edition DVD)
V: ****

A: ***

S: ****

Synopsis: We follow the efforts of drafted doctors in wartime Korea to dispense good medicine and retain their own sanity.

Thoughts: When one looks at how the movie came to be (in the special features on the DVD) there is an enormous difference between the book and the screenplay, and a further enormous difference between the screenplay and the film. The movie portrayed war without the John Wayne/George C.Scott testosterone-fueled church-reinforced rabid patriotism so common in other war films. In M*A*S*H, we see doctors ankle-deep in the blood of soldiers who’ve barely graduated high school. Through all of this, the staff of the 4077th M*A*S*H struggle to not get sucked into the insanity of war; not to take it too seriously. If you grew up thinking M*A*S*H started as a TV series, you are sadly mistaken. See this. See it on the Special Edition DVD. The restoration is grand.

Originally posted a long time ago on Paul’s Reviews Page

I’ll be rating movies on a three zone, 5-star scale. Each movie will be rated
on “Visual Appeal”, “Audio Appeal” and “Story Appeal”. Each of these three
zones can be rated up to 5 stars (or asterisks…. they load faster than
.GIFs)

Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb
V: ****

A: ***

S: *****

Synopsis: During the Cold-War, paranoid SAC Base Commander, General Jack D. Ripper, launches a pre-emptive nuclear attack against The U.S.S.R. and his second-in-command, a British RAF Group-Captain, Lionel Mandrake, serving in an officer exchange program struggles to get the recall codes from him; all the while, the President and his top advisors delicately try to inform the Premier of the U.S.S.R. of the problem, yet keep him calm.


Thoughts: Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb is quite a film. Produced during the absolute peak of the Cold War, it presented an all-too-real paralyzingly terrifying possibility to a nation ready to “Duck and Cover” at a moment’s notice. Peter Sellers, famous for his
“Inspector Clouseau”, plays 3 roles in Dr. Strangelove: Lionel Mandrake, U.S. President Murkin Muffley, and the title role, capture Nazi scientist Dr. Strangelove. Stanley Kubrick, better known for such films as “2001: A Space
Odyssy”, “Full Metal Jacket” and “A Clockwork Orange”, directed this film in black and white, and used the medium to its full effect. Sterling Hayden put in a fantastic performance as General Jack D. Ripper, the paranoid SAC Commander who initiated the attack in the first place. George C. Scott plays the
disturbingly enthusiastic Air Force General Buck Turgidson, an adviser to the President in the War Room. DSL is a movie whose story advances more through dialog than action, making it a bit tough for people raised on MTV to sit
through, but it is well-worth watching.

Originally posted a long time ago on Paul’s Reviews Page

I’ll be rating movies on a three zone, 5-star scale. Each movie will be rated
on “Visual Appeal”, “Audio Appeal” and “Story Appeal”. Each of these three
zones can be rated up to 5 stars (or asterisks…. they load faster than
.GIFs)

It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
V: ****

A: ***

S: *****

Synopsis: An unlikely group of motorists learn of a huge fortune burried in a park and race to get to it first.

Thoughts: It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World is one of those movies you either love or don’t get. The all-star cast is enormous and the list of cameos stretches for miles. The wide shots (in “Ultra-Panavision”) are spectacular.
The stunts are great and the driving is fantastic. Terry-Thomas, Milton Berle and Ethel Merman make an exquisite trinity of discontent. Mickey Rooney and Buddy Hackett make an oddly fitting Abbott and Costello sort of pair, and when mixed with Jim Backus’ drunken aristocrat and dropped in the cockpit of a
private plane things get downright frightening. Sid Caesar is remarkable. The chemistry between Jonathan Winters and Phil Silver is priceless. While some of the jokes are a bit predicable (now… let’s not forget that this movie was made in the mid-sixties!) and the movie is a bit long, it is well worth setting aside two and a half hours and shutting off the ringer on the phone.

Originally posted a long time ago on Paul’s Reviews Page

I’ll be rating movies on a three zone, 5-star scale. Each movie will be rated
on “Visual Appeal”, “Audio Appeal” and “Story Appeal”. Each of these three
zones can be rated up to 5 stars (or asterisks…. they load faster than
.GIFs)

Ocean’s Eleven (2001)
V: ***

A: ****

S: **

Synopsis: A career confidence man assembles a team to pull an elaborate casino robbery in Las Vegas.

Thoughts: Ocean’s Eleven has a sort of MTV/Matrix style of production, with a swanky-smooth lounge flavor. It was OK. The climax of the robbery was, for me, the best part. There was a lot of quasi-neo-sci-fi James-Bond-type
gadgetry, which, if I was a little less informed, would be really cool. It sort of had a “Sneakers” feel to it but without the good music. All in all, it was an inoffensive film, but not especially gripping. Having seen it in a theatre (something I RARELY do) I’ve seen it enough to not need to see it again.

Originally posted a long time ago on Paul’s Reviews Page

I’ll be rating movies on a three zone, 5-star scale. Each movie will be rated
on “Visual Appeal”, “Audio Appeal” and “Story Appeal”. Each of these three
zones can be rated up to 5 stars (or asterisks…. they load faster than
.GIFs)

Shrek
V: ******

A: ******

S: ******

Synopsis: By ciruitous cicumstances, an ogre and a princess meet and discover they have a great deal more in common than their outward appearances lead them to believe

Thoughts: Yes, you read right. There’s SIX ASTERISKS up there. This movie was that good. It’s not really a children’s movie, though. Kids are not going to see anything “bad” that
they don’t already see on TV… such as barechested men (Well, an ogre, actually), and bit of plumbers’ crack, some sports-style violence. There is some “Fill-in-the-blank” adult humor… such as in the “Merry Men” song and the
“Welcome To DuLoc” song. But the story is fresh and a bit more complex than you might expect from an animated film. The dialog lacks the sing-songy fairytale quality one might expect from “A Bug’s Life”. There are some rather direct descriptions of brutal and horrifying acts, but for the most part they’re contained in hypothetical discussions. Most parents I know would not be enthused about having to explain to little Johnny what it means to “..decapitate
an entire village and put their heads on a pike…”. That aside, aproaching this as a film for mature adults, it’s a gem! The score is stirring, the songs (and editing thereof) are perfectly chosen and because this movie is completely
CGI, it can be made to fit the rhythms and cues of the songs perfectly. The scenery is lush and alive, the movement is smooth and organic. The facial expressions on the principal characters are very very keen. Watch the fur on
Donkey’s cheeks when Shrek roars at him. Shrek could get by just as an audio play (with a little narration for scene setup), or even as a silent movie (with some placards for dialogue, although you can lip-read a lot of it)… but
the confluenece of the sound (voice acting, music and sound effects) and the imagery (character animation, visual effects, “camera” work, scenery) is over the top…. and yet credible, natural and transparent. So there.

Originally posted a long time ago on Paul’s Reviews Page

I’ll be rating movies on a three zone, 5-star scale. Each movie will be rated
on “Visual Appeal”, “Audio Appeal” and “Story Appeal”. Each of these three
zones can be rated up to 5 stars (or asterisks…. they load faster than
.GIFs)

Pearl Harbor
V: *****

A: *****

S: ***

Synopsis: Two boyhood friends find romance (not with each other) and opporunities for heroism in the Army Air Corps before, during and after the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor, HI.

Thoughts: Pearl Harbor is a film which contains thrilling combat sequences and some gripping “Military Command” drama, but the majority of the film does not focus on this. Instead, it focuses on the romantic relationship
between Ben Affleck’s character and Kate Beckinsale’s. This plopping of a fictional romantic subplot into the context of an historic event was not as compelling for me as, for example, the execution of the same concept in James
Cameron’s Titanic. Michael Bay achieved a massive and exquisitely executed assault on the senses in the combat sequences of Pearl Harbor. Armageddon (another Bruckheimer/Bay flick) was riddled with logical and scientific flaws,
but Pearl Harbor seems to have overcome this. I’ve heard that Pearl Harbor does fall a little short in historical accuracy… but then it was never touted as a documentary, and as long as people keep that in mind it’ll be OK.