http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:26:49 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/30/102649.php Josh ParkinsonNutshell Analysis:50% of the peanut: Why Batman is an old fogey: Incredible action, visuals, and even a sense of humor, not to mention a scientist gone mad with huge mechanical arms welded to his body to make one of the coolest of his villains that Spidey could meet on screen!50% of the peanut: Why every other attempt at drama and love in an action flick becomes not only transparent, but now entirely pathetic: Not only does the action fly unbelievably high, but the dramatic portion of a full fledged action/super-hero flick soars to new heights.Total: 100% web-spinning, Mary Jane lovin', Spidey goodness! Full Review: What more can be said for the webhead's new movie but "perfection." I still don't agree in the least for the choice to have his webbing shoot straight from his body rather than the mechanical web shooter he builds in the comics, but the film makes you forget any comic altering complaints you may have. The action and visuals blow you away, the humor grabs you by the funny bone, and even the dramatic portion leaves you entirely consumed. No, I think whether he builds a web shooter or not does not matter at all anymore.To begin with, as it is a super hero flick, the action was as amazing as the amazing Spider-Man himself. The fights really captured the skill and movement capable of such characters, and of the type of action portrayed in comics themselves. It is probably the first time that CG'ing an entire character for even close shots was not only appropriate, but entirely believable. Yes, you could still tell it was done on a computer. But no, it didn't matter at all, nor did it detract in the least. In fact, it made the most accurate movements to capture the true dynamic and magic of comic book fight scenes that I have ever seen. For the first time, it was like seeing the powerful imagery and intensity in the frames of a well done comic book come to life before our eyes and actually believe it. No "POW"-"ZAP" fight scenes here. These are raw, intense, superhuman brawls without the need for such understated titles to feel it in right in our guts.The visual aspect as a whole was perfectly impressive, and the film was just plain beautiful. Scenes of Spider-Man swooping through New York were breathtaking. The dingier sets were gratifyingly gritty with a slick, dark coolness about them. And everything genius-gone-mad-scientist related was undeniably awesome looking, including his final outlaw lab on the docks and his great experiment gone wrong. Set design astounded, and CG effects were thankfully well done so as to even make me a believer. But, that's not all. As the final touch, the cinematography impressed, amplifying the entire experience with camera work to be readily applauded.Despite it all, the greatest feat, if for no other reason than simply the difficulty in doing it well in such an action film, was the film's dramatic content that was both robust and multi-dimensional. From personal doubt to family relations to the tensions and the personal release of love, 'Spider-Man 2' manages to spotlight all of them with unparalleled skill in an action film. The story grips the heart with ease, enveloping us in the emotions and conflicts of the characters, abandoning our own realities to become part of theirs. Powerful and intelligent dramatics even manage as much of a prominence in the film as the action focus and its own plot. The seemingly obligatory love story and other dramatic content in any action film produced always creates their greatest flaw, flailing around horribly in the background of the action plot. 'Spider-Man 2' rises far beyond this limitation, traversing the most treacherous terrain to afflict an action film with incredible success. But, despite all this packed into only a couple hours, the film still manages smart humor that always hits it mark, and breaks up any tension that may otherwise begin to build up and weigh us down. At just the right times, we will be struck with unexpected laughter that seems almost reflexive, but the mind never argues with but instead cheers along, recognizing their wit.Action, drama, humor, and all done to near perfection. There truly is no better word for this film than 'perfect' for me, and I don't generally rave about a film so one-sidedly unless it has exceptional merits. 'Spider-Man 2' has these exceptional merits, creating a perfect film that even eclipses it's predecessor. I would normally be afraid to hype up the film, but it's hard to imagine that any amount of hype could taint the experience. It's rare to find every major element of a film done so well.- By Josh Parkinson of http://www.eatingpeanuts.com/film/, updated regularly with reviews, previews, and new release summaries of both theater and DVD releases.Was this review helpful? Let me know, leave a comment! Video16954@blogcritics.org Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:26:49 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/26/103514.php Josh ParkinsonNutshell Analysis:72% of the Peanut - Exceptional documentary: Serious and well made documentary on the post 9/11 war with Bush and his administration in general.25% of the Peanut - Silly Bush, public manipulations are for fascists: Comedic relief perfectly timed and tasteful, while each having it's own point to make, relieved the tension at the right times, and made running time enjoyable as well as meaningful.3% of the Peanut - Come, title, please!: The title sequence was an impressive concept that really struck me, but was a bit too long.Total: 97% incredibly powerful, and perfectly and unobtrusively humorous, portrayal of unfortunate reality. 3% of its only major fault, a title sequence that was simply too long.Full Review:Micheal Moore releases his latest documentary probing Bush, his administration's actions, and the war in Iraq as a result of 9-11. It's a little odd that the film's title reads 'Fahrenheit 9/11', yet has little to do directly with the tragedy of 9/11 itself. But, at the same time, the film has everything to do with this American tragedy of terrorism. The film plays through with power, skill, and intelligence to become an impressive work, even if you don't agree with what he says through it.Before I get into the content, I should mention the cinematic qualities that made it exceptional right from the start. I was impressed by the skill shown in the direction and editing before the opening credits even finished. The film opened with a narration, a story of the current President Bush and the corruption of the presidential electoral process, not to mention the media, and continued to include up through the care-free days of his leisurely pre-9/11 presidency. It opened the film with both sharp wit and sharp criticism, bringing up points and events the ordinary person may have never known occurred. It also set the entire film up, and did so in a humorously poignant way that eased us into the film rather than throwing us into emotional upheaval.Then the opening credits rolled in, showing the various players in the Bush administration being prepared to speak to the nation as if being prepared to play a role. We see them in the final moments before the cameras are to switch on, just as we mind our way through the final moments that is the title sequence, waiting for the act the administration is about to play following 9-11. Perhaps for too long, but the sequence remained extremely effective, quiet (but not silent), and is once again setting up the statements of the film in a visually metaphoric way. The screen fades, and the genius of the film continues. The screen remains black as the sound comes in, and we all know what it is. Chaos, sounds of people, and then an impact. We never even hear anyone refer to what has just happened, but we know. We wait, listening in the darkness, listening as the events unfold without seeing or being told about a single thing. Eventually, the screen fades back in as we see people on the street, see papers and rubble and dust, we see sadness, shock, a distress that people don't know what to do or feel except everything horrible at once. We see ordinary people on the street, but we never see a single shot of the event, or hear a single word of what is happening. We never do throughout the entire film, not a single shot of those towers before, during, or after the attack. But nothing could have been more powerful or important as that. It not only tries to show that it is not exploiting the event and footage, but creates a much more potent effect. It also, and maybe more importantly, shows the real focus of Moore's documentary - the ordinary people affected and involved, not the events.The meat of the documentary then continues on from this incredible base and set-up with incredible strength of its own. He presents the stories, the statements, the effects, and the point with a hard nosed dig into the events and relations that followed. He presented the highest of government and the most ordinary of people to show what has happened since, and why we have a war in Iraq and no terrorists, or even reclaimed weapons of mass destruction, to speak of. He shows the corrupt business motivations and relations to these same figures in government, as well as the poor Joes being gobbled up by the army, and the families and soldiers who have been harshly affected by it all.And yet, despite all the seriousnous of the content and presentation, there is enough of the right kinds of comedic relief. And even more important, the right kinds at the right times. In the last several years there has been two types of negative commentary as to how things are happening after 9/11. On the one side is the ultra-serious (who sometimes come off as fanatical, or are portrayed as anti-American and simply crazy peace-mongers), or as comedic portrayals that are so consumed by the spoof that they aren't taken seriously in the least. But Moore was one of the first to present the issues in a strong, serious, and more complete manner, but do so with enough professionalism and the perfect amount of humor to really pull it off well. If anything can finally bring these things to light in a receivable way by the masses, I would expect this film to be the most likely to achieve it. In the end, he wraps up the Bush administration's show similar to how it began. He cycled through the clips of the same people shown being prepared for television in the title sequence, but now in the moments just after the cameras are turned off. A fitting close to finalize the simple but telling metaphor. And with all points made and the story wrapped up, we are not left feeling dragged down by the whole work and it's many strong statements. In the absolutely final moment, we are even mercifully left with a last, but wholly meaningful, humorous clip to send us on our way, and to remember.- By Josh Parkinson of http://www.eatingpeanuts.com/film/, updated regularly with reviews, previews, and new release summaries of both theater and DVD releases. Video16845@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:35:14 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/24/111004.php Josh ParkinsonNutshell Analysis:20% of the peanut - Why this film popped a ball: Relatively mundane humor and unoriginality consumed this otherwise entertaining film. Ben Stiller was little more than a mega-gym version of his Zoolander persona, with the same basis for character humor. Vince Vaughn's dryly humorous role was more dry than humorous.75% of the peanut - Why this film drove a fast ball to the open groin of suckiness: It was just plain non-stop fun! The jokes and silliness just kept coming throughout the film. Stiller was hilarious despite the unoriginal character very similar to Zoolander. And, personally, I thought Vaughn's dry, understated character provided several moments of hilarity.5% of the peanut - The arguement for corny cameos: One word, Booger. It may not register at first, but hopefully you realize the cameo when you see it. Not to mention several other, sometimes relatively obscure, cameos throughout the film. Even a certain famous cyclist made a sarcastically hilarious appearance.total: 80% sweet salty deliciousnous, 20% overcooked and shriveled. See it. Or in the words of another recent Stiller character, "Do it. Do it."Review in full:A silly, funny, Ben Stiller comedy, 'Dodgeball' was no feat of comedic genius, but was an entertaining ride nonetheless. Ben Stiller, as White Goodman, owner of GloboGym, played one of his goofy, stupid little characters that was more than a bit reminiscent of his great role in 'Zoolander' (even if the movie was mostly only a recap of all his short pieces with the Zoolander character). Vince Vaughn, as Peter La Fleur, plays a very understated but dryly humorous character as Stiller's nemesis, and owner of a gym for the normal guy. Even Rip Torn (probably most known as the old guy Zed on Men in Black) gets in with an often humorous, very off-center character as Patches O'Houlihan. The film plays with a steady stream of sports as well as fitness gym spoofing, combined with nerd and guru spoofing, to keep you consistently entertained through the very reasonable storyline.But if you ask me, the film is about the evil twin of Zoolander. The only difference being that one is mad about looks in the ultra fit sense, and the other, namely Zoolander, is mad about looks in the fashion runway sense. Otherwise, they are identical. Yet, it also provides just as much ridiculous humor to go along with such ditzy characters, which Stiller seems so adept at employing.The rest of the cast is filled out on the good side with a host of crazy characters, which is at times meant literally. From nerds to pirates to an ordinary guy with no desire for anything in life, they liven up the veritable nerd squad to watchable proportions. Vaughn, as this ordinary guy, plays his role wonderfully deadpan, providing a great contrast and a dry humor amongst the rest of the zaniness around him.You would think that dodgeball, as a proffessional sport, would appear with a very silly concept in the film, but it actually looked kind of fun. I certainly wouldn't have minded playing some of that in school, or just for fun. Apparently, not only was it well organized in the film so as to actually be plausable, but there actually is a dodgeball league in real life. The rest of everything related to this proffessional dodgeball league as it was portrayed, however, was far from reasonable, and horribly gimicky. Each team had some overblown and oddball stereotype that was used to ill effect. The only truly humorous team was the Stiller's more proffessionally organized GloboGym team.'Dodgeball' was no masterpiece, no parader of originality, but was funny and entertaining through it's entire running time anyways. Now, how do I go about starting up a dodgeball team.... - By Josh Parkinson of http://www.eatingpeanuts.com/film/, updated regularly with reviews, previews, and new release summaries of both theater and DVD releases. Video16797@blogcritics.org Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:10:04 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/04/171234.php Josh ParkinsonEclectic jewel of a film, 'American Splendor' tells a unique story in a unique way. It is the true life story of a comic writer, and those around him. He's not a superhero writer, but part of a group who wished to elevate the comic art form beyond children's interests, and cheap entertainment. The story is very quirky, entertaining, and full of depth. This writer is Harvey Pekar, ordinary joe almost bent on keeping his ordinary joeness and low-end economic stature. He never even quit his job as a clerk. And everyone he seems to attract around him seem to have their own almost ridiculous oddities. But, nonetheless, the story delves deeper into the person to make a very connectible guy with a host of insecurities, creative intent, longing for someone to care about him, and at one point a fight with cancer. Sometimes hilarious, sometimes serious, 'American Splendor' rounds out very well.Paul Giamatti, as Harvey, once again plays this type of character superbly. He brings this oddly sympathetic character to life, and brings us to care despite some of his offsetting traits. Amazingly, everyone in the cast, relatively unknowns, seems to contribute their portion with skill. And, simultaneously, all capture their associated real persons' unique qualities. This can be readily seen as the real people from this life story are presented in short clips throughout the film as if in a white-filled backstage, or being interviewed as they watch it being made. It brings a very interesting dimension to the film, which manages to also connect the play with those being portrayed. It almost instills a magic in the theatrics, while connecting with the audience a sense of a true life behind it.'American Splendor,' at times, employed uses of the artistic medium it's subject strives in - the comic strip. The opening followed Harvey, and introduced him through, live film in panels of a comic book, with drawn frames of Harvey himself interspersed throughout as narrator. Not absolutely original, but well done and effective. It doesn't carry through the whole film, but at times it will pop up just when it becomes most useful. No indulgences here, just the poignant use of a rare practice that compliments the work.To put it simply, 'American Splendor' was just very well done. The film exudes creativity and enthusiasm which was skillfully reigned in to an exceptional work. Every aspect was handled with a strong hand and a flowing grace. It is an incredible film I would heartily recommend to anyone. Not exactly mainstream, but a film most anyone can appreciate and enjoy.THE FILM ADVERTISED HAS BEEN RATED BY EATING PEANUTS REVIEWERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAEPRAA Ratings System Website Review not included this time as the site didn't seem to exist when I went to review it.(Review ©2003 by Joshua Parkinson, posted originally at http://www.eatingpeanuts.com) Video9827@blogcritics.org Tue, 4 Nov 2003 17:12:34 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/10/19/141341.php Josh ParkinsonSouls lost, connect in familiarity; and later, bond. Sofia Coppola's new film exudes skill and grace, lifted ever higher by the unmistakably amazing performances by the legend perfectionist Bill Murray and powerful newcomer Scarlett Johansson. 'Lost in Translation' holds a poignant depth of character and story. Reveling in both subtlety and potent exuberance, the film tells a tale of two half-lost souls in a physically and figuratively foreign world that find each other and connect in an incredible, personal bond. And the bond is made all the more powerful and profound by a lack of physical passion to cheaply illustrate the connection.It's rare to find such a perfect balance in a film. It firmly journeys in utter determination, not to be swayed to making statements or indulging in cheap theatrics. 'Lost in Translation' instead sticks to an honest portrayal of these primary characters and their relations to each other, keeping to the delicate balance of life. The story is neither sad nor happy, neither discouraging nor inspirational, neither subtle nor exuberant. It walks deliberately along its curving path with no hidden agendas distracting it.Actually, Charlotte (Johansson) and Bob Harris (Murray) were the film. Without these two, 'Lost in Translation' would have been nothing; and it's accomplishment hinged upon the actors who played them. The delicate skill may at times bore some, but to others amaze them. And yet, it isn't trapped in the constant boorishness that such a film is prone to, and has been a downfall of otherwise incredible films with incredible performances such as the recent "About Schmidt," which takes a fine appreciation and patience to find fascinating. In fact, sometimes the film is downright fun and hilarious, despite the film not generally being of laugh-out-loud gut laughter, particularly thanks to the dead-pan humor emanating from Bill Murray.What the film shows us is a very identifiable and honest vision of two people perpetually lost in the worlds they live, and finding a home in each other. They magnetically come together to create a world within a world to which they finally feel they belong and connect to someone in. The process is a delicate meander at first, tip toeing with a cautious curiosity that calls to them. But once the walls have been crumbled down, the bond is unmistakable and consuming.And despite all this exquisite content, the film is a wondrous work of cinematography and editing. Quite frankly, it is a beautiful film. Yet there remains nothing of beauty without function. The film flows with ease as each shot remains an artistic vision in its own right of clarity, purpose, and beauty. And throughout the film, a sense of isolation, and of another world, surrounds these characters both when alone and especially when with each other, while being among the busy masses of people that sometimes seem to wish to snuff them right out of existence.A powerful and an ultimately simple film, ‘Lost in Translation’ finds a jewel of a story, with an incredible pair of leads and an amazing vision to bring it to life. Perhaps the best film of the current year to hit theaters so far. It contains a power that resonates in gripping subtlety.THE FILM ADVERTISED HAS BEEN RATED BY EATING PEANUTS REVIEWERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAEPRAA Ratings System Website Review: (http://www.lost-in-translation.com/home.html) A very attractive site, with some interesting information nestled inside. Go to "behind the scenes" to find the only interesting info with a lengthy Q&A and a short interview clip. There are a few wallpapers littered around the site as well.(Review ©2003 by Joshua Parkinson, posted originally at http://www.eatingpeanuts.com) Video9316@blogcritics.org Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:13:41 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/10/09/090907.php Josh ParkinsonTender care of ripe and tender flesh, the burgeoning life inside. Care for need, experimental touch, so as not to bruise or hinder growth, for the child of mother's blossom.A harshly tender and sometimes disturbing story of a child thrown suddenly in a world of peer criticism while struggling with the emotional conflicts arising within her own family, however much her mother may care and love her and show it. It isn't the practically pornographic film some have led us to believe, nor is it obnoxiously destructive or depressing. Even in a film like this, they managed a very positive ending, although not a falsely happy one. And, unlike many in this line of stories, the mother truly does care about her daughter and shows it strongly and consistently. Problems lie in far more indirect ways, to show us everything affects a child, or anyone who deeply cares for you.To say the lead family's existence is a normal suburban pleasantness would be slightly off course. The parents are divorced, Tracy lives with her mother and brother, her mother, Melanie, is a terribly affectionate mother but lets others take advantage of her generosity and understanding, including her husband. She also has some sort of past problem requiring a support group, and a recurring boyfriend who always leaves and has come back soon into the film. And, as always, there are some money problems, but none particularly debilitating. What affects Tracy most stems from what she sees her mother do to herself in letting people walk all over her sense of generosity. And seeing the boyfriend, Brady, come back was pretty much the last straw for her concern to bear.Now couple this with being thrown in to the giant pot of adolescent hierarchy and power struggles called high school. This boils up quite the potential for disaster in this thirteen year old girl, and it strikes hot with a cloud of billowing steam to accompany it. Another girl, Evie, finds in her someone to clamp onto like a parasite and feed off of, almost as if bound by some psychological survival to do so. Worlds crumble and empires fall, and the people around Tracy are left to desperately hoist up the walls as they disintegrate in their bare hands.As I said, it leaves on a positive note that touches deeply into the maternal centers of us all, making the film an emotionally worthwhile experience despite it all, but I won't give it all away. And the cast does it's part to enrich the entire experience. As lead, Evan Rachel Wood, playing Tracy, plays her character powerfully, especially for such a young age. At the beginning, she felt a bit forced, especially in her little victory dance, but once she got warmed up she was burning with vibrant emotion and tension. Holly Hunter, as Tracy's mom Melanie, shined with her proven skill in a multidimensional role of a character given both to serious concern and enthusiastic fancy. Jeremy Sisto appears as Brady playing pretty the same basic presence as his role in 'Six Feet Under,' albiet well. Nikki Reed, playing Evie, acted her role decently, but to no hint of exceptional, along with the other sometimes ametuerish supporting roles not yet mentioned.A great cast, a digital video visual style that works well (but deserves no special praise for its use of digital), and a solid plot and sentiment to back it all up, 'Thirteen' excels gracefully and powerfully. Not a happy movie, but a film that ends on a very positive scene, nonetheless. 'Thirteen' deserves any praise it is given.THE FILM ADVERTISED HAS BEEN RATED BY EATING PEANUTS REVIEWERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAEPRAA Ratings System Website Review: (http://www2.foxsearchlight.com/thirteen/) Attractive site with a few interview clips, but nothing terribly probing about such a powerful film. And the full production notes, etc. link was broken. The PDF was a dead link.(Review ©2003 by Joshua Parkinson, posted originally at http://www.eatingpeanuts.com) Video9021@blogcritics.org Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:09:07 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/09/29/121205.php Josh Parkinson I can see it's potential to be critically acclaimed, but I can also see its potential to actually be entirely lifeless. And when I say 'potential to actually be entirely lifeless,' I actually mean 'is entirely lifeless,' besides being overly drawn out and long. I imagine the book was probably a great book to read. But the film simply didn't work in all but form and shape. 'Seabiscuit' had no soul.The acting, the dialogue and one-liners, the solidarity of the overall plot - everything was classically stoic, seemingly perfect. Some of the lines had the makings of greatness, but only the makings. But the creative spark, the heart of the work, dimmed to the point of nonexistence. An empty shell is pretty pointless. A gorgeous ship and a crew with all the technical know-how but no drive is nothing without a captian and purpose. Unfortunately, none but William H. Macy, playing Tick Tock McGlaughlin so brightly as to provide the only burning spark the entire film, could help it in any way. Although, Chris Cooper did deliver a great but subtle performance as Tom Smith, the horse-wrangler and trainor, as well.The one-liners definately did not help their situation. "The makings of greatness," where in the realization that they were indeed made showed their utter transparency. True great lines happen, aren't made. They come from genius and coincidence, and are part of the dialogue, not above it. In other words, they are found, not thrown at you, not consciously placed solely for that purpose and blatently so. And finally, they come from great works and passion, neither of which this film falls within. So, my message to these studios with similar goals for films, stop it!One of its greatest downfalls, however, lies in the general structure of the film. It never seemed to end, and at the same time kept seeming like it was about to, but only then keep going afterwards. It became a very tedious and tiresome pattern that only emphasized the unending length and boredom. Part of that lied in that there was no recognizable goal throughout. It was simply a life story from the history channel that led up to nearly nothing in particular, and where you simply waited for it to decide where it wanted to stop. If I had already known the life story it might have been different, but knowing little more than they win some race against the odds, the film didn't entirely lead to the finale, and the rest of the film wasn't interesting or entertaining enough to make up for that, not in the script, performances, or anything else but pure history.So, final thoughts time. The performances were technically and empirically good, but entirely uninspired and labored, except William H. Macy who was as usual brilliant. The script didn't help them, nor did it help the film. In itself, the film had no real story, just a didactic run-through of events. And finally, and most importantly, the work had no soul, no heart, no creative spark. I can see its potential to be fairly well acclaimed, but as a work of cinematic art and story, it was dead. I would be gravely dissappointed to see it find Oscar Best Picture position, but don't rule out the possibility. I just hope to see it heavily overshadowed by the fall season and by high quality film.THE FILM ADVERTISED HAS BEEN RATED BY EATING PEANUTS REVIEWERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAEPRAA Ratings System Website Review: (http://www.seabiscuitmovie.com/) A chaotic mass of clips and bits that I haven't had the time to go through. Could be interesting to some with some history interest in the film's subject, and a few clips of the movie are littered throughout as well.(Review ©2003 by Joshua Parkinson, posted originally at http://www.eatingpeanuts.com) Video8759@blogcritics.org Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:12:05 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/09/24/095518.php Josh ParkinsonAn explosive and fast-moving ride, with plenty of plot twists to go around! Guns, explosions, action, barely unreal stunts, conspiracy, good, evil, and both combined. What more could you ask for, other than a larger part by Selma Heyek? Which reminds me, don't forget the powerful cast of indie and outskirt loyalists such as Antonio Banderas (El Mariachi), Johnny Depp (Sands), and Selma Heyek (Carolina). But I was surprised to see so many more playing almost equally significant roles, such as Willem Dufoe (Barillo), Cheech (Belini), Danny Trejo (Cucuy), Mickey Rourke (which to this day simply hearing the name makes me laugh, I don't know why)(Billy), and Julio Oscar Mechoso (advisor).Now, to begin with, for all those who are thinking, "But I never saw 'Desperado' or 'El Meriachi'!" Yes, I realize we are a sad bunch for being in the position to say that, but I am one of you. This review will be entirely on the movie in itself, and the movie succeeds as such very well, no studying required. It's fun, action-packed, and spectacularly produced, with a spiraling story of plots and subplots that is independent and easily followed. Further, the film presents, up front, any character history we may have missed in previous films.The visual style was beautiful but subtle, not the obnoxious extravagance common in south of the border action films. Costume and sets were simple, bold and dusty, but with enough style and exageration to make it interesting. The cinematography powered the film with additional energy and style without creating a 'Chicago' effect of choppy chaos, and knew how to crop and position. Your eye could rest long enough to register what was seen and take it in, but not so long you get bored.The performances were great. Everyone did an incredible job throughout the film. Johnny Depp, playing Sands the American CIA agent, probably held the most interest in the film with a character that was a synthesis of good and bad in such a bad way, and played it so well. Maybe even more interesting was the character's sythesis of pride and vulnerability. He was a captivating character for me.The most entertaining part of the whole film, however, was probably the thrilling gun fights. Beyond belief, but so damn cool to watch. It was choreographed and played with such determination and thought, looking beyond just the guns themselves to come up with a terribly interesting set of hero battles. The thoughtful reality of it particularly caught me. It wasn't just the knee-jerk hollywood reaction just to make things blow up to affect the enemies, and simply use an endless spray of bullets. The extras don't even always get hit right away. The bullets themselves are used and are specific, like choreographing a sword fight instead of pyrotechnics display. The bullets are used as if each one was important and had a purpose, and were handled as if they actually had only a limited number of them in the chambers. Reloading or getting a new gun was part of the adrenaline dance. So to say the least, I was unusually impressed with it all.Go, enjoy, have fun. 'Once Upon a Time in Mexico' unfolds with such thought and grace among the conspiracy, backstabbing, gun fights, and Mexico that its hard not to enjoy yourself on some level. It's not some grandly original film, but it isn't supposed to be any great thought-provoking drama or ground-breaker. But its not exactly empty either!THE FILM ADVERTISED HAS BEEN RATED BY EATING PEANUTS REVIEWERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAEPRAA Ratings System Website Review: (http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/onceuponatimeinmexico/) Very pretty once you actually enter it, but resource intensive animation causing slow navigation, and limited content once you get to it. It is rather useless, don't even bother. Not even any wallpapers!(Review ©2003 by Joshua Parkinson, posted originally at http://www.eatingpeanuts.com) Video8626@blogcritics.org Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:55:18 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/09/15/195809.php Josh ParkinsonAn amazing dark drama from England set largely in the world of illegal aliens living in London, and the things that come of it. It's a story about the good individuals that are swallowed into the dirty underworld through the unfortunate situation taken advantage of, and about the personal fights against it. And beneath it are the relationships between them. 'Dirty Pretty Things' presents a cinematic ride through mystery, crime, love, and the unfortunate curcumstances of illegal immigrants trying to build a better life, or running from a life they can no longer live.Okwe, played wonderfully by Chiwetel Ejiofor, resides as our central character and mystery, the venerable immigrant doctor who suspisciously lives now illegally in London struggling with hotel lobby and driver jobs to survive. Audrey Tautou plays her first major role to come to America since 'Amelie' (a fact flouted despite her presence not actually being the lead), and speaking English no less, as the muslim immigrant seeking asylum Senay, and friend of Okwe. Although not technically the same as the others, she, curiously enough, has a stringent set of rules by the immigration department, at threat of imprisonment, that put her in the same boat. And between these two characters is what drives the story, their interplay in this world of survival, and forces yet to be revealed, and the definite feelings between them. They are eventually forced into overwhelming situations where they are forced to decide between becoming part of this underworld, or desperately grasp at escape to keep their beings intact.Both honest and powerful, the story pulls you into the tensions and emotions such that you can't help but feel for the characters. The movement keeps the film going with a momentum that can't be stopped. And the production makes the world come alive before us with detail. A very wise choice for Tautou to follow up her internationally successful 'Amelie,' and a smart contrast as well. But the film benefits as much from her, a dim light to keep the whole ship from crashing down into darkness. This drop of contrast in the film is potent, but kept smartly to a drop to not ruin it in a sacrifice of believability and earnestness. 'Dirty Pretty Things' presents a strong, darker, vividly interesting film involving shady practices and underhanded denizens of this crime ridden fringe with a couple of good people stuck in the sludge. It also manages both depth and drama without resorting to impeding the movement of the film, nor the interest of the viewer. Finally, top this all off with a great heaping of rich and gritty atmosphere in both character and visual presence. Tautou, and eveyone else involved, should be proud of what they brought to our theaters, and we are the ones to benefit. Website Review: (http://www.go-underground.com/) A rather misleading website with a rather creative design concept. Don't go, before or after. The site is very misleading to what the film is and the characters in it, and nothing exists that adds to the film after seeing it. A tragic disappointment.(Review ©2003 by Joshua Parkinson, posted originally at http://www.indestructiblecycles.com) Video8401@blogcritics.org Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:58:09 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/09/10/135927.php Josh ParkinsonA simple story in impact with a complexity and uniqueness in vision that amazes. Films like this show you the utter simplicity of human emotional needs, which shows you how simple life itself is despite the grand mess we make it. Your own concerns, and the great debates we dabble in, seem rather insignificant when you watch this powerful and potent story of an 18 year old girl, Meg, and the world around her. To summarize the basic plotline tells a seemingly typical structure. A teenage girl whose father is gone, whose mother is emotionally absent from her, whose younger sister has been hit hard by the situation, and who longs for concern and attention and finds it in her poetry and a teacher who nurtures it. Don't be fooled. A film is only as good as its experience, not its plotline, and this film excels beyond expectations.It tells in a very real experience how appreciation and companionship, any kind of human connection, is all a human being really needs and strives for. We so often lose that, sometimes searching out alternatives to replace it, but 'Blue Car' so poignantly shows it both in Meg, and more drastically in her sister Lily, that you can't help but understand. I left the theater feeling cleansed. It left me with a mixture of sad and refreshed, sad in my sympathy for her and her sister, refreshed in both her character's final change and in the fundamental message that seemd as a gift. I was truly skeptical before the movie, expecting the typical given what little I knew of the film. I was pleasantly surprised at what they did with what could have been very standard.What always helps is an incredible cast, and this astounds across the board. Agnes Bruckner as Meg played her lead phenomenally. She played with skill an entire gamut of emotion and character, from vulnerable to empowered, from hidden excitement to hidden disgust, and everything inbetween. The young addition of Regan Arnold as the disillusioned and quietly screaming child Lily played her challenging part with such incredible sublety and depth that she blew me away. These actresses very much stole the film. And all the adults were played beautifully as well, with both depth and complexity.What I also appreciated was exceptional cinematography. A common pitfall of independent films lies in defaulting to unnecessaryily close cropping of the frame to get an uncomfortable and 'real' sense, and relying on a documentary-like cheapening of visual and auditory quality to attempt the same effects. 'Blue Car' stood true to fine cinematography and was rewarded with a perfect visual presence. Scenes and shots were cropped exactly as they need to be. Camera angles were natural, relying on the more abstract only when purpose required them, not in every other shot or doing so in the need to inject an emotional response that the rest of the production couldn't carry alone. And the film equally wasn't afraid to come in closer to where it needed to be, rather than a film of primarily all wide and semi-wide shots, which can happen as well. No indulgences, no skittishness, it was simply done the way it was meant to be done, invisibly impactful.Actually that last sentence describes the entire film. 'Blue Car' hits you with such honesty and simple raw emotion. No matter what age, you realize how important the need for human connection, purpose, and the attention that should be of common respect and concern for each other. It shows how often these are lost in the noise of career, personal desires, and the drive to advance oneself up the economic ladder. And it shows how often we don't even realize these needs in ourselves no matter how much they are driving our emotions and actions. But sometimes we finally realize it. Website Review: (http://www.miramax.com/bluecar/index.html) It looks like its website is screaming for attention to. It was horribly neglected and almost nonexistant. It has the trailer, however. (Review ©2003 by Joshua Parkinson, posted originally at http://www.indestructiblecycles.com) Video8267@blogcritics.org Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:59:27 EDT