HAPPY FATHER'S DAY
A Film Review of "Finding Nemo"
Copyright 2003 Glenn Walker
This is probably the best Father's Day movie I've seen since Field of Dreams. It is the simple story of a father who has lost his son and risks everything to get him back. It's not perfect but it's probably the best movie I've seen in theatres this year, so far.
Other than this being a Pixar and Disney film I had no desire to see this flick. I'm a big Disney fan and I feel that new Disney animated features are events and are special. Pixar always delivers superior product. They have defined computer animation and do it flawlessly. However I have to say the thought of a movie about about fish just didn't thrill me as much as previous films whose concepts did.
Suffice to say Finding Nemo was a surprise. It's well written, the animation is amazing and it's equally entertaining for both adults and children. Speaking of children there might be some dark bits in the beginning that are a bit too scary or intense for younger kids. It is rated G although I'm sure the rating board just saw it was Disney and stamped it G without watching it. It's no scarier than anything in Bambi or Snow White.
Usually Albert Brooks is infinitely annoying, My First Mister being the only exception I can think of and that's probably because of the brilliant script and the performance of Lee Lee Sobrieski. Here I don't mind him probably because I don't have to look at him while he whines. Ellen DeGeneres, another of my favorites (not), is just as good as Brooks in Finding Nemo. Perhaps they have wonderful futures if they stick to animation. Willem Dafoe is terrific as well and the fish even looks like him.
Stay through the credits to catch Monsters Inc.'s Mike Wazowski making a cameo. And take your dad to this one. It's a great Father's Day flick.
Glenn Walker is a writer who knows pop culture. He loves, hates, and lives pop culture. He knows too freaking much about pop culture, and here's where he talks about it all: movies, music, comics, television, and the rest... Welcome to Hell.
Pages
- Arrow
- Lost Hits of the New Wave
- Daredevil
- The All Things Fun! New Comics Vidcast
- The Cape
- The Following
- Bionic Nostalgia
- True Blood
- Doctor Who
- The Flash
- Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
- Agent Carter
- Avengers Assemble
- Age of Ultron
- Infinity
- Legion of Super-Heroes
- Jessica Jones
- Young Justice
- Guardians of the Galaxy
- Legends of Tomorrow
- Civil War II
- Luke Cage
- Supergirl
Thursday, June 19, 2003
Wednesday, June 18, 2003
YES HE CAN ACT
A Video Review of "Six Degrees of Separation"
Copyright 2002 Glenn Walker
When Will Smith does crap like Bad Boys 2 and the big screen remake of The Wild Wild West it's really hard to remember he is actually quite an accomplished actor. It's just that he shows this skill so rarely.
We see a bit of it in The Legend of Bagger Vance and he shines in Ali although no one really saw these films. Will Smith first showed this spark of genius in Six Degrees of Separation. One can only guess that he made a conscious decision to be an action hero rather than an Oscar winner.
Six Degrees of Separation has a wonderful story structure that leads the viewer through a minor mystery in a unique way. Based on the concept that everyone on earth is only six people away from everyone else on earth it turns out everyone knows someone victimized by Will Smith's con artist character.
Donald Sutherland and Stockard Channing turn in brilliant performances as a couple who take a liking to him and try to seek him out when Smith vanishes from their home. Will himself is a marvel in this part playing the rich folks for suckers and advancing a mythical thesis on "Catcher in the Rye" which actually makes a twisted sort of sense.
Look for an early glimpse of a brunette Heather Graham and yet another quirky role for the adult Anthony Michael Hall.
This is a modern classic, don't miss it.
A Video Review of "Six Degrees of Separation"
Copyright 2002 Glenn Walker
When Will Smith does crap like Bad Boys 2 and the big screen remake of The Wild Wild West it's really hard to remember he is actually quite an accomplished actor. It's just that he shows this skill so rarely.
We see a bit of it in The Legend of Bagger Vance and he shines in Ali although no one really saw these films. Will Smith first showed this spark of genius in Six Degrees of Separation. One can only guess that he made a conscious decision to be an action hero rather than an Oscar winner.
Six Degrees of Separation has a wonderful story structure that leads the viewer through a minor mystery in a unique way. Based on the concept that everyone on earth is only six people away from everyone else on earth it turns out everyone knows someone victimized by Will Smith's con artist character.
Donald Sutherland and Stockard Channing turn in brilliant performances as a couple who take a liking to him and try to seek him out when Smith vanishes from their home. Will himself is a marvel in this part playing the rich folks for suckers and advancing a mythical thesis on "Catcher in the Rye" which actually makes a twisted sort of sense.
Look for an early glimpse of a brunette Heather Graham and yet another quirky role for the adult Anthony Michael Hall.
This is a modern classic, don't miss it.
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
Under the Cherry Moon
KILLING A ROLLA Video Review of "Under the Cherry Moon"
Copyright 2002 Glenn Walker
Under the Cherry Moon is horrible. Keep in mind that I love Prince. I have all his albums and have almost seen him in concert a few times. He is the sugar. But he made a horrible second film. It's about a gigolo played by the purple one trying to romance a woman in France who wants nothing to do with him.
Prince is surrounded by his usual entourage including his back-up band the Revolution. While the music is superior and the non-soundtrack (he released an album at the same time that included songs from Under the Cherry Moon) that accompanied the film is dazzling the flick itself is abominable.
The one thing that stands out above all other terrors in this mess is, to borrow a phrase from Prince's proteges The Time, what time is it? When does this film take place? It appears to be turn of the century France but includes rock and roll and other modern references. It stinks of Moulin Rouge but somehow isn't quite that bad.

In 1984 Prince was on a roll. He had a hit movie and a hit album with Purple Rain and its soundtrack. The purple one was riding high and perhaps he didn't like it. You could blame it on him being a misunderstood artistic genius but I think it goes deeper. I think he was subconsciously afraid of success, especially mainstream success. If you know any tortured artist types you know exactly what I'm talking about. They will do anything to avoid mainstream success even if it means sabotaging their career.
Witness Under the Cherry Moon. How do you end a roll? Here's a quick guide, courtesy of Prince. Believe that you know what the public wants and what is good for it. Make an art film. Use black and white film. Fill it so full of your own personal philosophy that everyone else will choke on it. Call it Under the Cherry Moon. Yep, that will kill a roll.
Hell, it might just kill a movie career. Good move, Prince, nice knowing you.
Monday, June 16, 2003
BILL PAXTON MAKES A HORROR MOVIE
A Video Review of "Frailty"
Copyright 2003 Glenn Walker
Bill Paxton makes a horror movie. To me this was an interesting proposition. In almost every movie he's been in Bill Paxton has been the would-be hero or the could-be hero… what the heck is he doing making horror movies, especially one that's been hyped as one of the best? We'll see.
Paxton's direction is quite good considering it's fairly obvious it's all a lot of clever shots and angles he's probably learned watching folks who've directed him in the past. His very able skills do save this fairly weak script by Brent Hanley though which is more like a 1960s Corman flick than a 21st century horror film with major distribution. The film moves slowly through a mish mosh of flashbacks and sometimes interesting special effects but comes across at most as monotonous.
Is it creepy? Yep. Is it disturbing? Yep. Surprise ending? Oh yeah. Is it a good horror movie? Not really, might've been a good William Castle flick in his day but this is nothing to write home about. The only frailty about Frailty is its inability to live up to its hype. Maybe Bill Paxton will direct something else soon, hopefully with a better script.
A Video Review of "Frailty"
Copyright 2003 Glenn Walker
Bill Paxton makes a horror movie. To me this was an interesting proposition. In almost every movie he's been in Bill Paxton has been the would-be hero or the could-be hero… what the heck is he doing making horror movies, especially one that's been hyped as one of the best? We'll see.
Paxton's direction is quite good considering it's fairly obvious it's all a lot of clever shots and angles he's probably learned watching folks who've directed him in the past. His very able skills do save this fairly weak script by Brent Hanley though which is more like a 1960s Corman flick than a 21st century horror film with major distribution. The film moves slowly through a mish mosh of flashbacks and sometimes interesting special effects but comes across at most as monotonous.
Is it creepy? Yep. Is it disturbing? Yep. Surprise ending? Oh yeah. Is it a good horror movie? Not really, might've been a good William Castle flick in his day but this is nothing to write home about. The only frailty about Frailty is its inability to live up to its hype. Maybe Bill Paxton will direct something else soon, hopefully with a better script.
Sunday, June 15, 2003
THE UNSINKABLE SANDRA BULLOCK
A Video Review of "Murder by Numbers"
Copyright 2003 Glenn Walker
Sandra Bullock is a very interesting actress. She really only has one mode, one act, one technique and yet she makes you watch her. You must follow her wherever she goes because of this quirky charisma. The camera loves this cute girl next door gig even when she's doing the complete opposite. This works even when she's in a crappy film. You always believe her even when you shouldn't. One wonders how she would fare in a villain part. I think she would be marvelous, on an Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector scale.
In Murder by Numbers Sandra plays a homicide detective matching wits with a pair of high school versions of Leopold and Loeb. Bullock does wonders with this hardcore version of America's sweetheart crossed liberally with "Profiler."
Barbet Shroeder does above average work and yet not up to previous potential. I was kind of disappointed actually. Ben Chaplin may as well have been a store mannequin for all the passion he put into his part. Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt do their best James Dean and Trent Reznor imitations while keeping with the Leopold and Loeb murder geniuses roles.
The story on the other hand ranges somewhere between a good 1970s "Columbo" and Seven, it tries really hard and succeeds. There are slow parts, mostly due to a lack of background music. I could have done without Bullock's backstory and the red-assed monkey but for the most part it is an excellent film. Nice detective works make you think and Murder by Numbers hits the bullseye.
Murder by Numbers is an excellent thriller and I can't wait to see what Sandra Bullock has next up her sleeve. She has the makings of a new Jodie Foster both on screen and behind it.
A Video Review of "Murder by Numbers"
Copyright 2003 Glenn Walker
Sandra Bullock is a very interesting actress. She really only has one mode, one act, one technique and yet she makes you watch her. You must follow her wherever she goes because of this quirky charisma. The camera loves this cute girl next door gig even when she's doing the complete opposite. This works even when she's in a crappy film. You always believe her even when you shouldn't. One wonders how she would fare in a villain part. I think she would be marvelous, on an Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector scale.
In Murder by Numbers Sandra plays a homicide detective matching wits with a pair of high school versions of Leopold and Loeb. Bullock does wonders with this hardcore version of America's sweetheart crossed liberally with "Profiler."
Barbet Shroeder does above average work and yet not up to previous potential. I was kind of disappointed actually. Ben Chaplin may as well have been a store mannequin for all the passion he put into his part. Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt do their best James Dean and Trent Reznor imitations while keeping with the Leopold and Loeb murder geniuses roles.
The story on the other hand ranges somewhere between a good 1970s "Columbo" and Seven, it tries really hard and succeeds. There are slow parts, mostly due to a lack of background music. I could have done without Bullock's backstory and the red-assed monkey but for the most part it is an excellent film. Nice detective works make you think and Murder by Numbers hits the bullseye.
Murder by Numbers is an excellent thriller and I can't wait to see what Sandra Bullock has next up her sleeve. She has the makings of a new Jodie Foster both on screen and behind it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)