HC Reviews

Team America: World Police

Directed By: Trey Parker

107 Minutes

Action/comedy/musical

________________________________________________________

Be disturbed.

Be very disturbed.

_______________________________________________________________
Who knew a movie using solely marionette puppets could be so....sooo.... gah I don't even know!

Matt and Trey said it best when they were on the Last Call with Carson Daily show a few nights ago.

'If you can survive the first 5 minutes, you should be fine. Otherwise just leave.' (not exact quote)

I had a wee think on that and it's true. It's so cheesy and offensive and... OFFENSIVE. I was sitting in my seat much like I was when I first watched South Park, Bigger Longer Uncut, my mouth flapping open in that 'wholy shit' kinda way, and completely in awe like a kid in a candy store because I absolutely adore Matt and Trey's work as much as I adore Quentin Terantino's.

Everything down to the little details of set design (hello croissant paving in France), to the noticeable South Park crossovers (hello montage sequence as seen similarily in episode ASSpen of S.P-and Kim Jong Il's character sounding suspiciously like the City Wok owner) was totally cool. Even the little screw up's like puppet's not hitting their marks properly and walking into dooways on accident have been kept in. And once again NO ONE get's left behind in being made fun of. Michael Moore suicide bombs himself, Helen Hunt sword fights, Sean Penn get's attaked by panthers. I caught the World Police's rediculous bomb-everything-to-go-after-terroists routine to reflect a bit of how I feel Americans in general are going about fighting terror oveseas and Hello? Why doesn't anyone pay attention to Korea? Duh.

The musical sequences, though shorter than I would have enjoyed, were funny (just listen to the lyrics), and completely up to par with all of Trey's lyrical concoctions. From rock hard anthems to sappy country-like tunes a Parker-Stone film wouldn't be complete without them.

Not to mention a very.. em. Interesting sex scene.

Yep. Sex with Puppets. We'll leave it at that.

To be fully honest. I don't think this movie is for everyone. Definetely no kids, Definetely no hardcore conservatives. Definetely no one going into the film expecting one thing when the whole damned film will knock you on your ass and ask for second helpings. Not even a lot of highschoolers I know should watch this because it's just that bad. I even had a hard time grasping not only the puppet part (beautiful puppets too), but following everything to be said. I don't really think it's a political film though there are some political figures in it and once again, Matt and Trey out do themselves with pissing off a whole lot of people. This whole fearlessness is why I adore them so much. If people whine about their films, they stand by the fact that people should just not watch them.

This is definetely a film that will need at least two viewings to absorb and form opinions over. Until then, hang in there. You will get knocked on your ass, or just want to leave. You will most likely get offended. You will laugh and be merry and you will sit there at one point with your mouth hanging open going 'wtf?!?'. Keep an open mind and go into the theatre with no expectations.

Posted by prism at 06:38 PM | Comments (1)

October 22, 2004

The Butterfly Effect

Ashton Kutcher .... Evan Treborn
Melora Walters .... Andrea Treborn
Amy Smart .... Kayleigh Miller
Elden Henson .... Lenny Kagan
William Lee Scott .... Tommy Miller

There might be spoilers in this review. Read at your own risk.

I remember when I first saw the trailer for this film (Dec 2003 b/c the movie was leased in Jan 2004). Even though I'm not a big Ashton Kutcher fan, I wanted to see it because it seemed like an interesting idea.

However, once the movie came out, every single review I saw for this movie panned it. Not one reveiw was favorable. So, I decided to skip it. I should've known better than to read the opinions on the IMDB boards. Holy cow are those people vitriolic!

Based on a scientific chaos theory known as The Butterfly Effect, which in turn is based a little bit on a Ray Bradbury short story called A Sound of Thunder, this movie follows the life of Evan Treborn. He routinely blacks out and because of these memory lapses, is encouraged to keep journals. He and his friends get into several bad situations and Evan eventually ends up moving away.
Fast forward to college. Evan is a Psych major who has gone 7 years without a black out. Perusing his old journals, he discovers he has the ability to travel back in time to that point. Using this knowledge, he goes back in time at several points to try to change the course of events. But of course, every time he goes back, something changes and not everything comes out the way he planned. He finally decides that he's the cause of the issues and goes back one last time to try to fix everything. The version I watched was the Director's Cut, which had some added scenes and a completely different ending.

Ashton Kutcher surprised me. He showed some real emotion in this film and didn't come off at all smug, which he tends to do. In one scene with the 3rd incarnation of Kayleigh (the heroin junkie prostitute), the emotion he gave to his character made me cry (which, ok, isn't really hard to do).

However, it is the acting of the younger versions of the adults that really stands out in this movie. Not only do they look like younger versions of their older counterparts, you can see the characteristics in the younger characters that carried over into the older characters. I'm not sure if that's the talent of the older actors or not, but either way, it really makes the movie work.

The plot itself does have some holes but you can overlook them because the time travel element is tricky and who's to say the holes aren't intentional?

I really liked the ending as well. I know that the theatrical release had a different ending (I discussed it with Susan before I watched this version) and that some people preferred the theatrical release to the Director's Cut version, but I thought both seemed to work well.

The special effects were great, especially the way they show the transition from present to past when Evan travels.

The prison scenes were a bit too long and too annoying to watch sometimes but other than that, this was a pretty decent movie.

Posted by xinh at 02:09 AM

October 14, 2004

Girl With A Pearl Earring

Colin Firth .... Johannes Vermeer
Scarlett Johansson .... Griet
Tom Wilkinson .... Van Ruijven
Judy Parfitt .... Maria Thins
Cillian Murphy .... Pieter
Essie Davis .... Catharina
Joanna Scanlan .... Tanneke
Alakina Mann .... Cornelia

Based on the novel by Tracy Chevalier, Girl With A Pearl Earring tells the fictional story of the maid who inspired one of Vermeer's more famous paintings.

The acting by the main two leads in this movie is superb. Scarlett Johansson shines as the servant who shares a love of color with her employer, played by Colin Firth. Colin Firth does a good job of portraying both the angst and joy of being a painter trying to support his family. The other characters, such as Vermeer's wife, children, and mother-in-law, are not so fleshed out but you still get a sense of the family and master/servant dynamic.

The cinematography was brilliant! There are scenes in the movie that were filmed to look like some of Vermeer's paintings, including the pearl earring shot. Color and lighting were used to convey certain moods as well as class distinctions.

The only complaints I have about this movie are that while there some scenes which go on far too long, the movie itself feels very short (and as a society that's getting used to movies that are 2+ hours, this movie at 1:36 might be). There are things that I know about the characters and the plot because I've read the book that aren't explained in the movie and because of this, the movie sometimes feels like it's missing something.

Overall, an enjoyable experience.

Posted by xinh at 05:26 AM

Ae Fond Kiss

The new Ken Loach film.

Set in good old Glasgow the story revolves around an interracial relationship between a white Irish woman (and what a gorgeous one she is too !) and a Scot-Asian man and all the complications and trouble it causes for both sides.
I get the feeling that most of the supporting cast aren't actually actors. If they are then they're bad ones, but it's effective anyway because I felt like I was watching it as it happens because of the familiar setting. Gerard Kelly's fanatic Catholic priest is both funny and scary because you can believe that some people actually say things like that, eg. "You can go and teach the Protestants !".
This film is both funny and touching and certainly much better than Loach's previous effort, the dreadful "Sweet Sixteen". Worth a look.

Posted by hurtling17 at 05:20 AM

Hero

"Perhaps the most beautiful film ever made" it says on the poster.

It's true you know. I've never seen anything like it. It's made by the same people that did "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" so there's the same swordfighting whilst flying through the air on wires (but this time you can't see the wires !) and the story is set 2000 years ago in feudal China. It centers on the Jet Li character who comes to the king's court having slain the 3 most deadly assassins Sky, Flying Snow and Broken Sword. Naturally the king wants to know how he achieved such a feat. Cue flashbacks and lots of fighting in beautiful locations, like the chesshouse in the rain and the library in Zhao. The colours are so vivid and the effects are superb. I'm not going to spoil any of the plot because it actually has one so go see it for yourself.

Posted by hurtling17 at 04:50 AM

October 12, 2004

Hawke's Harbor by S.E. Hinton

Beware: there are spoilers in this review.

I wasn't sure what to make of this book. I had just finished reading 4 of S.E. Hinton's previous books (The Outsiders, Rumblefish, Tex, That Was Then, This Is Now) and wasn't sure how her new book would compare to those. After all, this was her first novel for adults and her first novel in over 20 years (because I don't count the 2 childrens books but if I did, it'd be her first novel in almost 10 years).

The story centers on Jamie, a young man in a mental institution in the late 1970s. He has amnesia and can remember parts of his life before he came to the mental institution but nothing from the point when he came to the town of Hawke's Harbor.

S.E. Hinton's writing style is the same as her other books. Very easy to read but not so easy to understand. She manages to undercut the dialogue and plot with so much more meaning that it takes a couple of moments to really grasp what's going on in the scene.
The problem with this book comes with the plot and the characters, which is pretty much what drives a book.
The plot is fine until you find out why it is that Jamie can't remember what happened after he came to the town. He was bitten by a Vampire. Yes, you read that correctly. Vampire. I mean, WTF? Where the hell did that come from? When did this story go from being a character driven drama to a schlocky sci-fi novel? And then all of a sudden, the Vampire is becoming more human. Wha? When, how and why did that happen? The book never tells you.
And the vampire part of the story isn't even the main focus. Nope, it's the characters and how they all react towards and with each other. So, you'd think that there'd be more character development for people, besides just Jamie. You get glipses of promise into each character and then the focus all goes back to Jamie.
Kellen, Jamie's mentor and friend, after having left Ireland a long time ago and sailing the seas for years, suddenly feels the need to run guns from Boston to Ireland to help in the war effort (which side he's on, I'm not sure. I think the IRA). Why?
Louisa is helping the Vampire become human. She's not a medical doctor. How could she help? How did she meet him? How did she find out he wasn't human?
How did the Vampire become a Vampire? He was human to begin with and was turned. By whom?
Not one of these questions is answered.

The way S.E. Hinton interweaves the present day with the past is what's keeping this review from getting 5 pitchforks. It's very disjointed, cutting back and forth between the far past, the present past and the present. It's very much the way Jamie thinks while he's in the mental hospital so you get the sense of what it's like inside his mind. Also, the ending is very reminiscent of the Grey Harbor scene in Lord of the Rings, what with the ships and sailing away into a white mist. I admt, that part made me cry.

Overall, I'd say skip this book unless you really don't have anything better to read or are on a bus for a couple of hours and want to ignore the crazy people around you.

Posted by xinh at 05:04 AM

October 11, 2004

De-Lovely

"There's something wild about you child that's so contagious. Let's be outrageous ! Let's misbehave !"
My favourite Cole Porter line.

This is the biopic of Cole Porter starring Kevin Kline, Ashley Judd, Jonathan Pryce and a host of musical guests including Robbie Williams, Alanis Morrisette, Elvis Costello and Sheryl Crow (also Lemar and Mick Hucknall but let's just close our eyes and ears for the blessedly brief moments they're on screen).
It starts with an elderly, possible already dead (it's never quite explained) Cole reliving his memories with an old friend and commenting on them throughout, sometimes wanting to change them. We see him meeting his wife and their romance, his gay affairs, his opening nights and his decline after the death of his wife. Kevin Kline was the best possible choice for this role, never overly camp and never underly dashing. Ashley Judd is very good at the tragic figure and most of the musical appearances are fitting with some people almost unrecognisable, but in a good way.
It's funny, touching and the music is great. It's de-lovely ! Go see it.

Posted by hurtling17 at 08:41 PM

Hidalgo

Snore. I'm too sleepy to write this review. Boring.
First of all, what terrible special effects. This was meant to be an epic yet the backgrounds look fake (you can even see the outline of the actors) and as for the CGI tigers, well if I wanted Hidalgo the video game I'd have been happy but I didn't and so I'm not. I could probably have done a better job using my own PC.
I'm so bored I can't even be bothered to outline the plot. Blah blah man on a horse, blah blah people insult horse, blah blah man enters horse in ridiculous race, couple of women, some bad guys with stupid accents, stunt stunt stunt, horse nearly dies, makes unbelievable recovery in nick of time, good guy wins, moral ending.
Oh and to those who might still watch it because they fancy Viggo Mortenson - don't bother, he looks like crap. And he's boring.

Posted by hurtling17 at 08:16 PM

October 10, 2004

Good Things

Good Things, a play written by Liz Lochhead
Directed by Maureen Beattie

'I've brought some things...'
'Are they good things?'

This romantic comedy, written by accalimed Scottish writer, Liz Lochhead (best known for her uber-feminist poetry, and other theatre work such as Mary Queen of Scots Got Her Head Chopped Off) focuses her writer's eye on a woman named, Susan, who volunteers in a charity shop in Glasgow.

Susan Auld-Love (Annette Staines) is 49 and facing 50 (the 'new 40') and trying to start over trying anything from speed dating, internet dating and even an advert in the lonely heart's column in the sunday paper.

Her sidekick-coworker, Fraser, who walks, talks and acts gay, but isn't, helps Susan on her quest to find romance and helps her deal with the struggles of every day life. Shall I make a list? Ok

1. Ex husband
   
2. Ex husband's new girlfriend (who is also newly pregnant)
   
3. Raging hormonic teenage daughter, Steffi
   
4. and a stalker, to top it off
   

This witty play brings forward the familiar styles and instruments of Lochhead's previous work. She likes to re-use actors, meaning that all but 2 members of the cast had 2, 3 and even 4 different parts to play. Satire, farce and biting wit are also other key ingredients to Lochhead's work.

Tons of one-liners spackle throughout the play, giving a hearty laugh for even the simplest line: 'Did you get a valentine's card? Neither did I'.

'He says 'Aye, Mom. See those burgers? They were mingin'!' Mingin?! You scrimp and save to send them to Hutchie and and they still talk like Neds!'

It's funny. It's satircal. It offers wit, punch one-liners and drama, but is there a problem with this play?

Oui.

Oui, I said, 'Oui'.

My problem with it was the farce. Who has the tie? He has it now? It's got red hearts painted on it? (awww) and Susan sold it to her ex-husband's new girlfriend on Valentine's day? (Oh dear) Can she get it bacK? Does she want to?

The other problem was the 'awwww' factor. New shoes, new love found, they dance to a christmas song in the middle of the charity shop, the lights dim to reveal only a single spotlight on the new happy couple and then...

THEN....

...little silvery bits of confetti fall gently from the nowhere of the flyspace above the stage.

All together now: Awwwwww.

Gag me.

The other problem I had with the play, which was minor and which not many people caught, was the character's allegorical names.

Susan Auld (old) LOVE. (as in what she's searching for...)
David GRIEVE (who is a grieving widower)

At any rate, the acting is superb. I had the pleasure of speaking with Annette Staines after the show one night and she proved to be every bit as friendly and warm as her character on stage. She spoke with me for about 15 minutes about acting, audience reactions and The Dreaded Press (dun Dun DUNNNN!). She was absolutely lovely and reminded me of that drama teacher that we all have at least once in our lives that makes us believe that we can make something of ourselves.

Clever, witty, and superb acting, gives this play 3 halos. Allegorical names (gag) and unnecessarily cheesy ending gives 2 pitchforks for a total of:

Posted by calima at 02:17 PM

October 08, 2004

Spellbound

I'm not big into documentaries but I heard really good things about this one and had to see it.

Filmed in 1999, released in 2000, this documentary follows 8 American kids as they prepare for the ultimate prize, $10,000 and the winner of the Howard Scripps National Spelling Bee.

The preparation these kids go through is outstanding. The kids come from varied backgrounds but their dedication to learning and their desire to win (well, with the exception of one girl who is somewhat apathetic about it all) connects them. There are also interviews with the parents and siblings. Seeing their personal lives and getting to know them and their families through interviews just gets you that more invested when they finally get to Washington DC and the competition starts.

Once the competition starts, you find yourself pulling for your favorites (and believe me, you'll have them). You find that you're holding your breathe and biting your nails every time the kids go up to spell a word. And you definitely find yourself sad when the kids misspell words. When the kid I couldn't stand was eliminated, I genuinely felt bad because it seemed like s/he missed an easy word, considering all the other words that were being thrown at him/her.

I didn't get to watch any of the extras (the DVD kept freezing on the bonus features) so I sent it back and had Netflix send me another copy.

Overall, this was a very enjoyable documentary that didn't judge the participants and showed that hard work and dedication transcend racial, cultural, and religious boundaries.

Posted by xinh at 02:40 AM

Veronica Mars

Normally, I watch 3 episodes of a show before deciding if I'm going to stick with it or not. And had it not been for the Vice Presidental Candidate Debates, then I would have seen 3 episodes of Veronica Mars. But I'm breaking my "3 episode rule" to tell you to watch this show!

The show airs Tuesday nights at 9pm ET/PT on UPN. Yes, UPN! I know! (For those of you not in the US, UPN is a channel that is notorious for having really awful shows, with the exception of Buffy.) It follows the title character (that would be Veronica Mars, natch) through her life as a Junior at the fictional Neptune High School in the fictional town of Neptune, California (and believe me, I went to the US Postal Service website to search for both Neptune, CA and the zip code used to describe the "rich kids." Neither Neptune, CA or the 90909 area code exist). She's a high school student by day and helps her father run his Private Investigation business at night.

This is a great show! The lead character is both hard assed and sensitive. She's also smart and has common sense, something which tv doesn't show teenagers having. Kristen Bell does a good job of playing this complex character. Enrico Colantari plays her dad, Keith Mars. And even though he has some questionable dialogue (and for that I blame the writers not him), he does a good job of playing a man who is able to rise above the disgrace of losing his job.

The supporting characters bring a lot to the table as well. There's Wallace, Veronica's new friend, whom she saved from getting ass kicked by the leader of a biker gang named Eli "Weevil" Navarro. Then there are 2 members of the "09ers" (the rich kids): the requisite "guy you loathe", Logan Echolls and we can't forget Veronica's ex-boyfriend, Duncan Kane.

The plots are decent and the information delivered isn't full of rib shots, which is refreshing. It's like the writers and the director trust that you're smart enough to understand what they're putting out there.

I say, if you get a chance, watch this show! MTV is airing the pilot all over the place and maybe it'll air the second episode as well. And even if you missed the 1st 2 episodes, that's ok. Read the recaps at Television Without Pity and you'll be all caught up.

The reasons this show isn't getting 5 halos are because of the Paris Hilton stuntcasting in the second episode and the proclivity of all the characters on the show to call the lead character by her first and last name all the time. "Hi there Veronica Mars." "No one cares what you think Veronica Mars." Who does that? Unless that's a new thing the hip young kids are doing these days and I'm not with it (which is entirely possible).

Paris Hilton (ewww) and Full Name vocalizing aside, I'm sticking with this show until the end.

Posted by xinh at 02:12 AM

October 02, 2004

Gormenghast: fantasy or our own colourful world?

I just finished watching a mini-series called Gormenghast (looks like pbs showed it as a two parter, but its really 4 episodes)

I love this series. I haven't read the books and there are things that I suspect are concluded in the novels, such as what happens between the Professor and Irma Prunesquallor.

The madness of the film is elevated by the set design and the use of colours; particularly the costumes. As the decidedly omnipresent Steerpike becomes more "evil", his uniforms gradually change from white to black. Fuschia dressed eternally in red to express her passion, the doctor in blue expressing loyalty are other examples. The use of stone to identify the city and the forest to define freedom are also excellent uses of metaphor.

His hunger for equality is brilliantly displayed as Steerpike's ravenous consumption of a pear upon obtaining his freedom forshadow his desires. His only other moment of obvious hunger is near the end of the final episode when he begs Fuschia for a bite once he realizes he's trapped. His love her is measured by the deaths of her family's entourage; those that would oppress or repress them both. As a daughter, she is not seen as worthy of any attention. Her father, in his madness forgets then denies her very lineage. The only time we are shown that her mother does love her is by the one tear that is shed upon the ken that she has died.

Historically speaking, owls are considered the symbol for rape. The extrapolation of rape as viewed psychologically, is significant when the 76th Earl (Sir Richardson) falls into madness and proclaims being the leader of the owls. He gives himself over to them.

Christopher Lee is amazing as Flay. For such a scholarly actor, his character is limited to choppy phrases that emphasize only the important. This is balanced by Dr. Prunesquallor's extensive vocabulary.

Mervyn Peak was brilliant in use of names to describe his novel's characters. It allows the director to forgo what could become needed exposition.

Each of the characters, though complicated, demonstrate our own modern desires and needs. Love, lust, sexual frustration, abuse of all sorts, single parenthood etc. Our passions for success by any means, or perhaps by the only means we know is profoundly executed.

A film that delves into the conflict between tradition and caste provides both a modern and historical view of how the more things change the more they remain the same. The man who would love his city to the very end is deemed not worthy of even a moment in time; whereby, the one who inherits it, abhors it.

Titus, the 77th expresses it perfecty when he states that it is true, Steerpike should have been the son, he was the only one who loved Gormenghast and would do anything for it. In his mind, Gormenghast was both the city and Fuschia. He could have neither.

d~

Posted by drokka at 08:40 PM