EthanClapham.com

This blog has moved! Check out www.ethanclapham.com! All new reviews will be posted there, plus all sorts of other fun stuff. Visit it, bookmark it, and check back often for more reviews.

Worst Best Looking Actress?

With Into the Blue opening today, I thought it might be fun to pose the following question: who is the worst-acting yet best-looking actress ever? Which actresses can't act their way out of a paper bag, yet keep getting work based solely on their looks? Who's the worst historically, and who's the worst still working today? Only answers about females, please. I don't want to hear about how hot Paul Walker is...

I'm not even sure what my answer would be, there's just too many choices. Katie Holmes is cute, and I haven't seen her give a worthwhile performance yet. I think the award would have to go to Tara Reid. She is smokin' hot, but good-golly it's hard to watch her on film. She should stick to doing Maxim shoots every once and a while, but retire from the movie business...

Dawn of the Dead (1978)

9.29.2005
First viewing
DVD (Netflix)
Movie: C+
Audio: C+
Video: B

After seeing the recent Dawn of the Dead remake and Romero's original Night of the Living Dead, I figured it was time to see what many consider the best zombie movie ever made. I'm not so sure if I agree with that, but I can certainly understand why some people might have that opinion.

The movie follows four people, two police officers, a television station employee, and her boyfriend, as they try to survive through what I assume is the same zombie outbreak as the one in Night of the Living Dead. They flee Philadelphia in a helicopter and end up at a shopping mall in a small nearby town. The rest is, well, standard zombie movie stuff. Don't get me wrong, overall I enjoyed Dawn of the Dead a great deal. There were just a lot of things that I would have done differently, and a few other things that made the movie less effective than Night of the Living Dead.

For starters, the beginning portion of the movie, that took place in Philadelphia, felt useless. What did it really establish? The movie could literally have started in the helicopter en route to the mall without losing anything. There were other parts that could have been trimmed or cut. Basically, Dawn of the Dead was just a little too long for its own good. Zombie movies shouldn't clock in at over two hours long, they should be lean and taut at about an hour and 40 minutes.

The zombies weren't as creepy in color. One of the best aspects of Night of the Living Dead was its lack of color. While the bright red blood was fake but effective, the grey face paint was a joke. It didn't look like dead or decaying skin, it looked like paint. The result was zombies that looked fake. The original's black and white added to the realism.

There were scenes I really liked though. Seeing the group make a home for themselves in the mall really made me think. What would I do if confronted with the same situation? How would I react. George A. Romero did a wonderful job taking a great first effort and crafting a new movie. While it shared some similarities, Dawn of the Dead felt like its own movie, not just a "let's make some more money" clone.

Ultimately, Dawn of the Dead was too inconsistent for my tastes. There were great and original scenes, then there were silly scenes. For every moment that could be labeled "classic" and might make this the best zombie movie ever made, there was a stupid moment that ruined the pace and mood of the film. Like a pie fight in the middle of a mall with zombies.

There's been several versions of this film released on DVD, and I'm not even sure which version Netflix shipped me. It had a DTS audio track, so it's either the Divimax edition or the first disc of the Ultimate edition. The disc itself was grey with a Netflix logo, so it was one of the disc manufactured (or labeled) especially for them. Regardless, the DTS was decent, considering the source material. There was little bass to speak of, which was a real disappointment. Most of the effects sounded hollow and tinny, but this is more likely an issue with the original sound design, not the DVD mastering. The surrounds were used sparsely and, honestly, they sounded out of place. The video looked quite good, with vibrant colors, minimal smearing, and decent detail. I noticed a few bits of mosquito noise and the like, but overall I was impressed with the video quality.

Robots (2005)

9.27.2005
First viewing
DVD (Netflix)
Movie: C-
Audio: A-
Video: A-

With the success Pixar has seen, I can't blame every other studio for trying to emulate them. I just wish someone could come close to besting Pixar. Not because I want to see Pixar dethroned, if you will, but because, if every studio turned out computer animated blockbusters like Pixar, we'd have more outstanding movies to watch. Alas, no one has come even close to matching the likes of Toy Story, Finding Nemo, and The Incredibles. What we get is more bright, shiny movies that lack any real substance. I guess that should be expected from Hollywood...

Robots is a visually stunning movie set in a colorful, metallic world. The creativity applied to the character and set design is first-rate. I sat in front of my TV, open-mouthed, trying to take in all of the visual information. Every minute object was detailed down to the smallest rivet. The characters were surprisingly unique visually. Unfortunately, there was no heart to hold up their colorful exteriors. There wasn't a single character that I liked enough to become attached to. None of them were fun to hate, either, which made the villains surprisingly ineffective.

The story felt like recycled leftovers. "Let's make some fun robot characters, put them in a neato city, and let them cause trouble!" "But, what about the story?" "Oh yeah, I guess we need one of those don't we? Let's see what we have here in the stock-recycled-garbage bin!" It was that bad, really. I mean, aren't we all tired of the "evil management" plots?

The voice acting was decent, I'd just like to hear actors like Paul Giamatti voice a better character, in a better story. I bet this guy could really shine in the right voice-over role. But even the best talent can't overcome shallow characters. Robin Williams comes close. I know he's voiced his fair share of animated characters (none of which will ever top the Genie in Aladdin), buy I never get tired of his performances. He's great in Robots and almost makes his character successful. Almost. He is the source of most of the humor though.

As far as humor, Robots had way to many pop-culture references for me. Those kinds of jokes get old fast. And many of the plays on robots felt forced, like the writers felt they needed a joke at a certain spot, so they inserted the next one on the list. Not that I never laughed, because I did. But the comedy was hit-and-miss, more often than not missing.

On the other hand, the DVD was of very high quality. The DTS audio deftly used the surrounds to great effect. The music was enveloping and well mixed. The video was just shy of jaw-dropping. I saw the occasional shimmer and jagged line, most likely evidence of a low bitrate. Considering how much is crammed on this one disc, I'd imagine that's the case. But overall, Robots was colorful, bright, shiny, and loud. Unfortunately, that's all it was.

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

9.26.2005
DVD (owned)
Movie: B+
Audio: A-
Video: B

The Coen brothers must be geniuses. How else could they come together to create films as unique as O Brother, Where Art Thou? Of course, the plot is based on Homer's The Odyssey, but past that it's all Coen brothers, all the way. Is O Brother, Where Art Thou? their best film? No, not by a long shot. But even their worst efforts beat out many film maker's best works.

The story follows three men as they escape from prison and seek out a treasure buried before they were incarcerated. Along the way they meet many interesting folks and end up recording a radio hit as The Soggy Bottom Boys. I've heard "Man of Constant Sorrow" more times than I can count, but it never seems to get old. I still sing along.

The Coens create colorful characters and their scripts are almost always fast-paced and smart. O Brother, Where Art Thou? is no exception. The cinematography here is stunning. The use of colors and texture is beautiful. John Turturro is at his comedic best here; this is one of his funniest roles. The entire movie is just great, but strange beyond belief.

The DTS track is a gem. There's not a lot of surround heavy scenes in the movie, but the speakers sure get a work out. While the effects might not be discrete, they are certainly atmospheric. While it might not jump out as a great mix like an action movie's track might, this is one solid effort. The video is crisp and clear, with very few signs of damage and no compression problems to speak of. The colors come through vibrantly and accurately. O Brother, Where Art Thou? is a DVD worthy of adding to one's collection.

Will Spider-Man 3 Suck?

The net's abuzz with new info on the villains in Spider-Man 3. Well, it's not really new news, since these rumors starting flying a few months ago. But, according to this blurb at Coming Soon!, Kirsten Dunst has confirmed the line-up: Thomas Haden Church as Sandman and Topher Grace as Venom.

I love Spider-Man. I grew up reading his books, and The Amazing Spider-Man is easily my all-time favorite comic. So naturally, I want to see the Spider-Man movies continue to be great. Sam Raimi was the perfect choice of directors, and Tobey Maguire has turned out to be a great Peter Parker. But, Topher Grace as Venom!?! They may as well cast Warwick Davis!

Look at his picture, and tell me Topher Grace has the frame to play Venom. I bet you can't say it with a straight face. The first time I heard the Grace-Venom rumor, I laughed. Out loud. Heck, if we weren't talking about the desecration of my most beloved super hero franchise, I'd still be laughing. And there's still a chance that it isn't true. Dunst could just be a moron. In fact, considering that she hasn't even read the script, she could be reciting the rumors she's heard on the Internet just like the rest of the fan-boys.

But I fear these rumors might be true, and I'm scared. It's one thing to cast Maguire as Parker. That was a ballsy move, and it worked. Parker is lean and wiry, which Maguire's beefed up physique resembled quite closely. However, Eddie Brock (who becomes Venom) is not lean. He's huge. He always towered over Parker in the comics and looked like a body builder before "joining" with the black symbiotic suit.

Which brings me to my next concern: the story. How do you introduce a character like Venom without any back story? You can't just say "Oh, his suit is an alien." It begs to be explained, and that kind of detail would require two, or even three, movies. To really understand Venom's hatred of Spider-Man/Peter Parker, you need to know that Spidey himself once wore the black suit. How do you cram all this into one movie, unless Spider-Man 3 is going to be an epic four hours in length?

Please, please, please make this right, Raimi. Don't cast Grace as Venom. It's just not right.

Ben-Hur (1959)

9.25.2005
First viewing
DVD (Netflix)
Movie: A+
Audio: A
Video: A

I have to admit, I was blown away by Ben-Hur. A nearly-4-hour-long biblical epic starring Charlton Heston (I'm not his biggest fan)? No thanks, I thought. I was expecting this film to be slow, boring, and tedious. But there's a reason that many people consider it the best movie ever filmed. In fact, there's several reasons.

The story itself is epic in proportion, and totally and completely captivating. While the pace slows near the middle of the film, it never gets boring. From the opening scenes portraying the birth of Christ to the famous chariot race, I was glued to the screen for the entire running time. The cast gave splendid performances, with Heston being the obvious standout. He has a tendency to overact, but his style fit Ben-Hur perfectly. He was delightfully charming at first, but once his family was imprisoned he became another beast entirely. Everyone can relate to the anguish one would feel when separated from one's family. You can see the helplessness in Heston's eyes, and you can feel the rage and anger lurking below the surface. With a running time of almost four hours, the characters can become so much more than just what the viewer sees on the surface.

Technically, Ben-Hur is simply amazing. This movie was made in 1959, and, for the most part, every bit of it holds up 45 years later. The special effects are still dazzling, the stunt work is jaw-dropping, and the scale of the film is still epic. I've never seen anything like the chariot race scene. Words can't describe it, so I won't even try. It is hands down one of the most amazing scenes I have ever seen in any movie, period. If for nothing else, Ben-Hur is worth watching for this scene alone.

In short, Ben-Hur is a wonderful movie and no part of the movie is anything less than outstanding. And yet, the sum of the parts manages to be even greater than the parts themselves. The direction, the acting, the writing, the stunts and effects, the score... They all add up to create one of the most amazing films I've ever had the pleasure of viewing. Ben-Hur deserved every Academy Award it won, and then some. If you haven't seen it, go find a copy. Don't be scared off by the length or the subject matter. I honestly believe everyone can find something to like about Ben-Hur.

The DVD followed suit and was equally impressive. The video transfer was superb. The colors were vibrant without bleeding. The picture seemed to jump off the screen with detail. Contrast levels were great and the blacks were deep and solid. I didn't see any pixelation or artifacting. Ben-Hur looked dazzling. The audio was powerful and moving. The score swelled nicely, filling all six speakers with beautiful music. The dialogue was clear, the highs were crisp, and the bass was tight. The 5.1 mix sounded like it was faithful to the original track. Most of the sound information was focused in the front channels, while the surrounds were used for some thunder effect and the score. The result felt appropriate for the film and allowed the score to really shine. Overall, an outstanding presentation.

Memento (2000)

9.24.2005
DVD (owned)
Movie: A+
Audio: B+
Video: B-

Memento: if you've seen it, we could talk about it for hours; if you haven't seen it, I don't want to say anything about it in fear of ruining it for you. Seriously, if you haven't seen Memento yet, I suggest you make every effort to see the film as soon as possible. It can easily be called "one of the best movies ever made."

Everything about the film is unique. From the story and its presentation (backwards), to Guy Pearce's performance and Christopher Nolan's direction, Memento has a style all its own. Many movies that try to relay their stories in an odd or unusual way don't stand up to repeated viewings. Their tricks end up being just that: tricks. But Memento only gets better with each successive viewing. Whenever I watch it, I lose all track of time. I am completely drawn in by the story and the characters and the world around me seems to vanish.

Pearce gives a haunting performance as the main character who can't make new memories. Having no short-term memory, he lives life minute-by-minute, using a Polaroid camera to record things in photographs. Using these photos, he is attempting to hunt down his wife's murderer. Time progresses in reverse and the story is narrated by the most unlikely of narrators: a man with no recent memories. Everyone I've talked to about Memento loved it, with the exception of the few people who walked away confused. While the ending leaves some gray areas with a few parts left open for interpretation, the movie itself isn't hard to follow. I honestly believe that anyone who can't follow Memento isn't investing enough in watching the movie.

The DVD looks and sounds good, but still has room for improvement. I have the original DVD release, and I believe the special edition set did improve on the audio/video quality. The audio mix was well balanced. The surrounds were used effectively and the dialogue was crisp and clear. The video quality varied, some scenes lacked the background details that others possessed. A few of the interior scenes were a tad murky. Overall, however, the picture was clean and sharp. For a "bare bones" early DVD release, Memento looks and sounds better than one might expect.

Dead Alive (1992)

9.23.2005
First viewing
DVD (Netflix)
Movie: A-
Audio: C+
Video: C+

Dead Alive, also known as Braindead everywhere but the US, is one of Peter Jackson's earlier films. He took a very low budget and created what may be the goriest film of all time. I have never seen so much blood in a movie. Yes, it has more blood than Kill Bill Vol. 1. A lot more. It also features rat monkeys, zombies, zombies having sex, killer intestines, and brutal lawn mower warfare. What else can you ask for?

Dead Alive is a horror film, but it's also a comedy. It's a gore fest that makes you laugh, and I think that's the scariest part. If I had to compare to a more well known film, I'd compare Dead Alive to The Evil Dead. They share the same kind of "gore and humor in a horror movie shell" mentality. Dead Alive's story is simple and makes no effort to explain itself. A woman is bitten by a "rat monkey" and becomes very ill. She quickly decays into some kind of zombie like creature that desires to simultaneously create more zombies and consume human flesh. Her son, the main character, sedates her and her creations in an attempt to stave the spread. He, of course, has problems. Lawn mower warfare ensues. If you expect a true horror film from Dead Alive, you'll be disappointed. Truthfully, if you expect anything but a hilarious and blood-ridden gorefest, you'll probably be let down. Dead Alive is what it is: great fun.

I was eager to see what Peter Jackson had done before The Lord of the Rings, and I can honestly say I wasn't disappointed. While Dead Alive resembled many films before it, you can see one thing that makes it stand out. It's obvious that Jackson jumps into each project full-tilt-boogie. He loves what he does, and it shows. Dead Alive is a genuinely fun and enjoyable film.

The DVD features an anamorphic widescreen video transfer, and it more than gets the job done. The colors were more vibrant that I expected, although the detail was somewhat lacking. This lead to some shimmering and jagged lines, but it's certainly not the worst picture I've seen. The audio was similar: it was decent but didn't stand out. The dialogue was always clear, even if the sound stage was quite narrow.

The French Connection (1971)

9.22.2005
First viewing
DVD (Netflix)
Movie: D+
Audio: B
Video: C

I've read a lot of good things about The French Connection. It seems like everyone loves it, and the film is consistently hailed as one of the best cop dramas ever. Let me be blunt: it is not one of the best cop dramas ever.

We'll start with what is simultaneously a strength and a weakness: the story and script. The French Connection's screenplay doesn't spoon feed the viewer. Small details are left to the viewer to figure out. Standard literary devices like foreshadowing are completely absent. There are times when the movie feels like it is rushing by, moving too fast to keep up with, making the plot seem like it isn't properly fleshed out. While this should draw the viewer in, forcing one to piece together the story just as the detectives do, it actually alienated me. If I had cared about the characters or the outcome of the story, it may have worked. But since I didn't care that much, I wasn't willing to invest the effort. So the story flew by, and parts are still somewhat confusing.

In between the small pieces of story that the screenplay actually gives the viewer are chase scenes. Chase after chase after chase after... You get the point. Watching cops tail criminals does get a bit repetitive after a while. A short while. 20 minutes into the film, and I was already tired of watching The French Connection. Not a good sign.

The acting was good; Gene Hackman is almost always enjoyable. But even he couldn't save this one. The two main characters, played by Hackman and Roy Scheider, were just standard "tough guy" cops. Maybe this was radical and new in 1971, but now, that's what every movie cop is. With characters who live their jobs (literally, I don't know if these guys had lives outside of police work) there's not a whole lot to work with, even for the best actors.

There were a few positives. Willam Friedkin's direction was superb. Using odd angles and cleverly placed zooms he achieved a documentary feel that really heightened the realism of the film. The Nova vs El chase was exciting and well-shot. I loved the gritty, true-to-life feel that film possessed. A lot of movies shoot for this level of realism, but never come close. The French Connection seems to achieve it easily.

The DVD did a fair job of recreating this realism and grit. The 5.1-channel sound mix wasn't overpowering or gimmicky. Subtle traffic noises and a few gun shots were the only things I noticed in the surrounds, which is how it should be. The music was mixed well and the dialogue was clear. The sound did lack dynamic range. There wasn't any real LFE to speak of, and the highs sounded a bit muffled. The video had a lot of grain, but I doubt it was any more than the original film. It added to the grit of the city and wasn't distracting in the least. Detail levels were fair, even good for a movie of this age. I did think some of the interior scenes with lower light levels appeared a tad murky. But, overall, a decent video presentation.

Regardless of the acting, direction, and quality of the DVD, The French Connection fails to entertain. The uninteresting story doesn't warrant the extra work to piece the details together, leaving the viewer confused and unsatisfied. The chase scenes, aside from the car-chasing-train scene, are repetitive and tedious to watch. What it comes down to is this: The French Connection isn't fun to watch. It's more like a chore.