Miami Vice: Boo.

So, if you go to movies.com, you can read all the reasons why we disliked Miami Vice. Here are a few extra tidbits:

1. You'd think Michael Mann would continue his stellar work and make this movie a whole lot of gritty fun. But no. It's boring. No kidding. There are some cool scenes, but for the most part, it's really boring.

2. Even the 5 sex scenes are boring, not to mention completely gratuitous and grody.

3. Speaking of sex scenes, that was the ONLY way Mann established a relationship with the characters. How do we know Jamie Foxx's character and his coworker are dating? Because they hop in the shower together and have a prolonged bedroom scene that includes very little believeable affection (though some). But WORSE is Colin Farrel's character. First of all, I find it hard to believe Colin Farrel can have any sort of real love story anymore, just 'cause he's so nasty. But back to my point. How do we know he and the girl from the other side are in love? Because they randomly spent a weekend naked together after knowing each other from a few drug deals. And then we're supposed to believe they have something "real". Give me a break.

Bagby gives this a C-.

I give it a C.

Tim's oscilating between the two.

Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story

I am unfamiliar with the "classic" work of Laurence Sterne, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, published in Jane Austen-esc time period of England. The film, Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story, is sort of based on this book, which has been called, "the book that can't be done on film." Thus, the irony which is central to this movie.

Like, I said, all I know of the original text is from this movie. What I came to understand of Sterne's work is that it was written as a autobiography of Tristram Shandy. He begins his life story at the beginning, his conception. But then he gets so side tracked by the many rabbit trails or connected stories that can be inserted along the way that by the end of the book he only gets as far in his life story as his own birth. A proposed deeper meaning of the book is that life is so full and so complex that it truly cannot be captured on the pages of a book. Or perhaps it was just meant to be as shallow and as funny as a typical BBC comedy you can cath late at night on PBS. Anyway, from watching the film, this is my take on the book.

The first about half-hour of the film begins basically with a time period attempt to tell the Shandy story. It is dizzying, but fun and creative; like the book it seems to be going nowhere fast. Then the director yells, "Cut!" The film breaks into being about the making of a film about Shandy. The majority of the rest of the movie centers around Steve Coogan, the lead actor, and the making of the film about the book. He, along with producers, writers, the director and others, are trying to find purpose in the film and story while in mid-production, and how to save it from its path of a two-star future.

Well, I'd give Shandy about three-and-a-half-stars out of five. It is a film some people will absolutely love, and others will feel like they wasted an hour-and-a-half of their lives. It is a comedy with playful wit, and it contains substance as it explores not only the purpose of the film/story, but the purpose of life, perhaps, as well. Definitely in the category of an "art film," I'm glad I watched it. Every once in a while I need to see a flick that is not only entertaining, but unique and thought provoking. This fit for me, though I had to watch it by myself.

P.S. This is one where it's worth watching the credits.

Tobey's Review: B

V for Vendetta

So I'm a bit torn about "V for Vendetta." It doesn't try to hide the fact that it wants to say something on the way to providing some comic-book sci-fi action entertainment. But the quality of its two faces are, how shall we say it nicely?, varied.

The obvious key to unlocking the thinly vieled moral-political upshot of the film gets repeated a few times in case you miss it: "Artists tell lies in order to reveal the truth; politicians tell lies in order to conceal it." The lie-revealing-the-truth of this bit of "art" has to do with geo-political games played by big business and religious extremists (probably including a certain American President) that oppresses freedom and blah blah blah. And oh, by the way: it's up to Everyone to make things right. (So that this doesn't sound all bad, this upshot isn't really the standard one. For instance, there's a certain level of tolerance for violence as a means to making things right. Kinda strange...) I should stop before I really get going about this...

As for the other face: "V for Vendetta" is a really good comic-book sci-fi action flick. The film had an amazing climactic scene with the Wachowskis' characteristic flair and grace and intensity. There were good performances by Natalie Portman (as Evey), Hugo Weaving (V), Stephen Rea (Inspector Eric Fitch), John Hurt (Chancellor Adam Sutler), and pretty much everyone else. And the primary characters were dynamic enough to keep me interested in their plight. That is to say, I enjoyed watching the film, and probably would have enjoyed it all the more had it been on a big screen.

Timmy's Review: B