Dave's DVD Review Column

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Jan 11, 2002 7:23 am

Over the holidays, we got a new DVD player and some DVDs to go with it so here are my DVD reviews. Please feel free to add on, discuss, or tell me what a horrible movie critic I am:

Planet of the Apes

I was disappointed by movie, but it looks spectacular and I think very highly of Tim Burton. However, I am not sure we needed a remake of the original. After all, aside from the (now) fake-looking ape costumes, the 1968 version is still a pretty good flick. To me, it would be like remaking Star Wars.

The Planet of the Apes DVD is packed with lots of extras. All of the "Making of . . ." specials, some screen tests, interviews, director commentary and other goodies are there. What I liked most about the movies was the technical stuff: special effects, costumes, teaching people to look and act like apes, etc. and the DVD show a lot of behind the scenes stuff. It's too bad that the movie didn't live up to the hype.

Movie Rating: 5 out of 10
DVD Rating: 8 out of 10

Shrek

I loved Shrek. It is the best animated film since Toy Story. Considering the thin Oscar field this year, I'm surprised that it wasn't nominated for Best Picture; it's light-years better than Beauty and the Beast and technically far more innovative, but alas, it's not a Disney product, so the best it can hope for is to win a bunch to technical and animation awards.

If you liked the movie, you'll love the DVD. It comes iwth many, many extras including a trivia game, the Shrek Karaoke (which is also on the VHS), behind the scenes stuff, DVD-ROM games for your PC, plus all the othe DVD stuff. In short, you not only get a great movie, but a great DVD.

Movie Rating: 8.5 out of 10
DVD Rating: 9.5 out of 10

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Jan 11, 2002 7:52 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave:
teaching people to look and act like apes, etc.

That must have been really difficult

Sorry for spamming your topic a moment HLD

but i couldn't resist this one

Good reviews, BTW

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Jan 11, 2002 8:14 am

The "Ape School" segment is actually one of the more interesting features on the DVD. In addition to studying the movement and mannerisms of apes, chimps et al, they also talk about making costumes that look more like primates (ie-making legs look shorter and arms look longer, etc.).

Whatever they did was very convincing because the physical performances of the actors and stunt extras looked very genuine as opposed to the 1968 PotA in which the actors looked like a bunch of guys in gorilla costumes.

Also, the Charlton Heston uncredited cameo was also pretty funny and ironic considering that he's the head of the NRA and what his character had to say about guns.

And if you watch some of Marky Mark's old videos, you begin to think that maybe they should have stuck him in one of the ape suits.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Jan 11, 2002 8:30 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave:
Whatever they did was very convincing because the physical performances of the actors and stunt extras looked very genuine as opposed to the 1968 PotA in which the actors looked like a bunch of guys in gorilla costumes.

But which would one prefer, decent scripts and convincing plot or better costumes?

(i think you answered that in your review, purely rhetorical

)

And if you watch some of Marky Mark's old videos, you begin to think that maybe they should have stuck him in one of the ape suits.

LOL

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Jan 11, 2002 8:49 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
But which would one prefer, decent scripts and convincing plot or better costumes?

This is my whole problem with Hollywood's obsession with remakes/retreads, sequels and adaptations. If you look at some of the crap that has come out lately (ie-Shaft, Josie and the Pu$sycats, American Pie 2, Tomb Raider, Hannibal, etc.), they haven't enhanced the original franchise any. It seems like they're only out to make a quick buck off a known title.

It is my opinion that if you can not significantly interpret or add something to the original, you should just leave it alone. Take the remake of Ocean's 11. The Rat Pack version was bad and campy in its own way but the remake is very refreshing (plus, except for casting Julia Roberts, it's a much better film). A good choice to remake.

By contrast, did the world need the recent Charlie's Angels or The Musketeer? I think not.

Tim Burton's PotA did not, in my opinion, offer us such a refreshing take on the original that it had to be made. I hope that movie studios will stop trying to milk already dead franchises, but it looks like the trend will only go on and on and on.

@All: I only evaded the filter above because I can't help what a movie is titled.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Fri Jan 11, 2002 8:57 am

HLD: welcome to DVD land, its smoooooth and tasty.

I have over 120 now - been collecting for over 2 years.

I agree with you on Shrek, great movie & great DVD.

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Sat Jan 12, 2002 9:28 am

I saw Planet of the apes in the summer, and I was deaply disspointed.The story was weak from the start.
The only redeaming factors were
1.The last scene,which was a good parody on the original.
2.the Heston Cameo o the opisite side of the game.
3.and of course, the casting of David Warner, the great actor whose also the voice of Irenicus in BG2, as the senator.
4.The DVD is filled with all kinds of info.
BTW I agree with HLD that the ape school was one of the more interesting parts.

Shrek, of course was a great movie, although I heard that Monsters Inc. was better.It only comes out here in Febuary

.

With Hannibal, the book was obviesly much better, but the movie was cute.IMO any way.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Sun Jan 13, 2002 6:11 pm

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

I didn't get this movie. I'm not sure what the Coen brothers were going for, but it went way over my head. Let me start by saying that if you're going to make a movie that's an adaptation of someone else's work, this is the way to do it. O Brother is a high-concept movie that some people I know raved about, but I missed the boat.

To be fair, I have never read The Odyssey from beginning to end, but I know the general story, so that could have handicapped me. I was also turned off by the annoying hillbilly accents everyone in the movie has. I realise that the movie is a characiture and supposed to be fantastical, but I think that they could have had at least a couple of people who spoke normally.

Aside from the novelty of transposing Homer's work with the depression-era Dixie, could someone please explain the charm of this movie to me. I just missed it (D'oh!).

As far as the DVD, I was disappointed. There are a few extras, but not much. There was no director's commentary or even cast bios, but they did have some behind the scenes material and actor interviews. If you're bored and looking for a movie to rent, I would skip this one.

Movie Rating: 5 out of 10
DVD Rating: 5 out of 10

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Sun Jan 13, 2002 6:32 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave:
O Brother, Where Art Thou?

<snip>

To be fair, I have never read The Odyssey from beginning to end, but I know the general story, so that could have handicapped me. I was also turned off by the annoying hillbilly accents everyone in the movie has. I realise that the movie is a characiture and supposed to be fantastical, but I think that they could have had at least a couple of people who spoke normally. <snip>

*ahem* And how do you define "normally," ne? To me, those "hillbilly" accents and other similar accents from the South and Texas are what I consider "normal" speech. While I understand that it likely isn't "normal" speech where you are, to say, "I think they could have had at least a couple of people who spoke normally" is a bit offensive. For where the movie is set, they were speaking normally.

I, personally, look forward to seeing the movie, though I haven't yet. I've heard the song from the movie and they're good.

I agree with your review of Shrek. I haven't seen Planet of the Apes yet, but I we bought the DVD recently. Another DVD I'm looking to get is Willow. It's a good movie and the trilogy of books that follows it(Shadow Moon, Shadow Dawn, and Shadow Star by George Lucas and Chris Claremont(sp?)) are wonderful.

THE JAKER · Post by **THE JAKER** » Sun Jan 13, 2002 11:20 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave:
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
I'm not sure what the Coen brothers were going for, but it went way over my head.

I am a big fan of the Coen Bros. and I want to say a few things about them and O Brother, but I don't want to ruin anything for those who haven't seen it yet. First of all I think that they are very unique filmmakers in that I don't know that they make movies for the audience so much as for their own amusement (at least in part). Even though I like their movies I'm not sure what they're going for either. I think O Brother has as much relation to The Odyssey as their movie Miller's Crossing has to The Glass Key (by Dashiell Hammett, great book), or The Big Lebowsky has to The Big Sleep. I think they use works of literature and film as launching points to work from. The Odyssey is about a man trying to get home to his wife, as is O Brother. Many of the episodes in the film relate to the adventures that Jason has but at the same time it is not simply an adaptation.

I was also turned off by the annoying hillbilly accents everyone in the movie has. I realise that the movie is a characiture and supposed to be fantastical, but I think that they could have had at least a couple of people who spoke normally.

That's just a matter of taste. If you don't like depression era southern stuff and hillbilly music, it's not the movie for you obviously. Some people like that stuff, I personally like a lot of that old country music and I love southern accents, so... It's no big deal.

Aside from the novelty of transposing Homer's work with the depression-era Dixie, could someone please explain the charm of this movie to me.

Probably not. Are you a fan of the other Coen Bros. stuff? I like their movies because of the incredible craftsmanship they bring to the screen. I love the images and tableau that they create. There are a number of incredible tableau in O Brother which I will not mention because people haven't seen it but for instance the sequence at the end and the sirens.

I think their work ranks with only a few other directors in terms of gorgeousness and sheer craft - Kubrick, Ridley Scott, and Terry Gilliam are who I'm thinking of. I love that they don't always explain everything to me, and that I can watch their movies over and over again (except the Hudsucker Proxy) and notice new details and resonances each time. O Brother is NOT my favorite movie of theirs (my favorites are Millers Crossing, Barton Fink, The Big Lebowsky and Raising Arizona), but it is worthy IMO.

Now, if you are a fan of theirs and say that this one was not for you I would say that it happens, for instance a lot of people like Fargo but I personally didn't like it all that well, I'm just glad that they keep making movies because I know that I'll like the next one.

If you aren't of fan of their other movies than I would say it's possible that they're not your style - it happens, not everybody likes everything.

I bought a couple DVDs today - I got Blade Runner and the 1973 version of Jesus Christ Superstar.

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: THE JAKER ]

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Mon Jan 14, 2002 1:52 am

@THE JAKER: I never new that miller's crossing and The Hudsucker proxy was theres!
I wanted to see Miller's crossing, but couldn't find it anywhere! I forgot what it was about,so could you post a reminder?
I wasn't so impressed with the Big Libowsky, despite the great line which made it into my signature, mainly because I don't like Jeff Bridges.Although John Goodman was great.
Fargo is one Coen movie I am not sure I want to see.Is it worth it? the plot seemed a bit weak.
I did see O Brother where art thou, and I liked it more than the average audience, simply because I read The odissey (I love anything by Homer, and the odissey was best translated into english.I am a big Shakespeare fan too, I've read 90% of his plays) and I liked the similarities played out in a (at least for Homer) modern world.

Moving along here, did anyone see Oceans' eleven? I saw it a couple of nights ago, and I must say it did a good job adapting from the original, which it seems that everyone but me hated.
I liked how they gave an extra twist that only people who saw the original would recognise.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Jan 14, 2002 6:29 am

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
*ahem* And how do you define "normally," ne? To me, those "hillbilly" accents and other similar accents from the South and Texas are what I consider "normal" speech. While I understand that it likely isn't "normal" speech where you are, to say, "I think they could have had at least a couple of people who spoke normally" is a bit offensive. For where the movie is set, they were speaking normally.

They're not "normal" southern accents. I grew up in Florida ("God's Waiting Room") and live in West Virginia ("America's Armpit") and I know a good number of folks throughout the deep South who don't talk like they do in the movie. Nobody on screen speaks in the slow drawl of a distintuished southern gentleman or even the blue-collar-proud-to-be-a-redneck twang of a guy like Jeff Foxworthy. It's the sickening inflection of every toothless old woman in a mumu and curlers who's describing for CNN how the tornado/flood/swarm-of-locusts swept her trailer away while she and her twelve dogs could only watch helplessly from their hiding spot behind the engineless '66 Chevelle sitting in the front yard.

I know southern accents and they're few and far between in O Brother. I think part of the reason why I don't like to hear characitured southern speech is that I think a lot of people judge southerners unfairly by their accents. When I see exaggeratted forms of that speech portrayed on screen or on TV, it usually turns me off.

Having said that, our friend THE JAKER hit the nail on the head when he said that the Coen Brothers make movies more for their own amusement than for anything else and that you have to appreciate their particular (skewed) viewpoint to "get" their movies. I respect and appreciate their filmmaking abilities, but they're not my usual cup of tea. However, if you like the kind of edgy, indie-guys-gone-prime-time films (ie-Quentin Tarantino et al) that the Coen Brothers make, you'll probably love this one.

THE JAKER · Post by **THE JAKER** » Mon Jan 14, 2002 9:27 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave:
our friend THE JAKER hit the nail on the head when he said that the Coen Brothers make movies more for their own amusement than for anything else

I just got home from work, on the way home I picked up a DVD of The Big Lebowsky, ooh I watched the first 15 minutes and am enjoying it very much. Anyway, the dvd has a 1/2 hour documentary with an extended interview with the Coen Bros. about the movie. It's very interesting to me, they talk about their process of coming up with ideas and stuff quite a bit.

One thing they say though is something about how they didn't really feel it was that important for the audience to understand the plot of the movie! This just goes to show that they are more concerned with their little brother in-jokes than with the public.

Originally posted by HighLordDave:
They're not "normal" southern accents. I grew up in Florida ("God's Waiting Room") and live in West Virginia ("America's Armpit") and I know a good number of folks throughout the deep South who don't talk like they do in the movie.

I was doing some research online about Millers Crossing today so i could respond to Morlock about it (can't find a dvd of it

) and one of the biggest criticisms that people level against them is that their movies seem artificial, "you don't ever forget that you're watching a movie". I would definitely agree that "O Brother Where Art Thou" is far from realistic.

This relates to the accents because of course none of the actors in the movie actually have southern accents, and the movie is more about a New York/Los Angeles art school graduates idea of the deep south during the depression than it is a true depiction of anything. Of course since I myself am a Los Angeles art school type, I would like it.

The staginess and gorgeousness of the Coen Bros movies reminds me of the work of other film school types - ie people who went to film school who are adored by students in film school: Brian DePalma and Peter Greenaway. Of course I like them too.

Anyway, I'm sorry to have hijacked this thread and turned it into The Coen Bros story. Morlock, you asked about Millers Crossing and Fargo so heres a (brief) opinion:

Millers Crossing is based on the often filmed Dashiell Hammett novel "the Glass Key", which is a noir political drama detailing a gang war in a small corrupt town during prohibition. Gabriel Byrne is the lead and plays the mayor's (Albert Finney) right hand man. The story is basically one backstab and triple cross after another as mobsters try to oust Finney and take control of the town. The cinematography is, as usual for the Coen Bros, impossibly lush, showing the period costumes and cars off. The title of the film refers to the woods near town which are a favorite place to dump bodies, and what I remember most about the film is the beautiful green vistas of the woods.
The movie is well written and excellently acted, a fine gangster picture. Albert Finney is great, Gabriel Byrne is one of my favorite leading men, and I recommend it

Fargo was a huge hit for the Coen Bros. I think partly because it is somewhat less stagey and artificial than their other movies. The topic is once again one of the standards of noir, a kidnapping gone wrong. Although as usual the technical standards of the production are unassailable, I missed the art house intellectualism of their other pictures however this is probably why it did so well. William H. Macy is excellent as the husband of the kidnapped woman and the other performances are very satisfactory. I think the movie suffers from too much Tarantinoesque gore and foul language but this was very hip at the time. I think one reason I don't like the movie that much is because of all the white. Much of the movie is of course in the snow, but still it's just all so white. People say "well that's Fargo, what do you want?", well, I want to look at colors

I prefer to look at the beautiful woods in Millers Crossing, the gorgeous paisley wallpaper in Barton Fink, or the glow of the bowling alley in The Big Lebowsky. Even the everpresent dust in O Brother. Anyway, Fargo is a decent movie with some great moments and probably worth a rent. It's interesting to compare it to their first movie "Blood Simple" which is also stripped down noir, but set in Arizona.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Jan 15, 2002 4:16 pm

Just finished watching Barton Fink. A really excellent film, however it is quite interesting to note the large move away from normal cinema techniques. There is one (possibly 2) scenes featuring tension music, the entire film otherwise is devoid of music. Does anyone have a particular opinion as to why?

Personally i think the film is a metaphor to a writers environment and the many ways he becomes embroiled and distracted from his work. I recall once a journolist asked the Coen Brothers (and i quote) "So....What does the end of Barton Fink mean?" they just ended up laughing at the guy

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Tue Jan 15, 2002 4:36 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave:
They're not "normal" southern accents. I grew up in Florida ("God's Waiting Room") and live in West Virginia ("America's Armpit") and I know a good number of folks throughout the deep South who don't talk like they do in the movie. Nobody on screen speaks in the slow drawl of a distintuished southern gentleman or even the blue-collar-proud-to-be-a-redneck twang of a guy like Jeff Foxworthy. It's the sickening inflection of every toothless old woman in a mumu and curlers who's describing for CNN how the tornado/flood/swarm-of-locusts swept her trailer away while she and her twelve dogs could only watch helplessly from their hiding spot behind the engineless '66 Chevelle sitting in the front yard.

I know southern accents and they're few and far between in O Brother. I think part of the reason why I don't like to hear characitured southern speech is that I think a lot of people judge southerners unfairly by their accents. When I see exaggeratted forms of that speech portrayed on screen or on TV, it usually turns me off.

I see. Well, let me say that I have heard the accents that they have in the movie, though I've not yet seen the movie. Let me also say that I have hick and hillbilly relatives in Central Texas that talk with that exact same accent and it is perfectly natural for them. I guess this shows, and this goes along with something you said, that people do stereotype the south and Texas. People from places other than the South and Texas tend to assume they have the exact same accents, though they don't. It has been my experience that, not only does the accent vary between Texas and the South, it also varies between the different states of the South as well as between different portions of Texas.

From what's been said about why they make their movies, I think I'll like this movie. I like it when a writer/movie-maker/musician does what they do because they enjoy it rather than to just make money.

Ned Flanders · Post by **Ned Flanders** » Tue Jan 15, 2002 4:36 pm

Wow, a chat about the Coen brothers. I've missed so much already. The fact that they make movies for their own amusement and don't care if the viewers understand the plot is the genius of their work.

I've read the Odyssey and find new parallels in o brother every time I see the movie. Examples:

The main characters name is Ulysses (Roman, version, I believe)

John Goodman is the cyclops (Prometheus, name may be incorrect)

blind man on train cart is the equivalent of the fates (three of them, all blind)

the sirens

That's a start, I can't pull anything more off the top of my head.

Miller's crossing is the story of rival mobs (Irish vs. Italian) in an unnamed town right at the onset of prohibition. The protagonist is caught between the loyalties of the two gangs. It's outstanding.

Anyone seen Blood simple, that's their first movie and it's fantastic as well.

There was too much hype with Fargo for me to really like it. Additionally, I live in Minnesota and again, the accents are waaaaaaaaaaay off base (but who cares)

The Big Lebowski - I found this one extrememly funny. Jeff Bridges is great as 'the dude' and the sam elliot cameos are priceless. The movie is surreal from start to finish and you wonder how the main character manages to get his pants on every day. I believe he never takes them off.

Raising Arizona - the coen brothers crown jewel. One of my top five favorite movies of all time.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue Jan 15, 2002 5:02 pm

@Sailor Saturn:
I think that the accents on two of the characters, Pete and Delmar (played respectively by John Turturro and Tim Blake Nelson), only reinforce the slow, dim-witted southerner stereotype, because, well, Pete and Delmar are slow, dim-witted southerners. George Clooney's Ulysses has the same accent but also speaks with a sort of educated verbosity, but he still comes off as a sort of backwater redneck.

It's my own predjudice against people who characiture southerners by their accents that initially turned me against the tone of the movie, not that I personally believe that people who talk like that are necessarily slow, dim-witted southerners. As I said before, I just didn't get the movie; I respect the artistry of the Coen Brothers, but like opera, it just wasn't for me.

Also, could someone please explain Ulysses's obsessopm with hair gel? Is this analagous to some fixation Homer's Ulysses had?

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Thu Jan 17, 2002 3:16 pm

I just took out Raising Arizona, though I havn't seen it yet. I'll tell you how my first time expiriensing it was.

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Morlock ]

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Jan 18, 2002 5:32 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave:
Also, could someone please explain Ulysses's obsessopm with hair gel? Is this analagous to some fixation Homer's Ulysses had?

Is it possible that it refers to him trying to make better of himself, the hair gel is in essence what a man of high standards would use. Just a thought.

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Fri Jan 18, 2002 6:45 am

I think its a reference to other Coen movies. I just saw the first half hour of Raising Arizona- and John Goodman and William Forsythe's characters use alot of gel right after they run away from jail.