WheezyJoe
Joined Mar 2000
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews20
WheezyJoe's rating
It's rather ironic that Tim Burton has found himself making `Big Fish.' He's famously known for utilizing attention-grabbing visuals to slide the story into a slightly offbeat fantasy world and is often criticized for being more in tune with the esthetics rather than script details. Still, he works under scrutiny from the critics in a medium that tells the tallest of tales but to an audience that is divided over the best way of telling them. Some love the storybook method of adventure and the fantastic, while others don't buy into it and prefer a movie with a heavy foot planted firmly on solid ground. Those of you in the latter will not enjoy Burton's movies but may tolerate them. This is the message in `Big Fish.' It is between Edward Bloom and his son, Will. They both have different perceptions of what is important and what is baloney.
The fantasy genre is slowly making a stand for itself after years of being second to others in the Hollywood vocab. In `Big Fish' they make extra evident that fantasy is far more intoxicating than reality and that you can find boundless pleasure in its escapism. Yet `Big Fish' not only tells an entertaining story but it also invokes the imagination. Tim Burton is a very good storyteller, I think, because his visual eye is perfect for the big screen. This time Burton and company manage to combine the best of all elements and make a truly amazing film.
This whimsical Tim Burton movie keeps a finger on the human elements, emotion and spirit. The manner in which it is told, with amazing characters found in tall tales, is inherently likeable, as a good yarn has always been over many generations. There is nothing too deep here, just a good story to be shared with the world. And that's the fundamental nature of going to the movies in the first place, to listen to an entertaining story, and this one is told with enthusiasm and heart. `Big Fish' will be as good as you want it to be. The general message is this and it's important to appreciate how the way a story is told can effect your very perception. You must first give into it, kind of like a leap of faith for some, but once you've let go of the world the story will happily reel you in hook, line and sinker.
4 out of 5
The fantasy genre is slowly making a stand for itself after years of being second to others in the Hollywood vocab. In `Big Fish' they make extra evident that fantasy is far more intoxicating than reality and that you can find boundless pleasure in its escapism. Yet `Big Fish' not only tells an entertaining story but it also invokes the imagination. Tim Burton is a very good storyteller, I think, because his visual eye is perfect for the big screen. This time Burton and company manage to combine the best of all elements and make a truly amazing film.
This whimsical Tim Burton movie keeps a finger on the human elements, emotion and spirit. The manner in which it is told, with amazing characters found in tall tales, is inherently likeable, as a good yarn has always been over many generations. There is nothing too deep here, just a good story to be shared with the world. And that's the fundamental nature of going to the movies in the first place, to listen to an entertaining story, and this one is told with enthusiasm and heart. `Big Fish' will be as good as you want it to be. The general message is this and it's important to appreciate how the way a story is told can effect your very perception. You must first give into it, kind of like a leap of faith for some, but once you've let go of the world the story will happily reel you in hook, line and sinker.
4 out of 5
This moderately small film about a reasonably hopeful family struggling with an alien city and personal trauma will come across quite differently for each and every one of us. `In America' opens itself wide up personally and gets you to watch and judge it's joys and sorrows by linking to your own. May it be the innocence of two little girls or the parenting skills of the young parents who sneak across the border in desperation, it's a grounded look into the bottomless well of life and dreams.
The screenplay by Jim Sheridan is brilliantly handled, clever, honest and able to capture the faults as well as the strengths in its characters. With the story confined to the family of four it never has to reach beyond the measure of it's own private ode. The personal context of `In America' is part of its success. Sheridan shares the writers credit with his two daughters Naomi and Kirsten and also based much of the film around his own experiences of coming to America as well as the loss of his son (also named Frankie), for which the film is dedicated to.
Sheridan's relationship with the material also ensures an outstanding development with the characters. Amazingly well directed all the actors show pure strength and maturity with the material, that includes Sarah and Emma Bolger who play the two young sisters Christy and Ariel. There's a definite understanding of everyone's situation and stance on the events but it's good to watch and see how these circumstances unfold and affect the characters individually, one by one. Sheridan works well with the actors and passionately with the story.
`In America' has so many agonizing moments and symbolic gestures that it's hard not to relate to this film. As entertainment it's a pleasure to watch from start to finish. I applauded Jim Sheridan and the cast for that but everything came together as one working piece. There's never been a more prominent aspect of our everyday lives than dealing with the grief in our past and looking toward a hopeful future. `In America' is an encouraging film that seems to say ` I wish you well.'
4 out of 5
The screenplay by Jim Sheridan is brilliantly handled, clever, honest and able to capture the faults as well as the strengths in its characters. With the story confined to the family of four it never has to reach beyond the measure of it's own private ode. The personal context of `In America' is part of its success. Sheridan shares the writers credit with his two daughters Naomi and Kirsten and also based much of the film around his own experiences of coming to America as well as the loss of his son (also named Frankie), for which the film is dedicated to.
Sheridan's relationship with the material also ensures an outstanding development with the characters. Amazingly well directed all the actors show pure strength and maturity with the material, that includes Sarah and Emma Bolger who play the two young sisters Christy and Ariel. There's a definite understanding of everyone's situation and stance on the events but it's good to watch and see how these circumstances unfold and affect the characters individually, one by one. Sheridan works well with the actors and passionately with the story.
`In America' has so many agonizing moments and symbolic gestures that it's hard not to relate to this film. As entertainment it's a pleasure to watch from start to finish. I applauded Jim Sheridan and the cast for that but everything came together as one working piece. There's never been a more prominent aspect of our everyday lives than dealing with the grief in our past and looking toward a hopeful future. `In America' is an encouraging film that seems to say ` I wish you well.'
4 out of 5
The Star Wars universe to me, and to thousands of others like me, has a grip on our childhood and great memories past. Sure, the Star Wars universe will always be seen is an amazing cinematic achievement, however, it's unquestionably plain as the nose on Jar-Jar's face that `Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones' is a bad movie. This harsh statement needs to be said and not ignored if only because of the juggernaut it spawned from. The faith I once had is gone, the force can't help good old George's name out from under the thick layer of mud it resides.
The opening ten minutes of `The Phantom Menace' was actually quite captivating. This time there is nothing to give you that false hope; it jumps right into the drudgery with some poor action scenes and explosions (`The Fifth Element' comes to mind here). New alien creatures are great fun but Lucas has approached the thousand-something new monsters and robots alike featured in Episode II with the guidance of 20th Century Fox marketing executives. CGI (computer generated imagery) was painfully overdone which caused distractions in the story all the way through. Actually, now that I think about it there wasn't really much of a substantial a story to follow. Just inane characters wandering around with `no clue' plastered all over their faces and a few minor events toward the end to get us up to date chronologically. And with the entire political backdrop in the narrative I wonder if kids will understand at all. I know politics always put me to sleep when I was a lad.
Talking of bad characters, most of them fail because of bad scripting. Who the hell did they think they would impress. Even little Timmy buying Darth Maul action figures from K-mart could give Lucas tips on what is good dialogue and what is just plain corny. All the other actors, although talented, came off looking like props. Oh yah and Jar-Jar was back for a few short scenes, still horrible and making you cringe, and Hayden Christensen annoys the living daylights out of you every time he's on screen. Badly miscast (again!) as Anikan and I fear that he's too whiny for audience respect.
`Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones' offers you almost nothing for your time. I can't express the disappointment I - a Star Wars fan - felt walking out of the cinema. Alas, the Star Wars universe has walked out on us. Directing was so bad it surprises me George Lucas gets any respect at all now. Acting was flat, CGI was bad and the script was written on the back of a napkin. Upside was the sound effects and score was amazing. Some good action sequences and great art design only diluted by the CGI overdose. Tips for Lucas might be; get someone *else* into to write the script and add new dimension; hire someone to direct like you did with Empire and Jedi they might be able to draw something out of the actors; tone down the blue screen stuff because even the Muppet Yoda had more soul than the CGI Mighty Mouse one in these films; and return some of the 50's Matinee style that inspired the originals which gave characters like Han Solo and Chewbacca some charm and the perilous action a bit exuberance. All those lucky enough to experience the original trilogy before this apocalyptic fiasco can tell the next generation about the good old days. Sadly, it's the end of a dynasty for this withered fable.
2 out of 5
The opening ten minutes of `The Phantom Menace' was actually quite captivating. This time there is nothing to give you that false hope; it jumps right into the drudgery with some poor action scenes and explosions (`The Fifth Element' comes to mind here). New alien creatures are great fun but Lucas has approached the thousand-something new monsters and robots alike featured in Episode II with the guidance of 20th Century Fox marketing executives. CGI (computer generated imagery) was painfully overdone which caused distractions in the story all the way through. Actually, now that I think about it there wasn't really much of a substantial a story to follow. Just inane characters wandering around with `no clue' plastered all over their faces and a few minor events toward the end to get us up to date chronologically. And with the entire political backdrop in the narrative I wonder if kids will understand at all. I know politics always put me to sleep when I was a lad.
Talking of bad characters, most of them fail because of bad scripting. Who the hell did they think they would impress. Even little Timmy buying Darth Maul action figures from K-mart could give Lucas tips on what is good dialogue and what is just plain corny. All the other actors, although talented, came off looking like props. Oh yah and Jar-Jar was back for a few short scenes, still horrible and making you cringe, and Hayden Christensen annoys the living daylights out of you every time he's on screen. Badly miscast (again!) as Anikan and I fear that he's too whiny for audience respect.
`Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones' offers you almost nothing for your time. I can't express the disappointment I - a Star Wars fan - felt walking out of the cinema. Alas, the Star Wars universe has walked out on us. Directing was so bad it surprises me George Lucas gets any respect at all now. Acting was flat, CGI was bad and the script was written on the back of a napkin. Upside was the sound effects and score was amazing. Some good action sequences and great art design only diluted by the CGI overdose. Tips for Lucas might be; get someone *else* into to write the script and add new dimension; hire someone to direct like you did with Empire and Jedi they might be able to draw something out of the actors; tone down the blue screen stuff because even the Muppet Yoda had more soul than the CGI Mighty Mouse one in these films; and return some of the 50's Matinee style that inspired the originals which gave characters like Han Solo and Chewbacca some charm and the perilous action a bit exuberance. All those lucky enough to experience the original trilogy before this apocalyptic fiasco can tell the next generation about the good old days. Sadly, it's the end of a dynasty for this withered fable.
2 out of 5