Friday, April 08, 2005

Movie time, with Del...

Because I only have three more days until I start work, and I'm still quite bored. I decided to flex those Netflix muscles again. (You know, the ones that are used when inserting a DVD into the player) For your reading enjoyment, you will now hear my opinions on two movies: Paparazzi and Closer. Let's start with Paparazzi.


I'm a little confused on where the title came from but no matter. Paparazzi is the story of a rising action star from the middle of bumblefu*k Montana who finds fame and (wait for it) THE PAPARAZZI to be a little tiring/annoying/intrusive to say the least. Everything is going fine until (wait for it again) THE PAPARAZZI start taking pictures of his private life and family. Hmm, go figure. Because if someone who takes pictures for a living, isn't snooping around taking pictures of you in your private life, then they're called PHOTOGRAPHERS. Duh.

Anyway, our hero, Cole Hauser, who you may remember as the racist officer in Hart's War, or the racist mastermind of the Aryan gang in Higher Learning, proves he's not really a racist by tipping Chris Rock, who makes a cameo, $60 for delivering his pizza. So (wait for it one last time) THE PAPARAZZI get a little out of hand and people close to Bo Laramie (Hauser) get hurt. That's when he gets pissed, and takes matters into his own hands.

I must admit, this is a good drama/action film. It kept me interested and flowed fairly well. I found myself subconsciously rooting for Bo to kick all their asses. That'll teach 'em! I'm sure each star in Hollywood owns a copy of this movie fantasizes being Bo for a day.

All in all, I thought it was mildly predictable, yet entertaining. For a movie stacked with cameos, and based on actors getting revenge at (ok, you don't even have to wait for this one) THE PAPARAZZI , you'd think that there'd be a line forming to take the lead, but my guess is, they didn't have the budget. That would explain Daniel Baldwin's casting. I will admit Tom Sizemore works well as the main villian.

Out of a full bag of popcorn, I give it 2/3.


On to Closer. Riiiiiight. Let me just say that broadway plays are broadway plays because they generally don't work as movies. If they did, they'd be called MOVIES. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this movie is going to have a split audience. Love it or hate it. I'm the guy standing in the middle that can't make up his mind yet. The official pitch is as follows:

" An intriguing story of passion, drama, love, and abandonment involving two couples, which only gets more complicated when the man from the first couple gets acquainted with the woman from the second coupling. "

Riiiiiiight. Now let me tell you what really goes on- in English. A closed-off stripper (Natalie Portman) falls in "love" with the cradle-robbing Jude Law who falls in "love" with a selfconscious photographer (played by Ms. "My career is spiriling downward" Julia Roberts), who gets married to the rich, womanizing, terrible-in-the-sack doctor (Clive Owen). They all sleep around and break up and get back together. The end.

I think the thing that bugged me the most about this movie is that the term "love" is thrown around so much, when really all these people are doing is trading spouses over the course of four years. None of these characters really seem to know what "love" is, let alone being just plain faithful to each other.

I know, I know, those of you that "loved" the film are saying, "Yes, but that's the point! There's such a deeper meaning to the story." Whatever. Other than seeing Ms. Portman portraying a stripper, the only reason I'd watch this moive again is to take notes on where I should visit if I ever travel to London. (I "love" double-decker buses.) I think they tried to wake the audience back up at the end with a slight twist, but by that time I was too busy scratching my butt to care.

Overall, I had to get some beer to wash down the 1/3 bag of popcorn I'm giving this movie. Turns out, I guess that means I hated it.