a-kos
Joined Jun 2000
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews14
a-kos's rating
The Simpson Movie has most of the great qualities of the TV series - pointed iconoclastic social satire (digs at religion, bureaucracy, crass materialism), clever slapstick humor, dialog that is both intelligent and intelligently stupid, and great visual gags (esp in the first 15 minutes). Much of the humor references some of the best specific scenes from various episodes (probably only long-time fans will understand these jokes).
'The Simpsons Movie' is basically a very good (not great) episode extended to 90 min - that's both reassuring and a slightly disappointing: Reassuring because it reaffirms the seemingly infinite versatility and mutability of the show's formula, but also a little disappointing because the writers/producers/etc don't take as many chances with the formula as I would've liked. I was hoping for something that would transcend the TV show the way 'South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut', took that that show's bawdy, offensive humor to new levels, then transformed it into a statement (and big middle-finger) at the MPA for it's misguided priorities and hypocrisy. The Simpson Movie never goes much farther than the TV show; the PG-13 rating does enable the writers to be a little more naughty with some of the jokes, but not in a way that enhances the TV show's insight, irreverence, or overall effectiveness.
As an ardent fan maybe I'm being too hard on the film and expecting too much. The series has been on so long and lampooned virtually every aspect of U.S. culture (and numerous others), maybe there just isn't anywhere left for the creative team to go they haven't at least touched on already. Taken as it is The Simpson movie is an intelligently written, visually clever satire. And even if it's not as potent as the best episodes it's still entertaining and mostly satisfying for both casual and avid fans.
'The Simpsons Movie' is basically a very good (not great) episode extended to 90 min - that's both reassuring and a slightly disappointing: Reassuring because it reaffirms the seemingly infinite versatility and mutability of the show's formula, but also a little disappointing because the writers/producers/etc don't take as many chances with the formula as I would've liked. I was hoping for something that would transcend the TV show the way 'South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut', took that that show's bawdy, offensive humor to new levels, then transformed it into a statement (and big middle-finger) at the MPA for it's misguided priorities and hypocrisy. The Simpson Movie never goes much farther than the TV show; the PG-13 rating does enable the writers to be a little more naughty with some of the jokes, but not in a way that enhances the TV show's insight, irreverence, or overall effectiveness.
As an ardent fan maybe I'm being too hard on the film and expecting too much. The series has been on so long and lampooned virtually every aspect of U.S. culture (and numerous others), maybe there just isn't anywhere left for the creative team to go they haven't at least touched on already. Taken as it is The Simpson movie is an intelligently written, visually clever satire. And even if it's not as potent as the best episodes it's still entertaining and mostly satisfying for both casual and avid fans.
I just want to add another voice of disappointment for this film. Considering all the glowing national and local reviews, I was expecting much more. I don't always agree with critical consensus, but usually when a film is unanimously lauded it truly is at least somewhat worthwhile.
I won't reiterate the plot since that's already been done by several other users. This film really is as dull as many other users have stated. While the performances by Campbell Scott, Hope Davis, and Denis Leary (who steals the show) are fine, but the nebulous story and inert pacing deaden what few compelling scenes there are. The Secret Lives of Dentists is one of those films in which what the characters don't say is intended to be more important than what they actually do. Randolph intends for the film to be an emotionally weighty treatise on committment, responsibility, and personal satisfaction (and how these values often conflict), but his approach is so deliberately understated it makes little impression on the viewer. The only exceptions are the early scenes with Leary, whose acerbic, oft humorous presence is the only character that registers a pulse in an otherwise listless film (he isn't on screen enough to carry the film the way he might have been able to).
I'm sure there are probably many married (or previously married) individuals who will argue this film presents the complexities of marriage in a mature, realistic, and human manner. This might be true (as a single person I can't offer any perspective), but the characters are so drab (except for Leary), and the story so hazy and sluggish the result is a vague, unmemorable film.
I won't reiterate the plot since that's already been done by several other users. This film really is as dull as many other users have stated. While the performances by Campbell Scott, Hope Davis, and Denis Leary (who steals the show) are fine, but the nebulous story and inert pacing deaden what few compelling scenes there are. The Secret Lives of Dentists is one of those films in which what the characters don't say is intended to be more important than what they actually do. Randolph intends for the film to be an emotionally weighty treatise on committment, responsibility, and personal satisfaction (and how these values often conflict), but his approach is so deliberately understated it makes little impression on the viewer. The only exceptions are the early scenes with Leary, whose acerbic, oft humorous presence is the only character that registers a pulse in an otherwise listless film (he isn't on screen enough to carry the film the way he might have been able to).
I'm sure there are probably many married (or previously married) individuals who will argue this film presents the complexities of marriage in a mature, realistic, and human manner. This might be true (as a single person I can't offer any perspective), but the characters are so drab (except for Leary), and the story so hazy and sluggish the result is a vague, unmemorable film.
Most other viewers are either biased because this is a Christopher Guest movie or see something I just don't. For those who don't know, A Mighty Wind is mockumentary of the 1960s folk music revival. A famous folk musician dies and several other folksters decide to hold a reunion concert. The film follows the three groups who participate as they discuss their past and prepare for the concert.
As with all Guest mockumentaries, the individual groups are designed to parody actual figures (and the folk music scene itself). Unlike the targets of his two previous films (Waiting for Guffman and Best in Show), the subject matter of Wind isn't intrinsically funny. Community theater is funny because it's so pedestrian and cheap (Guffman) and Dog shows are ridiculous because the owners are pompous and deluded (Show). Middle-aged folksters aren't inherently funny and so it seems Guest has trouble evoking much humor and maintaining a lively pace. Unlike the characters in his previous films, the folk musicians in Wind are so similar to actual folk acts, the film leaves the realm of satire and becomes emulation. With Guffman and Show, Guest mocked his characters unmercifully. In Wind, he parody's his subject matter so closely, Wind fails to be consistently funny. This is especially true during the reunion concert, which takes on the personality of an actual concert rather than a satire of one. Even the music itself bares an uncanny resemblance to authentic folk music; the songs are catchy and well written but again sound more like actual songs rather than parodies.
To be fair, A Mighty Wind does have a few very funny scenes, but for every minute of genuine humor there are ten minutes of dead air. Wind is the type of film which keeps you grinning, but only seldom evokes laughter and is easily forgotten after you exit the theater. Ultimately, Guest just seems too fond of his characters to lampoon them effectively and create good satire. The community actors in Guffman were absurdly incompetent, the dog owners in Show were ridiculously serious. The musicians in Wind know they're just innocuous nostalgia acts and have no pretense about it. Consequently, Wind just doesn't have the sharp wit of Guffman and Show. A Mighty Wind is more pseudo-documentary than comedy, or more accurately, a mockumentary sans the mock.
Rating: 2.5 out of 5
As with all Guest mockumentaries, the individual groups are designed to parody actual figures (and the folk music scene itself). Unlike the targets of his two previous films (Waiting for Guffman and Best in Show), the subject matter of Wind isn't intrinsically funny. Community theater is funny because it's so pedestrian and cheap (Guffman) and Dog shows are ridiculous because the owners are pompous and deluded (Show). Middle-aged folksters aren't inherently funny and so it seems Guest has trouble evoking much humor and maintaining a lively pace. Unlike the characters in his previous films, the folk musicians in Wind are so similar to actual folk acts, the film leaves the realm of satire and becomes emulation. With Guffman and Show, Guest mocked his characters unmercifully. In Wind, he parody's his subject matter so closely, Wind fails to be consistently funny. This is especially true during the reunion concert, which takes on the personality of an actual concert rather than a satire of one. Even the music itself bares an uncanny resemblance to authentic folk music; the songs are catchy and well written but again sound more like actual songs rather than parodies.
To be fair, A Mighty Wind does have a few very funny scenes, but for every minute of genuine humor there are ten minutes of dead air. Wind is the type of film which keeps you grinning, but only seldom evokes laughter and is easily forgotten after you exit the theater. Ultimately, Guest just seems too fond of his characters to lampoon them effectively and create good satire. The community actors in Guffman were absurdly incompetent, the dog owners in Show were ridiculously serious. The musicians in Wind know they're just innocuous nostalgia acts and have no pretense about it. Consequently, Wind just doesn't have the sharp wit of Guffman and Show. A Mighty Wind is more pseudo-documentary than comedy, or more accurately, a mockumentary sans the mock.
Rating: 2.5 out of 5