Sorry about the long absence. It should be the last one for a while. For the next two weekends, I'm off to the chicago international film festival, so I'll be back and writing furiously to keep you all up to date on the great movies hitting the circuit. For now, here's my reviews for Mr. 3000 and Control Room. Before I leave on Friday, I hope to get a few more documentaries reviewed, including those Fog of War and Weather Underground reviews I promised oh so long ago. Check back often. It'll be worth it.
Control Room
Review by Jon Waterman
***
“Control Room” tells the story of Al Jazeera, the Arabian satellite news network. It chronicles the war between the United States and Iraq, from beginning to shortly after the take down of the Saddam statue, from their perspective. If follows the newsroom workers and journalists in their effort to provide a non-mainstream view of the world’s events.
Sure, the film is about Al Jazeera, because the central cast of participants comes from that network. However, it’s more accurately a commentary on news media in general. The channel has been harshly criticized in the United States for being overly biased and manipulative. The film shows how the American media circuit perpetuates this on the other end of the spectrum. The Al Jazeera reporters ask the hard questions and we hear the dizzying amount of spin put into the answer. The movie does a good job of not only showing the skepticism in the US Government and their responses, but also explaining why they are skeptical. Key subject Hassan Ibrahim is very eloquent and outspoken, while being honest and for the most part objective.
We aren’t just exposed to the Al Jazeera network. We see shots of reporters from the States and how they handle similar issues. It gives the audience a great look at the varying tactics and focus points that various media outlets use. The bias of Al Jazeera doesn’t really show its face here, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. The movie does a good job of showing how anyone is biased and how no group can escape subjectivity – including the movie itself. It does an especially good job of pointing out certain hypocrisies in the government officials’ sound bites.
It also uses on US spokesman to further explain the multi-faceted situation presented. Through his interviews (both with the filmmakers and the various news outlets), Josh Rushing promotes understanding and thoughtfulness. His personal viewpoints on the war and coverage of it change. He works as a guide to the complexity of it all.
The movie is effective in covering and criticizing media and exposing its flaws, but ultimately doesn’t offer much of anything new to the table. The concept and perception of propagandizing news isn’t unusual and in fact seems to be relatively widely accepted. If anything, it puts a good face on the Al Jazeera people and puts them in a positive light. Hopefully, it’ll act as a catalyst for discussion and for acceptance and respect of others, even if their viewpoints differ.
+++++
Mr. 3000
Review by Jon Waterman
1/2 star
Stan Ross was one of the greatest hitters alive. His whole goal in life was to reach the hall of fame, and he knew that reaching the milestone of 3000 hits would guarantee his spot there. Once he accomplished that plateau, he retired, leaving his team in the lurch. Fast forward to nine years later on the eve of the hall of fame induction, it’s discovered that Stan is actually three measly hits shy of the 3000 hits that he’s built his franchise on. Now, to prove he’s not a huge joke, he’s going to make a comeback and rejoin the team he left behind and get those last three hits. Piece of cake, right?
Remember the good old days of baseball comedies? You don’t have to go back too far to find some funny stuff. Look at “Major League,” “A League of Their Own,” “The Sandlot,” “Rookie of the Year,” and even “Mr. Baseball.” This film does not stack up to even “Little Big League.” Simply put, it didn’t make me laugh. It made me bored. It made me tired. It made me wish I had my money in my wallet. It made me wonder how and why it got made. It did not make me laugh.
Bernie Mac (Stan Ross) is a funny guy…when he’s doing stand-up. Give him a role and scripted lines that he didn’t write and he can’t make them any better. It wasn’t just that the dialogue was so bad. They also wrote things that made no sense or really came to any fruition. There’s a guy in a wiener outfit for the Brewers’ famous hot dog race who heckles Ross in mundane, obvious ways. He really serves no purpose. The side plot of the film is to get the Brewers to third place. But they don’t say of what. If they mean the division, then it’d be pointless, because that wouldn’t get them into the playoffs. If they mean the whole conference (National League), then that’s another story, but since there are three division winners and a wild card that get into the playoffs, getting third would really mean winning the division. No matter what, it’s stupid and the movie suffers greatly because of it (for reasons I can’t really divulge here for spoiler avoidance reasons).
The premise was weak to begin with, but hey it’s a baseball movie. How deep does it have to be? Not very. The problem is that nothing really makes sense, nor does it make effective jokes. There are some nice looking commercial parodies and non-parody shots, but the fun just never gets off the bench. The film strikes out with the audience looking, mouths agape.
Control Room
Review by Jon Waterman
***
“Control Room” tells the story of Al Jazeera, the Arabian satellite news network. It chronicles the war between the United States and Iraq, from beginning to shortly after the take down of the Saddam statue, from their perspective. If follows the newsroom workers and journalists in their effort to provide a non-mainstream view of the world’s events.
Sure, the film is about Al Jazeera, because the central cast of participants comes from that network. However, it’s more accurately a commentary on news media in general. The channel has been harshly criticized in the United States for being overly biased and manipulative. The film shows how the American media circuit perpetuates this on the other end of the spectrum. The Al Jazeera reporters ask the hard questions and we hear the dizzying amount of spin put into the answer. The movie does a good job of not only showing the skepticism in the US Government and their responses, but also explaining why they are skeptical. Key subject Hassan Ibrahim is very eloquent and outspoken, while being honest and for the most part objective.
We aren’t just exposed to the Al Jazeera network. We see shots of reporters from the States and how they handle similar issues. It gives the audience a great look at the varying tactics and focus points that various media outlets use. The bias of Al Jazeera doesn’t really show its face here, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. The movie does a good job of showing how anyone is biased and how no group can escape subjectivity – including the movie itself. It does an especially good job of pointing out certain hypocrisies in the government officials’ sound bites.
It also uses on US spokesman to further explain the multi-faceted situation presented. Through his interviews (both with the filmmakers and the various news outlets), Josh Rushing promotes understanding and thoughtfulness. His personal viewpoints on the war and coverage of it change. He works as a guide to the complexity of it all.
The movie is effective in covering and criticizing media and exposing its flaws, but ultimately doesn’t offer much of anything new to the table. The concept and perception of propagandizing news isn’t unusual and in fact seems to be relatively widely accepted. If anything, it puts a good face on the Al Jazeera people and puts them in a positive light. Hopefully, it’ll act as a catalyst for discussion and for acceptance and respect of others, even if their viewpoints differ.
+++++
Mr. 3000
Review by Jon Waterman
1/2 star
Stan Ross was one of the greatest hitters alive. His whole goal in life was to reach the hall of fame, and he knew that reaching the milestone of 3000 hits would guarantee his spot there. Once he accomplished that plateau, he retired, leaving his team in the lurch. Fast forward to nine years later on the eve of the hall of fame induction, it’s discovered that Stan is actually three measly hits shy of the 3000 hits that he’s built his franchise on. Now, to prove he’s not a huge joke, he’s going to make a comeback and rejoin the team he left behind and get those last three hits. Piece of cake, right?
Remember the good old days of baseball comedies? You don’t have to go back too far to find some funny stuff. Look at “Major League,” “A League of Their Own,” “The Sandlot,” “Rookie of the Year,” and even “Mr. Baseball.” This film does not stack up to even “Little Big League.” Simply put, it didn’t make me laugh. It made me bored. It made me tired. It made me wish I had my money in my wallet. It made me wonder how and why it got made. It did not make me laugh.
Bernie Mac (Stan Ross) is a funny guy…when he’s doing stand-up. Give him a role and scripted lines that he didn’t write and he can’t make them any better. It wasn’t just that the dialogue was so bad. They also wrote things that made no sense or really came to any fruition. There’s a guy in a wiener outfit for the Brewers’ famous hot dog race who heckles Ross in mundane, obvious ways. He really serves no purpose. The side plot of the film is to get the Brewers to third place. But they don’t say of what. If they mean the division, then it’d be pointless, because that wouldn’t get them into the playoffs. If they mean the whole conference (National League), then that’s another story, but since there are three division winners and a wild card that get into the playoffs, getting third would really mean winning the division. No matter what, it’s stupid and the movie suffers greatly because of it (for reasons I can’t really divulge here for spoiler avoidance reasons).
The premise was weak to begin with, but hey it’s a baseball movie. How deep does it have to be? Not very. The problem is that nothing really makes sense, nor does it make effective jokes. There are some nice looking commercial parodies and non-parody shots, but the fun just never gets off the bench. The film strikes out with the audience looking, mouths agape.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home