Welcome to BigFlax.com!

July 29, 2001

   Read the review for Planet of the Apes.   You'll thank me later.

July 29, 2001

   Read the review for America's Sweethearts.

July 27, 2001

   There are a whole bunch of new trailers at www.movie-list.com, which makes me happy.   That and the Cubs finally got Fred McGriff.  Anyway, here are the reviews.
    Bandits - not reviewed (ASX format only).
    Enigma - A history-based account of the kind I often enjoy (Thirteen Days, Quiz Show), this time based around the cracking of German codes by the British during World War II.   It's a spy game to boot, as there seems to be a mole inside Bletchley Park (the British code-breaking center).  The trailer in question is formatted rather small, so it's not as easy to see as some, which isn't very helpful.  But what I could see works very well, as the trailer focuses on revealing enough of the story that the viewer has a very good idea of the plot - without totally ruining it as too many recent trailers have done.  The music isn't perfect, but the trailer is edited together well, and does plenty to make its film look enticing.  A-
    Harvard Man - not reviewed (French trailer only).
    The Quickie - This one's also in French, but since you never hear anyone speak, it doesn't really matter.  Few trailers manage to be effective without words, and this is surely not one of them.  All we know about the movie is that it has people in it, and that organized crime is involved.  For me, this really isn't enough.  Eventually, if this is a fair-sized release, a better trailer will come out.  Until then, we're stuck with this.  D
    Wet Hot American Summer - This film appears to be low-budget and, if the trailer is any indication, is pretty damn proud of it.  The talent seem like they could be better used elsewhere (with the exception of Molly Shannon who, as we all know, isn't funny), but at least the film isn't making any apologies for what it is, starting right with that title.  Regardless, this is clearly supposed to be a comedy and yet the trailer isn't funny, and I'm not sure what the point of that is.  The editing's not too bad, though, which is about all I can say for this one - at least there's no real problem technically.  C
    Serendipity (full trailer) - I'm surprised this gets "full trailer" billing, since it's almost less informative about the movie than the "teaser trailer."   Despite that, and despite the fact that this trailer is little more than a reworking of the "teaser," this trailer is better at making me want to see the movie.  For one thing, there's more of the beginning of the film and less of the end, which, if you ask me, is always a plus.  There's also more of David Gray's song "Babylon," which I love and which is used to good effect here.  I'm still not sure what to expect from the film.  The last one had a few more plot details, I thought, but this one has more jokes, and more of Cusack being his High Fidelity self.  If you liked him in that I'm almost willing to guarantee that you'll like him in this (in fact, when the line "This one's climbing the charts" comes along, the only way you won't think of High Fidelity is if you never saw it).  It's an effective persuasive tool, and that's what trailers should be.  And it's edited well, always a plus.  A
    The Count of Monte Cristo - This.  Trailer.  Is.  Awesome.   I love Guy Pearce and though I somewhat prefer to see him as the hero (L.A. Confidential), he can play this role and clearly does, even in the trailer.   Time will tell on Jim Caviezel's casting, but regardless, this trailer is fantastic.  It's edited well, it gives you just enough plot, and the music works as well.  I always find it tough to say as much about great movies as bad ones, and so it goes with trailers - all I can say is I can't wait to see this film, which is about as ringing an endorsement as I can give a trailer.  My one problem - that's a pretty corny tagline.  A+
    The Musketeer - Well, the movie itself seems like a cheap attempt to get kids into great classics of literature - much like any modern Shakespeare update.  For one thing, it's "completely reimagined," plus they've added all this Hong Kong fight choreography - the trailer looks like "Crouching Athos, Hidden Porthos."   Plus it's one of those - much like The Man in the Iron Mask, which takes place amidst many of the same events - where no one attempts to speak in a French accent, unless they already do, because the kids who go see it won't care.
    Well, for what it's trying to do, the trailer succeeds.  I can't say I'm too impressed, and I'll certainly be seeing the other Dumas flick before this one, but at least it's going to work on its target audience.  And the editing and music are fine.  B+

July 27, 2001

   Read the review for The Score.

July 24, 2001

   When this feature debuted back on the 13th, I called it "Flax Responds to Stuff Written in his Guestbook."  Now, though, I think I will call it "Flax Responds to the Idiots Who Write Idiotic Stuff in his Guestbook," since that seems, by and large, to be the case.
    For one thing, "Jerry Bruckheimer," if that is your real name (which it isn't), I've seen Wag the Dog.  I submit that most producers don't bother exercising that kind of control (also ponder Wag the Dog's extenuating circumstances).  Having not seen many Bruckheimer films, I don't know about the similar style, but if you mean that they all suck, I hear you.  Also consider that Bruckheimer works with the same directors a lot (all four Michael Bay feature films have been Bruckheimer-produced), which is a lot more indicative of a style.  This includes Bay working with the same cinematographer on every movie save for Bad Boys.
    I further submit that bullshit, you can't tell a Bruckheimer film just by looking at it.  Take for example: Pearl Harbor, The Ref, and Beverly Hills Cop.  Yes, these are all Bruckheimer films, and the three could hardly be more different.  Is there really a uniting style here?  I'm inclined to think not.  And until Bruckheimer does all his own cinematography and editing, there isn't going to be.
    I'm not saying that producers don't contribute to a film.  And perhaps I was a tad harsh in saying that they contribute nothing from a creative standpoint, but you'll note that Stanley's underlings in Wag the Dog foot most of the real creative work, with the producer himself supplying little more than an initial concept of where he wants it to go.  Even that is rarely a given in the real Hollywood - the best films, I'd have to say, start with a script (or at least "material from another medium"), rather than with a producer's idea that is then passed off to an army of scriptwriters.  Those seeds produce impossibly unwatchable crapfests like Charlie's Angels.
    And just so you know, there is an Oscar for Best Producer.  It's called Best Picture.

July 23, 2001

   Well, today was positively brimming with excitement.  And when I say that, of course I mean that it was not.  I had my day in court regarding the traffic ticket I received for "running a red light" back on June 11, a thrilling experience that took no less than three hours, of which about ten minutes were actually productive.
    Monumentally unsure of how to approach this, my mom and I went to the Maplewood Police Station and Municipal Court at 4:30.  The time on the ticket was 5:15, which means nothing because that's the time on everyone's ticket.  The case ahead of us ran long, and so it was at least 5:45 before anything at all began to happen, if not later.
    I got in line to talk to the prosecutor.  When I got to the front, my name wasn't on the list.  So I had to go and see the clerk, who informed me that if I had planned to appear in court at all, regardless of the plea, I had to notify them.   Needless to say, I didn't know this, and nowhere on the ticket does it say the court must be notified unless you are out to enter a plea of not guilty, which I wasn't.   Regardless, the clerk got me on the list.
    I think I actually got up in front of the judge at ten past seven.   At the very least it couldn't have been earlier than seven.  He gives the judgy schtick: you're charged with Failure to Observe Signal, but the state is willing to knock it down to some lesser charge, which I think was called "Unsafe Driving" or something similarly vague, if you plead guilty.  Unsafe Driving is a no-point violation; Failure to Observe Signal gets you two points.  Obviously I plead guilty to the lesser charge, even though I would like to state here for the record that I maintain my innocence in the matter.
    Here is where we find out that traffic court is basically a moneymaking scheme.  Most people are not going to bother with the runaround of a trial in traffic court, particularly when they can ensure that no points are put on their license.  So it is the general inclination - everyone else there did this that I saw - to plead guilty to the lesser charge.
    The catch is that the fine for Unsafe Driving is $100 (plus $30 in court costs), while the fine for Failure to Observe Signal is, in fact, only $78.  So the court gets you to plead guilty to the lesser charge, and while you think you've gotten off light by not absorbing any points, they actually make out like bandits, pulling in an extra $22 off everyone present and not wasting time with frivolous traffic cases.   They don't care about the points, but they know you do, so they might as well seize the opportunity to make some extra cash.
    Kind of a scam, really, and slightly alarming in its own way.  But as a driver who, not even being 19 just yet, already has a sky-high insurance premium on his parents' plan, I could do without the points.  And I certainly wasn't going to waste everyone's time trying to prove that I didn't do it, even though I didn't.  I don't think anyone could really have offered compelling arguments one way or the other, and I'd assume the inclination for the judge would be to believe the cop.  Sucks, but oh well.

July 22, 2001

   A few noteworthy notes: I don't know how long it's been since I updated the Weekly Ten, but in any event, I updated it today.   It may have been more than a week, but for some reason that doesn't really bother me.
    Tomorrow at 5:15 I have to go to court in the attempt to get off the hook for "running a red light" in Maplewood back in June.  The light happened to be yellow, but I'll see if saying that actually gets me anywhere, since the state of New Jersey, while not explicitly saying "don't run yellow lights" in its manual, is hardly in favor of trying to get through then.
    Finally, here's something I'd like to make into a regular feature: trailer reviews.  We're all familiar with the BigFlax.com Movie Reviews, of course, but sometimes the best part of the movie is the trailer.  (True with many crappy movies and even some good ones.)  Of course, trailers can suck too, and that's the point of the reviews - to look at the trailer's quality, as well as to see if that says anything about the film.  A good place to find a whole lot of trailers is at www.movie-list.com, and there are a number of new ones up this week.  So, here we go.
    Ali - This starts off as a really dramatic, intense trailer, with pounding music, slow fades, that sort of thing.  Then the big happy music kicks in, and while this doesn't totally ruin the trailer, it does weaken it a bit.  For those who questioned the casting of Will Smith as Muhammad Ali, well, all I can say is there are issues.  He certainly pulls off the hair, but you'll be hard-pressed to forget that you're looking at - and for that matter hearing - Will Smith.
    Of the trailers here, this is the best, and it's pretty well fleshed out given that this movie isn't scheduled for release until Christmas.  But it could have been better, no question about it.  Grade: B+
    Collateral Damage - Given that this is probably an action movie, the trailer is awfully boring.  For one thing, it's really morbid, as we get to see Arnold's wife and son killed in a terrorist attack at the outset.  From here the trailer goes on to reveal the entire plot of the movie; Arnold, pissed, goes to Colombia to find the terrorist himself.  He ends up saving the terrorist's wife and son from another bomb; then they all go back to the U.S. because that's where the terrorist is again.  And it looks like Arnold and the terrorist's wife are going to fall for each other.  In other words, typical brainless action movie schlock, and I'm not sure why I would have had reason to expect better.
    For almost two and a half years, between Batman and Robin and End of Days, Arnold Schwarzenegger didn't appear in a single movie.  Given that he still has yet to make a good one since 1994's True Lies, it's hard to say that he was really missed.  But End of Days started Arnold's "comeback," and Collateral Damage becomes the third straight Arnold movie released in the fall.  If the trailer is any indication, we'll have to wait for Terminator 3 or True Lies 2 for a decent Arnold flick.  Grade: C
    Glitter - Now here's a movie I will never, ever, ever see.  You can put money on that one.   You can also put money on the trailer giving away most of the plot.  It starts with young Mariah (okay, she doesn't actually play herself, but come on) going up on stage and singing with her mom.  Then, a really stupid voice-over comes in and says something lame.  Then we see Mariah go from nobody to a big star, and have this boyfriend who makes her famous and then gets mad because the relationship breaks down, and blah.  For a movie that's supposedly loosely based on Mariah's life, there's no reason for this to be so formulaic.  But evidently it is.
    I'd like to comment on Mariah's acting, by which I mean make fun of it, but there's not enough of it shown (probably for good reason).  Mostly she's just singing, looking sad, or grinning, which is probably about all there is to this movie.   Grade: C-
    Riding in Cars with Boys - First off, I'm not particularly enamored of Drew Barrymore's acting.  She was unwatchable in Charlie's Angels (although what wasn't?), and I didn't much like her in Never Been Kissed either.  Judging by the trailer, this one's even worse.  The trailer starts off with a horrible scene in which young Drew (played by some girl who looks nothing like young Drew, and since Drew was a child star we all know what young Drew looks like, and we're not fooled) brags about her breasts.  Then we see old (read: 15) Drew, and no one is thinking that Drew is supposed to be 15.  But she is, and someone needs to tell her that she can't play a 15-year-old.  She's wearing this big wig (I assume), and looks like an idiot.  The trailer doesn't get any better, although it does get points for probably not revealing the entire plot of the film.  But it loses them big time for revealing the moral of the film, which is that - surprise! - the decisions we make affect our lives.  Talk about your novel concepts.  Even more embarrassing is the fact that this film had to be based on a true story.  That ranks right up there with the joke of an idea that Drive Me Crazy was actually based on a "novel."  Grade: C-

July 18, 2001

   Read the review for Jurassic Park III.

July 16, 2001

   I'd like to take a moment to address a rather disturbing trend in the world of movie advertising.  No, not David Manning blurbs; ads that use "from the producer of" as an enticement.
    Say that I saw an ad for State and Main.  If it has in it the line, "From David Mamet, the writer of Glengarry Glen Ross," that would probably encourage me, because Mamet is an established writer, and Glengarry is a well-regarded picture.
    Say that I saw an ad for A.I.  If it has in it the line, "From Steven Spielberg, the director of Saving Private Ryan," or the "the director of Schindler's List" or whatever, I'm encouraged.   The fact is, the ads probably all say "from director Steven Spielberg."   They don't need to give a specific film because everyone knows Spielberg's name.   Likewise, anyone who would understand the Mamet reference at all probably doesn't need Glengarry thrown in to figure it out.
    While these can be misleading when well-respected auteurs make turkeys (Spielberg did The Lost World and such early busts as 1941 and Twilight Zone: The Movie; Mamet also wrote the screenplay for Hannibal, which, while successful, was definitely not the high point of his career), such claims can at least be a decent idea of what style to expect.  If I saw that something was written by Aaron Sorkin, I'd be expecting his trademark dialogue.
    Here's the problem.  Producers don't contribute much of anything to a film from the creative standpoint, so to state that a film is "from the producer of" another movie means pretty much nothing.  All it means is that they contributed resources to both films.
    A good example are the ads for Swordfish, which were almost unanimous in promoting the film as "from the producer of The Matrix."   And yes, Joel Silver did produce both films.  So?  He also produced Fair Game, Exit Wounds, and Hudson Hawk.  The fact is, the ads are shamelessly attempting to capitalize on The Matrix's popularity.  It's not surprising, but when a producer is the only link, the connection means nothing.
    Here are some other good examples.  Not of actual ads, but of how useless a predictor we're dealing with:
    "From the producer of American Beauty: The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas."
    "From the producer of Braveheart: A Very Brady Sequel."
    "From the producer of The Godfather: The Scout."
    I think you can see where I'm going with this.

July 16, 2001

    Well, it doesn't look like anyone is going to vote in the informal poll.  I don't really blame you, frankly.  But the answer is in fact D) Chris, who admitted as such to me the other day.
    I also feel compelled to say something in response to NU Dave's 3-part (and out-of-order) message in the guestbook.
    Dave, I wasn't talking about you.  I was talking about NJ Dave, the Dave who appears in the "85*" gif found at the top of this page.  I'm not sure how to say I would never suspect you of that post without sounding vaguely insulting (since I thought it was clever), but let's leave it at this: it did not smack of your traditional style of humor.  I also didn't know you visited my page that much.
    I'm disappointed in you, however, for failing to cleverly work "The Shawshank Redemption" into your comments.

July 13, 2001

   In what could be a weekly feature if I actually got regular submissions to my guestbook, it's time for "Flax Responds to Stuff Written in his Guestbook."  This week we have two new entries.
    First there's Bisberg, going by Biz, who says (you can read the whole thing for yourself) that Mark Witte must be the funniest man alive.  Well, aside from professional comedians, probably.  At the very least he's the funniest teacher I've ever had.  The answer to your question, Mike, is no, I didn't learn anything in that class, in part because I was too busy writing quotes down but mostly because the funny quotes obscure the fact that that class is hard as all hell.  That's why I got a C.
    Then there's the person who makes fun of the earlier critic by taking his criticism of my entertainment favorites and substitutes "baseball" for "media."  It's pretty funny.  I'm taking bets on who did this, and I can safely narrow it down to 1) Dave or 2) someone from the suite.
    With the poll already occupied by another question, here's the informal poll question of the week:
    "Who wrote the baseball thing in Flax's guestbook?"
    A) Dave
    B) Drew
    C) The Ric
    D) Chris

    I'm willing to guarantee that it's one of these four.   If you'd like to weigh in, send me your vote via e-mail at robert@bigflax.com.  I'll ask the person responsible not to come forward for the time being, just to keep this interesting.

July 7, 2001

   The All-Star Game this year is a disgrace.  Want proof?  Just take a look at the American League roster.  I don't have a problem with the strong Seattle representation - John Olerud, Bret Boone, Ichiro Suzuki, and Edgar Martinez all deserve to start at their respective positions.   Kaz Sasaki is the best closer in the AL if not baseball, and Freddy Garcia is 10-1 this year.  So as far as Seattle goes, when it comes to the fans loading the team, I'm okay with it.
    Here's where I'm not okay with it.  Notice to Joe Torre: just because you manage the Yankees does not mean you have free license to put as many Yankees as you can possibly cram onto the All-Star Team.  The fans knew what they were doing when they didn't elect any Yankees to start, but that didn't stop Torre.  Jorge Posada, Derek Jeter, and Bernie Williams will all be reserves - and you can bet they'll all see time in the field.  Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Mariano Rivera, and Mike Stanton - yes, Mike Stanton - round out the Yankee contingent.
    Pretty impressive for a team that has only stopped underachieving in the last three weeks.  Let's take a look at some stats and see how many of these selections are really merited.

    A quick scan makes Player A look better, right?  Higher average and on-base percentage, more hits and runs.  But Player B has significantly more power, as can be seen by the much-better home run and RBI totals, not to mention a better slugging percentage.  Player A is Derek Jeter.  Player B is A's shortstop Miguel Tejada, who has broken out of his early season funk and has claimed the title of second-best offensive shortstop in the AL in Nomar's absence.  Since the #1 offensive shortstop is starting (A-Rod), and since Cristian Guzman is already the speed-demon SS on the reserves, why was Jeter taken ahead of Tejada?  He has a better average but actually a lower OPS, and besides, we've all seen him already.
    How about this one:

    All right, so once again, a quick look at the average tells you all you need to know, in theory.  But look closer.  Despite having eight fewer hits than Player A, Player B has as many home runs, not to mention four more doubles and four more triples.  He also has eight more RBI.  This despite an average that is almost fifty points lower (and a similarly staggered OBP).  Player B's slugging percentage is also close to Player A's.  And not pictured here are Player B's 18 stolen bases, twice as many as Player A.  Player A is Bernie Williams.  Player B is Seattle's Mike Cameron, and while there are certainly plenty of Mariners on the AL squad already, we need more Yankees like we need a hole in the head.
    Jorge Posada I don't have much of a problem with.  I don't think there's much of an argument against him being on the team, at least when you look at his offensive numbers.  So let's move on to the pitchers.
    Roger Clemens no one can argue with.  He's 12-1, at almost 39 years old pitching as well as ever.  Clearly he should be on the team, and probably the starter, although the word is he doesn't want to be.  But he can't be touched.   So let's turn our attention to the other pitchers.
    That there should be as many relief pitchers as starting pitchers on the squad is stupid.  Torre chose three closers and two middle relievers, at least one more than was necessary for each.  A lot of deserving starters were left off the team, so the very idea that the Yankees needed two representatives in the bullpen is hideously flawed.  Take a look at this:

    I don't think I even need to say "at first glance" this time, because the difference is obvious.  Sure, Pitcher A has a better ERA, but it's not that much better, and take a look at how many more innings Pitcher B has thrown.  Pitcher B, who of late has been starting despite beginning the season in the pen, even has two saves - and hasn't blown any, while Pitcher A has no saves but has still managed to blow one.
    Pitcher A is Mike Stanton.  Pitcher B is Tim Wakefield, who is second in the AL (behind Our Man Pedro) in ERA right now.  You can't tell me Stanton deserves to go.  Frankly, middle relievers rarely deserve to go period, and the fact that Paul Quantrill is on the roster as Toronto's lone rep should have made this one a no-brainer.  One middle reliever is cute.  Two is sheer idiocy, and Stanton's appearance reeks of impropriety.
    As for Mariano Rivera's spot on the roster, well, as I said, you don't need three closers.  You only need two.  Kaz Sasaki has 29 saves, and a 3.11 ERA while holding opposing batters to a .176 average.  Troy Percival of the Angels has only 21 saves - but he pitches for the Angels - to go with an obscene 0.84 ERA and a .128 average from the hitters he faces.
    Rivera has 28 saves and a 2.18 ERA while holding opponents to a .175 average.  His ERA is better than Sasaki's, but his OPP AVG is just a point better, and he has one fewer save.  Meanwhile, his ERA and OPP AVG can't touch Percival's, who has seven fewer saves but also eight fewer appearances.  Rivera is a fine closer and in the upper echelon in baseball, not just the AL, but the team doesn't need more than two and he's the one who should go.
    Finally, try this on for size:

    Okay, Pitcher A has more strikeouts, a better ERA, and a lower opponents' batting average.  But the two have the same record - and Pitcher B has ten fewer walks despite pitching seventeen more innings.  He also has more complete games.  Pitcher A is Andy Pettitte.  Pitcher B is the Twins' Brad Radke, who has done as much for that team this season as Joe Mays and Eric Milton, both of whom are on the squad.  Maybe Pettitte deserves to be on the team, but if that's the case than Radke does as well.  You don't need to dump Pettitte - just jettison Rivera, who as I've already explained is unnecessary.  Thus instead of seeing four Yankee pitchers on a list of ten, we would see no more than two, which is how it should be.
    Frankly, the league should have stepped in and prevented Torre from loading up the team with Yankees.  I guess he was trying to be a faithful manager and get all the players their bonuses for appearing in the game, but any case you can make for most of his Yankee selections could be made equally strong or better for someone else.   We see the Yankees on national television all the time.  Let's give someone else a chance, hmm?
    I hope every Yankee in this game gets hit in the face with a batted ball at some point during the game.  Then we'll see how Torre's strategy looks.

July 6, 2001

   Read the review for Kiss of the Dragon.

July 4, 2001

   Read the review for Cats and Dogs.

July 1, 2001

   Read the review for A.I. as I try to see more movies this summer.

There's more! View last month's updates.

Thanks to Tabnet for the domain name and my parents for paying it off.

Want to send me mail?  Here. 

Want to join my mailing list?  Here:

BigFlax.com is probably not legitimately copyrighted under the laws of any country.   Just don't steal stuff and claim it was yours, please.

© 2001 Barren Malt Fox Productions

This page last updated: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 08:12:45 PM