Sunday, December 28, 2003

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines

For all you Terminator fans, you'll want to see this film, if only to see where they're taking the story. It won't surprise you that there isn't much in terms of actual story. After the first film, this was never more than an action franchise. (Although the second one wasn't bad either since James Cameron seems to be able to meld story and action better than most.) However, I believe it's safe to say that I've never seen a film with more TV-news mayhem in it. A wide-load monster truck with crane attached barreling through the streets of LA destroying (read: upending) literally every car in its path using a hook on the end of the crane? I actually started laughing because it was so believable and over the top at the same time. As to the actors, I don't get why Nick Stahl doesn't get more parts. Besides being able to glower seductively from underneath bushy eyebrows, he can emote with the best of them. Granted, he's not given a whole lot of pithy dialogue to work with here and occasionally over-does things. Schwarzenegger himself is, well, as ever, but this time it's clear they're making fun of the Terminator franchise itself. Silly sunglasses, psychology jokes, weight issues -- all based on his character. The DVD contains a gag reel, worth it if only to watch Schwarzenegger create a gag over handling multiple weapons at the same time.

year: 2003
length: 109 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181852/combined

The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl

You can't come away from this film without conflicting emotions. On the one hand, you believe Frau Riefenstahl when she (adamantly) scoffs at any notion that she was involved in the party politics of the Nazis. On the other hand, you see pictures of her laughing and smiling with Hitler, letters she wrote him after his Blitzkrieg successes, and the obvious propaganda nature of her famous film Triumph des Willens (Triumph of the Will) about Hitler and his Nazi parades. But you cannot ignore her talent. This woman knew how to direct and how to edit. Her description of how she put together one of her earlier films after someone butchered it and what she learned from that process, and her thoughts on how to create an aesthetically pleasing film, show that she was as skilled a film auteur as any you can name today. Her technological innovations for filming her documentary of the 1936 Berlin Olympic games alone are astounding -- digging pits for the cameras so that they could film up at the runners, creating a balloon camera that would float above the stadium, placing a camera along the sides of the track that moved at the speed of the race. Several of her innovations are commonplace today. If she had been allowed to continue her career, without the allegations of her instrumental part in Hitler's reign, she would have been among the most famous German directors ever. Of that, I have no doubt. But, of course, there were allegations and her career was destroyed before it started. The genius of this documentary is that it lets you decide on your own whom you want to believe. By the way, the translation of the German "die Macht der Bilder" is "the power of pictures," which seems much more apt a title.

original title: Die Macht der Bilder: Leni Riefenstahl
year: 1993
length: 180 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107472/combined

Mystic River

Because Clint Eastwood films his productions with so simple a hand, a film of his might not hit you until well after you leave the theater. There are always hints that what you're seeing is not run-of-the-mill. A regular ending to a suspense drama is when the bad guy gets caught. In this case, no one who should get caught is caught, and the ending is a musing on the nature of community and friendship and love, which seems so at odds with the reality of the film that you wonder why Eastwood did it. Except that it has everything to do with the reality of the film. Kevin Bacon (playing the Eastwood character), Sean Penn, and most impressively, Tim Robbins, are old childhood friends with one horrible secret that comes back to haunt them -- that one of them was sexually abused as a child. But that's not really what the film is about. The film is about love, and the things that are done in the name of it, whether that be protection, deceit, betrayal, jealousy or even a cry for help. Eastwood is a master at realism (what you see is what you get) with the deeper symbolic meanings hidden below this surface. You watch a scene, played "as is," and you don't immediately recognize the thematic layer because what you're seeing is so involving itself. Are any of the rest of you amazed that an actor known for tight-lipped, unemotional roles can put out such complex creations? And he keeps getting better and better.

year: 2003
length: 137 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0327056/combined

Thursday, December 18, 2003

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

I feel so much better now. I think I've been holding my breath for 3 years . I had huge expectations walking into this film and now I can let all that stress go because it was wonderful. The film is paced the same way as the first two, fairly slowly, but with bursts of exciting images that make you want to shout from the rooftops. In particular, I loved the lighting of the signals from mountaintop to mountaintop. The images themselves make a lump grow in your throat, but better than that was the reaction from Aragorn (played much more aptly than in the first two films, although he's still not adept at exposition, by Viggo Mortensen). There are plenty of opportunities to have your funny bone tickled, even so far into the film as the orcs who capture Frodo. There are also opportunities for surprise. The city where the King of the Nazguls resides shocked the heck out of me, and I think others in the audience. Orlando Bloom as Legolas once again gets the best stunt (although I didn't like this one as much as the one in the second film). Each major character learns and grows throughout the film, and the most eye-opening of these was Samwise Gamgee. Jackson should be counting his lucky stars that he cast Sean Astin in that role. And the ending is quite moving. I am not ashamed to say that tears were coursing down my cheeks. You'd think I wouldn't have been so moved knowing what the ending would be but it was so nice to see it enacted well. And, dare I say, correctly. A marathon of all three films back to back was shown in NYC (when they do this in Ann Arbor I'll be one of the first there). One fan, when asked why she was there, put down her book (do you have to ask which book?) and answered that she was there in tribute to Peter Jackson, "a fan who understood." In the final analysis, the films show that he cared about what he was making. And that's what really counts.

year: 2003
length: 201 min. theatrical release / 251 min. extended release
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167260/combined

Friday, December 12, 2003

The West Wing

Who's my favorite character on this TV series? That's so hard because they're all excellent. I suppose it comes down to two, Toby and C.J., because Richard Schiff and Allison Janney are so good at making characters out of their characters. I mean, they've fleshed them out better than the others have. And they're funnier, to boot. I could see how some folks might be offended at the idea of a wise-cracking White House staff, however Aaron Sorkin blends that with issues in a way that makes it fun to learn about politics and the process of politics. The first season is out on DVD, which I immediately purchased (the only TV series I'm probably ever bound to buy), and 95% of the episodes are fantastic. (There's one -- The Crackpots and These Women -- that seemed phoned-in and is offensive as well.) Moira Kelly is the only original series character not to be included in the following seasons, and it becomes rather obvious why she was "replaced" by Janel Moloney. Hands down this is my fave TV show and I wish it hadn't taken them so long to release it on DVD. Those of us without television, who've watched episodes here and there, were champing at the bit.

year: 1999-?
length: season 1 on DVD, season 5 in play
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0200276/combined

The Italian Job

As heist flicks go, this one's got all the usual elements. No huge surprises -- a tech guy, an explosives guy, the master planner guy and the token girl, who just happens to know how to open a safe. I think I liked it better than most because the lead actors are strong and gutsy, and yet you can sympathize with them because they bring a fragility to their acting. Mark Wahlberg is probably the only actor in his generation that combines equal amounts of tenderness and toughness, and I just like Charlize Theron...well...for the same reasons. Apparently, this is a remake (re-thinking, actually) of a 1969 film of the same name, which I've not seen. I'm sometimes hesitant to watch older action/heist/thriller films because I know that I'm a product of my generation. If it's a blow-things-up film, then I'd like to see that done believably. Let's face it: the technology is better now. Of course, having said that I should watch the original and see for myself. They both have the cool little mini-Coopers in them. Although, watching Theron driving one really fast makes me clutch the edges of my seat cushions. Showing my age, I think. If you like these types of films, this one doesn't have anywhere the impact of Heat but it easily tops The Score. When you rent the DVD, watch the first deleted scene. I can see why they left it out (actually they left a lot of the comedy bits out), but it's well worth giggling over.

year: 2003
length: 111 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317740/combined

Down With Love

Another film you can't trust critics on! Oh, wait, that's me. I'm going to go against the grain, though, and not review it in terms of its use of film language or inclusion in the film oeuvre. Bleah. You need to recognize the spirit in which it was made: fun! The director had fun, the costume designer had fun, the score composer had fun, the actors definitely had fun. A tale of a woman who writes a how-to book -- how to not fall in love but still have plenty of sex -- and the one man she can't seem to work her theory on. So, your classic man meets woman, woman loses man, man and woman reconcile type script. Except that this one is a re-make of Pillow Talk (Rock Hudson and Doris Day) and includes Ewan McGregor and Renee Zellweger. I have to admit up front that his teeth and her chipmunk cheeks never did much for me, but this is okay for this film. They don't have to be classic model types. The film's too much fun for that. So, put a big smile on your face, slip this into the player and enjoy a well-made fluff movie.

year: 2003
length: 101 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0309530/combined

Cries and Whispers

This is a meditation on dying, mostly symbolic with little exposition, as in many Ingmar Bergman films. Two sisters return home to their manor to take care of a dying sister, along with their long-time maid. I doubt Bergman thought of the film as melodramatic, probably more a thoughtful description of dying, whether corporeally or emotionally, but all the long glances and overwrought expressions can get on your nerves after a while. Besides, these are rich people dying, so already we're not inclined to be sympathetic. (Although it's clear that making it the rich dying serves to enhance the difference between the maid and the sisters.) The repetitious images of how bored and lonely the sister are just doesn't make sense in the time-crunched society I live in. Still, it's affecting in that it's difficult to watch someone die. And it is wondrous in its bleakness. I've only seen a couple other Bergman films, and the last one I enjoyed thoroughly (Wild Strawberries), but I don't remember leaving a film feeling so bereft of hope. The last scene is meant to bolster you, but how can you forget everything you've seen them do and say to each other? It makes you want to give up, and that's not a feeling I like to be left with no matter what form of entertainment I've chosen.

original title: Viskningar och Rop
year: 1972
length: 106 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069467/combined

A Christmas Carol

It's unfair of me to say that this rendition of Charles Dickens' famous story is my favorite, because I've only seen one other, Scrooged, and that was an adaptation (although Bill Murray was pretty darn funny). Among the A Christmas Carol cognoscenti, this one seems to be top-rated and I believe that's in large part due to Alastair Sim in the lead role. I watch the film every holiday season (on VHS, sadly) and every season it's more delightful than the last. This time around, I noticed what a comic genius Sim is. For those of you who have seen it, you may be thinking "well, duh, that's rather obvious" but what I mean is that he's using his comedic sensibilities throughout the film, even when he's a being a grinch. When the ghost of Christmas past asks him to follow him, he grimaces as a child would who doesn't want to do what his parent is asking. It at least brings a smile to your face. Of course, he's also very good at being a stinker, being heartbroken, and being tender, as in the scene with his nephew's wife. He, and the fantastic supporting cast, make this a joy to watch. It does exist on DVD, but beware the colorized version. It also might be difficult to purchase (Amazon doesn't seem to have it in stock), but I'm sure stores will be carrying it for the holidays to rent.

year: 1951
length: 86 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044008/combined

Heaven

Tom Tykwer's films are about supposedly hopeless cases being saved in miraculous circumstances. His previous two, Run Lola Run and The Princess and the Warrior, meld stunning visuals (who can forget that opening scene to the latter film), intense, sometimes unbelievable storylines, and a bit of magic. He's trying to do the same in this film -- a woman convicted of a crime is helped to escape by a policeman who falls in love with her -- but for a reason I can't put my finger on it doesn't work as well. This is his first non-German language film (it's in Italian and English), and also the first time he's directing a script not his own, which could be a large part of it. He seems to be trying too hard here, and our empathy for the main characters isn't strong enough to make us want the ending he gives us. Cate Blanchett, however, is marvelous. Her revelation scene proves what a natural and believable actor she is. Both she and Giovanni Ribisi have no English or American accent (that I could discern) when they speak Italian, without which the film would have been more unbelievable than it already is.

year: 2002
length: 96 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246677/combined

Tuesday, November 25, 2003

Shattered Glass

I'd just like to gloat for a minute. I remember remarking to friends of mine after the disaster that is the new Star Wars trilogy that the only reason to watch them was for Hayden Christensen. They uniformly thought he was as wooden as the rest of the actors, but I saw a hint of life in Christensen which didn't exist in the other actors (especially Natalie Portman...ugh...but I'm getting off topic). I'm happy to report that I was not wrong. Life as a House proved that he's a decent actor; this film proves that he's a stellar actor. This is the pathetic tale of Stephen Glass, a reporter for The New Republic, who fabricated more than half of the articles that he wrote for them. Naturally, the film is about trust, but in this case, it's about how deeply you can trust. Christensen gives us the innards of Glass -- his psychology (the need to please), his charm and entertainment value (which pulled the wool over his co-workers' eyes) and his ultimate unraveling. Which isn't to put down the other actors in the film -- Chloe Sevigny, Steve Zahn (not being funny for a change) and especially Peter Sarsgaard as Glass' editor. My fave movie reviewer, Glenn Kenny, apparently worked with Glass at some point, and has this to say in his review: "I know more about the real-life story of this putz than I really care to, and I was still on the edge of my seat much of the time." It's a film without action, shot almost entirely inside, which can lead to yawning moviegoers, but he's right. The film is entrancing, shocking, and scary. Everyone should see this, if only so they remember not to believe everything they read.

year: 2003
length: 95 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0323944/combined

Love Actually

It's great to have friends with such widely varying opinions of films. One friend of mine told me this film was "excruciating" while another said it was "delightful." You can imagine how interested I was in seeing it. And, oddly enough, it has elements of both, although there aren't actually any excruciating scenes, just ones that ring false. For instance, the supposition that Wisconsin is peopled by gorgeous babes who dig English guys and just want to have sex with them all the time is slightly appalling to this midwesterner. Ditto that a small boy could evade airport security and make his way all the way to the gate without a boarding pass. Come to think of it, that's not just appalling, that's downright scary. But I don't want to give the wrong impression. It's a lovely film about love -- any and all kinds of love (marital, falling-in-, forbidden, sibling, you name it). Each pair has their own story, and yet they interweave throughout the film (albeit a bit complicatedly). My faves were Laura Linney (heartbreaking tale, and who is this incredible Rodrigo Santoro?!), Keira Knightley (and the ever so rightly cast Andrew Lincoln) and Colin Firth (up until the preposterous restaurant proposal and the fact that he's embarrassingly bad at on-screen kissing). And I can't close without mentioning the scene in which Hugh Grant dances his way through 10 Downing Street, well worth the price of admission alone.

year: 2003
length: 135 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314331/combined

24

What torture it must have been to watch this one episode at a time separated by a week or more when it aired! Makes me very glad I don't have cable. Of course, the downside is that I stayed up until 2am until my eyes went out on me, which is pretty sickening when you think about it. The series creators do a fantastic job of reeling you in episode after episode, making it as realistic as possible, and building obstacles that are believable. A federal agent (played oh-so-convincingly by Kiefer Sutherland) has a bad day. He has to save a city, or the president's life, or...well, that's two seasons so far. All the sides to the operation are shown to you -- military, political, social, personal. And the gimmick of having it play out in real time over 24 hours is no gimmick, but a clever ploy. The acting is not uniformly stellar, but very nearly so. Sutherland is perfect for the role (which might be surprising to many). He is also mighty scary, because you're never sure what he's going to do next. Which is one of the fundamentals of the series -- never get too attached to a character. He or she might be dead by the next hour.

years: 2001-?
length: seasons 1-2 on DVD, season 3 in play
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0285331/combined

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle

Jim here, senior citizen guest reviewer on Kat's page. In the first few minutes of my 41st year (that means it was my 40th birthday) I came home from another gin-soaked ultimate frisbee bash to find Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle in the house. The house I live in! Talk about attraction-repulsion. After all, I had a great time watching the first Angels movie at Ann Arbor's Top of the Park Summer Festival with some ultimate frisbee pals a couple of summers ago. Since the point of Top is to hang out with your friends and hundreds of kids and teenagers and families and people who are mostly interested in hanging out with their friends and kids etc. outdoors on a summer night and looking up at the screen when the occasional explosion catches your eye, it was perfect. So here's the sequel, available indoors on a cold and wet November night, and Cameron Diaz is still pretty! Jump cut to the morning (there were a lot of jump cuts in the movie) and a return to my plotless life (there was no plot in the movie) and we talked about it as if it mattered (nothing in the movie mattered) over breakfast and tried to figure out all the ways it was bad. I got impatient with that -- time is precious now that I'm old -- so I said I'd write it out instead. It turns out that now that I've written this much I don't care enough to make a comprehensive list, so I'll sum up: I think we must have hit the wrong button on the remote, because what I saw was a collection of deleted scenes whose total running time was coincidentally about as long as a real movie would be. Maybe there was a script and a story and those are part of what you get from one of the other DVD menu selections, but I'll never know. I would have spent the time more productively drinking cheap liquor alone on a street corner in the rain.

year: 2003
length: 106 min.
rating: 1.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0305357/combined

Better Luck Tomorrow

Actually, I think I like the title of this film more than the film itself. What happens to smart, rich, entitled Asian-American high school kids who start getting mixed up in crime and drugs? Things go more awry (as could probably be expected). The film got made as part of a young-promising-director's prize (which I don't remember the name of and can't find info on), and this is obvious in some of the choices Justin Lin makes for camera placement and movement (the most eye-catching is the camera revolving around three boys huddled together doing...well, I can't tell you). So, it has some interesting elements (other good bits are the dictionary entries and the slow-mo high school scenes). I felt pretty iffy about the ending, though, and since endings are so important, that diminished the quality of the film overall in my eyes. It's entertainment, but I'm not convinced it's saying anything worthwhile. I realize that it caused a great deal of consternation at The Sundance Film Festival because it wasn't "positively portraying Asian Americans," but I think it's more important to find out for yourself whether you enjoy a film all on its lonesome without outside influences. And it is enjoyable, it's just not doing anything earth-shaking.

year: 2002
length: 98 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280477/combined

Thursday, November 13, 2003

Pieces of April

I would have given this film my highest rating but for the digital medium in which it was filmed. You could argue that this type of film is perfect for a hand-held digital camera -- the character's edges are prickly and blurry just as the images are. And for most of the film, you don't notice it all that much. Except for the shots where the camera pans and all the colors bleed out the trailing edge. Or the shots outside which are horribly overexposed (although I'll concede that point if the filmmaker meant it to happen). It's clear it was made on the cheap, but the story itself isn't. An estranged daughter invites her family to NYC for a Thanksgiving dinner she and her boyfriend make. As the film progresses we see her undeniably sad cooking skills juxtaposed with the tensions that build in the family car. It's a sweet and tender film with some fantastic character actors, in particular Patricia Clarkson (from Far From Heaven fame) and Derek Luke (new it-boy from Antwone Fisher) and the ever-fresh Katie Holmes (from, believe it or not, Dawson's Creek). You can expect a true-meaning-of-Thanksgiving ending, with an extra added fillip to bring the story full circle.

year: 2003
length: 81 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0311648/combined

Paper Moon

You all know I think the world of Peter Bogdanovich, so I was thrilled when this finally came out on DVD, plus that it had three documentary shorts included. Before he started directing, he was an actor, and it shows in how good an interviewee he is for these documentaries. (His description of Orson Welles telling him what to do about the title of the film is a hoot.) It's not a hugely deep film or anything -- an orphaned girl travels with a friend of her mother's to Missouri and teaches him a thing or two about how to perfect his cons. Besides being sparklingly filmed in black and white, and using lots of lengthy shots and unique stunt scenes, it's a joy to watch the two O'Neal's acting together. Tatum got the Oscar because she's the perfect grouchy smart-as-a-whip tomboy who under that tough exterior is yearning to be loved. The ending should leave you smiling for a few hours.

year: 1973
length: 102 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070510/combined

Nowhere in Africa

I can see why this film won the Oscar last year for Best Foreign Film. (I just go ahead and put all those that were nominated on my list, hoping that they'll be released at some point in the States.) Actually, I'm going to quote the reason for it winning an award at the Karlovy Vary International Film Festival (no, I've never heard of it either): "For its unusual narrative and historical perspectives on the international reverberations of World War II." That, on top of the heart-wrenching, but not over-played, emotions of the main players. A Jewish couple and their child emigrate from Germany to Kenya shortly before Kristallnacht and stay there throughout the war. It is a long film, but never plodding or dull. I couldn't help but think how it would feel to be forced to leave your homeland, live in another country so very different and hard to understand, and then have to decide whether to return to the country that ousted you, never knowing if you could trust it again. How much lonelier can you feel? It's clearly easier for the child, who grows up a daughter of both cultures, and all the wiser for it, but it's vastly more difficult for the parents. You cannot help but smile through your tears during the last scene and realize what an unbelievable distance these characters have traveled, in kilometers and in their hearts, since they first came to Kenya.

original title: Nirgendwo in Afrika
year: 2001
length: 141 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0161860/combined

The Matrix Revolutions

Really, I don't see what the big hoo-hah is over this film. Yes, it's not that good, but it's also not that bad. I had an enjoyable time. Perhaps a bit more enjoyable than when I watched The Matrix Reloaded because there is (obviously) a resolution of the storyline. In addition, we see fewer instances of irritating Matrix-like tics than in the previous two films (that "come hither" flap of the hand -- man, was I tired of that!). Instead there's a well-crafted long battle sequence in the huge Port-of- Zion dome as the machines come through the roof. I couldn't at first figure out why I liked this so much. After mulling it over, I think it was because it was real "hand-to-hand" fighting and showcased human desperation, pride and perseverance. I guess I was ready for a real fight scene instead of the super-high-gloss mumbo-jumbo of bullet time fighting. The film wraps everything up with a nice neat bow but not without nods to spirituality, the human condition and faith, hearkening back to the first film. I was surprised at the decent acting, in particular Jada Pinkett Smith and the super-talented Hugo Weaving, who gets to deliver the best line of the film towards the end. It's a truism that if you have extremely low expectations of a film and it delivers more bang for your buck, you have a tendency to rate it higher. That might be what happened when I watched this film, and if so, you'll just have to prove me wrong.

year: 2003
length: 129 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0242653/combined

Monday, November 03, 2003

Life as a House

Best thing about this film? It has no prolonged, excruciating death scene. Which is very welcome, but in this case faint praise. Kevin Kline plays a man who learns he will be dying from cancer shortly, and decides to build the house he's always dreamed of building. He enlists his drug-addled son to help, and others become part of the project as it progresses, namely his ex-wife, her two sons from another marriage, a cop he went to school with, the girl next door and her mother whom he dated briefly after he divorced his ex-wife...and the list goes on and on. There are way too many characters! In particular, I don't get any of the characterizations of the females in this film. Jena Malone is playing a teenage tramp who actually isn't. Mary Steenburgen is a frustrated housewife which we're unaware of until she's in bed with her daughter's boyfriend. And I have no idea if Kristin Scott Thomas is even thinking about her role or just spacing out. The only reason to see the film is Hayden Christensen, who as one other amateur reviewer put it proves that "Star Wars was not his fault." The rest of the film is empty calories -- watch the dying guy destroy his life's work (gee, could you see that coming?), watch the ex-wife fall in love with her ex-husband again, watch the drug-addled son shower with the girl next door because she needs to wash her hair! At least the house is nice.

year: 2001
length: 125 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0264796/combined

The Quiet American

Here's a problem with writing a review of a film many days after you've watched it. I get all muddled about the details. It may be, though, that it's just this particular film's winning combination of sparsity and complexity that are to blame. It's based on a Graham Greene novel, and few films do such a good job of showcasing literary quality. Even the voiceovers have literary merit. At first, I thought the story was like so many other stories -- two men fighting over a girl, with the added exotica of it being set in Vietnam as the French are battling the communists for control of the country. But it's filmed with the slow, stately pacing of a play, albeit one a lot less theatrical and melodramatic. Michael Caine and Brendan Fraser play the men in love with a Vietnamese woman (who is very beautiful, but has little else to do, sadly). Caine is a British reporter who needs a story in order to stay in Vietnam, and Fraser is an apparently dorky, yet kind, American who steals away the woman. The chilling denouement towards the end reveals who Fraser really is, and why he's in the country. I don't know whether I'm supposed to believe it, but even if it is untrue, it most certainly was prophetic.

year: 2002
length: 101 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258068/combined

Only Angels Have Wings

This is one of those sweet older films that has some fantastic lines, but then also has dreadful lines that make you crinkle your nose at the screen. The scenes between Jean Arthur and Cary Grant sparkle, for the most part, because of the understated sexual innuendo that you don't hear in films nowadays (i.e., flirting the clever way). But then there are breast-heaving scenes between Rita Hayworth and anyone within spitting distance, and that's simply embarrassing. The film is set in some fantastical South American country with dripping palm fronds and ice-covered mountains. And tiny planes (hence the wings in the title) to carry the mail to and from the palm fronds through narrow fissures in the ice-covered mountains. There is a piece in the middle where things get wonderfully complex and you feel the film might completely redeem itself, but then you are subjected to an ending that shows what the Hollywood powers-that-be assumed was how a man should react to a woman asking him whether he loves her. Sigh. The film's worth it to watch Jean Arthur's glorious performance (and Cary Grant's to a lesser degree) and to think, albeit very briefly, on the strange mix of morality depicted by everyone involved.

year: 1939
length: 121 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031762/combined

Red Dragon

My goodness, Brett Ratner is a little bundle of energy. If you don't think that from watching the film, you will from watching even a small part of the documentary. I knew he was a DVD freak (his collection is renowned), but I didn't know he was Quentin Tarantino-ish. It shows in this film -- you can just see him jumping up and down gleefully when he shoots Ed Norton from below as he's explaining why the eponymous serial killer will never stop. The "from below" shot is traditionally used for suspense, and is used by current film directors for any scene that should give the audience a shock. So, Ratner is at least following in the footsteps of greats. He's also smart enough to use a good screenwriter, who regrettably can't quite shake his original assignment, The Silence of the Lambs, so several ideas and scenes are re-hashed. Still, I think those who weren't fond of The Silence of the Lambs should forego this one. It's just as scary (although not as lyrical). Without the stellar cast, I'm not sure I would have chosen it to watch. Ed Norton (who is a bit flat, to be honest), Harvey Keitel, Mary-Louise Parker, Ph ilip Seymour Hoffman, and best of all Ralph Fiennes and Emily Watson, as the killer and the victim. They seem out of place in a film like this, and they are, but they add those little touches of brilliance that make it worth watching.

year: 2002
length: 124 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289765/combined

Groundhog Day

I'm convinced that this film is based on a short story that I read in high school. (I don't know the name of it, and if this rings a bell, let me know as it has both me and the entire reference staff stumped.) In the story, a man is promised a whole lotta money to be locked up in a house for 5 years. He accepts and you see him go through certain stages -- the enjoy-life-to-the-fullest stage (going on benders, eating tons of food, etc.), depression (having become fed up with his situation), weary acceptance, and ultimately the realization that he has a chance to become a better person. He reads books he's never read before, and learns to play music and compose his own music. When the five years are up, his phone rings and he's shocked. He'd forgotten that he was a prisoner. Bill Murray goes through very similar, albeit much more funny, circumstances trying to get past February 2nd in Punxatawny, Pennsylvania. In the process he becomes a well-rounded, un-selfish, nice guy instead of the boor he was. And then the girl falls for him. This is one of my fave Murray portrayals (Ghostbusters and Lost in Translation are also at the top of the list, with The Royal Tenenbaums ever so close behind). He gets it all right -- the humor and the pathos. On top of it all, we also get some insight into what it must be like to do take after take after take...

year: 1993
length: 101 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107048/combined

Sunday, October 19, 2003

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert

The best thing about this flick is that it takes itself seriously. It's a comedy, but it doesn't make fun of its subject. Three gay men (well, one transsexual, one gay and one who-knows- what) travel from Sydney to the middle of Australia to perform a drag queen concert. All the usual stereotypes apply, but it's a film with a plot and a message. That is, it has a message if you consider that the main impact of the film is to make this potentially alternative lifestyle so palatable that you want to try it yourself. It has two of the best lines in movies. One is "nice night for it" and the other I'll let you spot (and that's a hint). You'll never believe Terence Stamp (The Limey), Guy Pearce (Memento) and Hugo Weaving (The Matrix) were in this film. Especially Stamp, who has a history of playing violent characters. He so transforms himself that by the end we've forgotten every one of his previous roles.

year: 1994
length: 104 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109045/combined

Kill Bill: Volume 1

Quentin Tarantino is not for everyone. He does stuff with spouting blood that can be...umm...slightly disturbing. For instance, in this film you see torrents coming from people's bowels (I sure hope that's implausible) and severed heads. The way to handle that is to understand that to Tarantino this is all about style and homage, and little to do with anything else. Several times during the film you sit back and realize that you're watching the creation of a geeky former video-store clerk who rivals Peter Bogdanovich and Glenn Kenny in terms of film knowledge. There is an awful lot of "look what I just did!" Fortunately, that isn't all there is. Tarantino has crafted a film that bends gender, slips into parody (but not quite) of Japanese film, and reveals fresh ways of looking at film language. One of the final fight scenes in a snowy garden is nigh on perfect and captures every Samurai and western film every made. But with girls, not boys. Since this is only the first part of the film, I hesitate to judge its plot. The film is split into episodes that are not watched linearly, so the gaps won't be filled in until Volume 2. We get the gist, however -- a pregnant woman assassin gunned down at her wedding, out to get revenge on those who perpetrated the massacre. I admit I'm looking forward to the final installment next year, if only to see more bravura filmmaking.

year: 2003
length: 111 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266697/combined

School of Rock

Lots of people like Jack Black. His turn as a record store clerk in High Fidelity stole the show and launched him into stardom. I don't know anything about his music, and I haven't seen his interim films, but I'd heard so much about this flick that I had to see it for myself. Black plays someone desperate to earn money so he becomes a substitute teacher at an elementary prep school...without credentials. He hasn't the faintest clue what to do with his students until he hits upon the idea of forming a rock band (because he's a rock musician) and teaching them the history of rock. It's a sweet film with some messages (do what you love to do, don't worry about being fat, etc.), and it feels like it's the story of the life of Black himself. Which makes it seem more real and down-to-earth than you might expect. For Black fans, you're going to love this, because his antics are front and center. For those of us who get slightly embarrassed watching him, like we do when Jim Carrey goes round the bend, I think you'll still enjoy the film for its tone. I would consider it a great film to take your kids to see. And for me, I really wanted to see Joan Cusack belt out Stevie Nicks while slightly toasted. They hint at it but never give it to us. What did they think, that she'd upstage Black?

year: 2003
length: 108 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0332379/combined

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Maybe this should be classified as a horror film. Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor play a university professor and his wife who are constantly at each other's throats. They invite two others home from a faculty party at 2am, they all get drunk, and the truth starts to come out. Except that you can't tell what's truth and what's just a game. Up until the end and possibly after it's over. Definitely don't watch this film if you're depressed about your marriage or your partnership. You might end up seeing elements of your interaction in the performances. Although I doubt many wives are as braying as Taylor makes hers. She won an Oscar for her performance, and it's deserved, but I think Burton should have won a parallel Oscar as well. Where would one be without the other?

year: 1966
length: 134 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061184/combined

The Man Who Would Be King

You realize this film is comedic about 15 minutes in. Michael Caine and Sean Connery are blackmailing a military official but so obtusely that it takes a moment to realize that you're being kidded with. And yet it's more than a comedy. It's also a serious story about a very close friendship between two British soldiers, bored with their life, who decide to take off to a remote Asian (Middle Eastern? Soviet?) country to try their hand at becoming kings. Perhaps a better description of the film is that it is full of humor, while at the same time delving into the nature of greed, power and fortune. John Huston in all his glory. The DVD has a short documentary released at the time the film came out, and shows the horrifying stunt that Connery had to perform while on a rope ladder across a chasm. He's singing at the time, and if his voice isn't shaking, it should be. Didn't they have stuntmen back then?!

year: 1975
length: 129 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073341/combined

The Civil War

There's one point in this documentary series, I believe at the end of the first episode, in which a letter is read from a soldier (it makes no difference what side he's on) to his wife a few days before his death in battle. It's read against a beautiful Southern landscape and it'll bring you to tears. It says everything about The Civil War that you'll need to know. But stick around to watch the other 8 episodes because Ken Burns knows how to give you a story and a history lesson and entertain you all at once. He shows you the good, the bad, and the worst. The most odious character in the whole war was General George McClellan, as he tells it, who sat on his rear end for so much of his tenure that he was personally responsible for the deaths of thousands of men. He, believe it or not, went on to become the governor of New Jersey, and even made a try to oust the presidency away from Lincoln before that. The man we should all revere is General Robert E. Lee. I knew next to nothing about him before the documentary, but came away believing he was a great and honorable man, beloved by even his enemies. In his dying hours, he went back to the battlefield, and his last words were "strike the tent," which are probably the most perfect last words spoken. The interviews are stellar, and without the different voice talents, it wouldn't be nearly as powerful a series. Particularly Morgan Freeman speaking the lines of civil rights activist Frederick Douglass. One great orator speaking another great orator's lines. It's enough to give you shivers.

year: 1990
length: 680 min. (9 episodes)
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098769/combined

Thursday, October 09, 2003

Lost in Translation

Papa Coppola must be very proud. His daughter is all grown up and making movies that are as superb as his, albeit in a very different genre. Plot first: Bill Murray stars as a star in Tokyo doing a liquor commercial who meets a young, bored woman whose husband is there on business, played by Scarlett Johansson. It's definitely a vehicle for Murray, who does his comic schtick throughout the film, but it's much more than that. Every frame of the movie is about the title. Americans stranded in Tokyo, not understanding the language. A man mis-communicating with his wife. A woman mis-communicating with her husband. Jet lag. Pachinko parlors. Steroid-enhanced TV shows. And, ultimately, what the two characters feel for each other but don't know how to express. And yet layered on top of that is the sense of connection we get when we meet a kindred spirit. And how incredibly beautiful Tokyo is while still being completely alien. And the joie de vivre evident at a loud party, whether it's in Japan, America or the West Indies. I don't know if I got the full effect of the film, because at least in the beginning I was laughing so hard that I probably missed a lot of Coppola's subtlety. This one is definitely a keeper, one that needs to be watched again.

year: 2003
length: 105 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335266/combined

Hard Eight

This isn't Paul Thomas Anderson's first film, but you may think it is because it's so spare. I gather that this was a Sundance Institute film, developed at the Lab and endorsed by the Institute (where filmmakers learn tricks of the trade and make necessary contacts). And while there's no glitz or glamour to the film, it's not needed. Anderson consistently tells us stories about down-on-their-luck characters who make wrong moves, but he loads his films with hope and honesty and enlightenment. This one tells the tale of a man who's lost all his money and is taken in by a kind-hearted professional gambler. There's a love story and a twist, and all the actors are faboo. Probably the best role each of them has had, except maybe Gywneth Paltrow, whose best role to date was in Flesh and Bone. If you haven't seen an Anderson film, I would start here and move chronologically through Boogie Nights, Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love. The last one might be too overly weird for you, and I still vacillate between loving it and hating it, even though it's been a year since I saw it.

year: 1996
length: 102 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119256/combined

Matchstick Men

I've gotta wonder sometimes why so many modern films are about the characters, and not about the story. I know, it's the common gripe about how story doesn't seem to matter to Hollywood anymore, but hey, they're doing the same thing in Britain and India, too. I'm beginning to think it's universal. Not that this film doesn't have a fun storyline, because it does -- a fun, funny grifter flick that's not ultra-snide or ultra-deep -- it's just that you're meant to focus on the stars. Nicolas Cage, Alison Lohman, the incomparable, but sadly one-note Sam Rockwell (where are roles for him like in Lawn Dogs or Confessions of a Dangerous Mind?). What could be better!? I guess that's what the public wants now, a little bit more royalty to ooh and aah over, but we're giving up substance for flash. The characterizations are great (Lohman, who is 24, plays a 14-year-old with conviction with a capital C), but that ends up being what the film is based on. Pity.

year: 2003
length: 116 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0325805/combined

Falling Down

Having seen Phone Booth and having liked it very much, I wanted to check out this earlier film of Joel Schumacher's, which I gathered had a similar theme. And it does -- a mis-understood man with a secret, in this case pissed off at the world -- but I found it lacking quite a bit of what I liked in Phone Booth. It could be that I like Colin Farrell over Michael Douglas (although he does a nice enough job). It could be that I preferred a film set in New York instead of L.A. (which is just too rambling to connect with). But, I think the crux of it is that I simply empathized with Farrell's character while I didn't at all empathize with Douglas'. Granted, Douglas has to play a character whom we're supposed to see pieces of ourselves in (just as Farrell's character) while at the same time gradually making it clear that he's gone round the bend. That's a lot for one character to handle. And yet, while I recognized the feelings Douglas' character had, I never felt that I would ever act on them as he did. Smashing up a grocery store just because you're peeved at the prices? Threatening a fast food clerk because they won't serve you breakfast 2 minutes after 11:30? Just plain hitting someone because you're mad at them? That's why he's insane and we're not.

year: 1993
length: 113 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106856/combined

Thursday, September 25, 2003

I Love You to Death

The only way to watch this film is by setting aside any notion that it's going to be enlightening or deep or purposeful. This is broad humor at its best. Because it's based on a true story, that makes it all the more entertaining. A philandering husband is caught by his wife, so she, her mother and some friends decide to shoot him with his own teeny .22 caliber gun. It's just like watching a Weekly World News article in action. Kevin Kline plays the husband -- a loud, hard-working, Italian pizza store owner. Tracey Ullman is his wife, and to round out the cast of characters you have River Phoenix, William Hurt, Keanu Reeves (he's excellent, no, really!) and Joan Plowright as the mother. I own this and always giggle madly through the entire film. I'm sure others think it isn't worth their time, but again, you just need to have the correct frame of reference to watch it. Otherwise, you're missing out.

year: 1990
length: 96 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099819/combined

Rabbit-Proof Fence

I haven't seen many of Phillip Noyce's films. Only Dead Calm, which I loved, although The Quiet American is on my list of "to see" films. So, I don't have much to compare this film to within his oeuvre. My first thought was that it was going to be a heavy-duty weeper, since he'd chosen a subject that few in this day and age would not find abhorrent. In the 1930s (actually, from the 1910s through the 1970s), Australian officials were legally allowed to remove half-caste (white and aboriginal mix) children from their families and put them in camps to teach them the "ways of the white men." Three girls escape and walk back home -- over 1500 miles -- along Australia's rabbit-proof fence. There are places in the film where you feel like weeping, that's true, but the arc of the story gives you many more opportunities to cheer and smile than to weep. The child actors are phenomenal. They'd never acted before, but the lead is entrancing. And, I wonder whether Noyce was channelling Peter Weir in some of his sequences. The music is based on Australian aboriginal instruments and in many instances it's as haunting as that never-will-forget throbbing from Picnic at Hanging Rock.

year: 2002
length: 94 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0252444/combined

Bullitt

Stylish. That's this film in a word. I believe the 60s and 70s were a time of experimentation for many filmmakers and it shows in this film, both to its credit and as its downfall. The negative first: there are many, many shots that are extraneous. Often the camera shows us minutes of the story that would have been better excised (why watch the corpse be transferred to an ambulance when we already know it will happen by what came before?). On the other hand, we have fantastic camera angles and movements that come as a result of these extraneous shots (panning onto the face of the policeman's wife sitting vigil in the hospital is nothing less than beautiful). There is also an effort to be as realistic as possible. Instead of filming surgery with actors playing the part of the doctors and nurses, real doctors and nurses perform a mock surgery. You wouldn't believe the volume of arguments among realists and those that believe you never are able to show reality (because you're always watching a film, to boil the argument down). Of course, most folks watch this film for Steve McQueen (who only played a cop once, and an honest one to boot) and the car chase in which he plays his own stunt guy, without resorting to special effects. For that alone, the film is worth seeing. You think we've perfected the car chase onscreen? Think again.

year: 1968
length: 113 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062765/combined

Dirty Harry

I've never much liked Clint Eastwood in his ride-'em-cowboy mode, and never understood why women swooned over him in his tough-guy roles, but the original Dirty Harry stands on its own (as yet another honest cop film, just with a very different style from Bullitt). And, I'm convinced it's not all due to him. Yup, he sure does squint good and can give the evil eye like few others on film, yet without a decent story (very much a product of the times) and a superbly acted nutso villian, I don't think it would have become such a classic. The actor who played the villain has had that famous line delivered to him thousands of times (the one with "do you feel lucky, punk?") and I do feel sorry for him. I doubt the film makers or actors knew what a cult film it would become. I almost gave it my highest mark, but refrained because of the final show-down scene. How in the world does he know where to find that bus? The bus driver is most certainly off her route by that time. Plot holes like that just get my dander up.

year: 1971
length: 102 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066999/combined

American Splendor

I have a confession to make: I don't much like Harvey Pekar. OK, a double confession: I haven't actually read more than two pages of his comics. And that must have happened when I wasn't at all in the mood for something depressing. He's a depressing (not depressive, big difference) personality. Sees everything in negative terms, but his way of dealing with that is to write amusing comics about his point of view. Very freeing for him, and many think they're a breath of fresh air, but I've never found them appealing. (Maybe because Robert Crumb was the first to draw his comics and I despise Crumb...which I guess is another story.) On the other hand, the film of his life and his comics is well worth watching. Mostly because of its uniqueness -- the real Pekar is in the film alongside Paul Giamatti's spot-on imitation of him, the comics are integrated throughout, and the style of the film never seems out of context with the subject matter. But also because of its humor. Even though its on the whole quite depressing, you have to laugh at his behaviors. My fave was his overt irritation while waiting behind an old lady in a checkout lane. I was nervous about how Pekar's wife, Joyce Brabner, would be portrayed. Hope Davis pulls off her usual miracle here and what you see really is what I've heard about Brabner. Warts and all.

year: 2003
length: 101 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0305206/combined

Wednesday, September 17, 2003

25th Hour

I think it's fair to say that Spike Lee is one of our most honest film directors. He doesn't shirk from showing us harsh reality -- Do the Right Thing, Jungle Fever, Malcolm X -- and he makes all this palatable, uncomfortable and oh-so-righteous at the same time. Which is saying a lot. But, one thing that he seems to lack is the ability to film a comprehensive story. By comprehensive I mean "I have all the elements I need to understand the main theme." This film delivers a look into the last day of a convicted felon before he goes to prison. It is filled with incredible performances. Usually, I can choose my fave performance, but in this case Edward Norton, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Rosario Dawson and Barry Pepper are all superb. Each performance is worth every dime you spent, yet all together it lacks focus. I wondered exactly what Lee was trying to convey. I had no trouble recognizing his view on the moral differences among people which can be hidden beneath the surface, the rage we all carry because we're so individually helpless, and the 9/11 carnage (which figures prominently in the film). But what is he really trying to say about felonies, those who commit them, and the justice that gets meted out. It could very possibly be that he's trying to give us all points of view so we can make up our own minds. And, in that case, while that's instructive, it unfortunately muddies up the film.

year: 2002
length: 135 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307901/combined

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Yay, the DVD arrived! What do you think the first thing I did was? Right, I looked at that amazing stunt I was talking about earlier. (The one in which Legolas leaps from the ground to the back of a galloping horse, starting from directly in front of the horse.) And I still can't tell what they did! If you slow it down it looks disturbingly real, but if you keep it at normal speed it looks like there's CGI involved. I can't imagine CGI is not involved there, but it seems that I'll have to wait for the extended DVD release to find out. On second viewing, this film is decidely better than on first viewing. A lot of folks thought it was quite slow and boring, and it is slower paced than the first one. That's because Tolkein/Jackson has to detail several different story lines. They seem meandering and without much point, but each one comes to a real end before this film finishes. They're giving very little away in the previews for Return of the King, which I think is in their best interest. With such a hotly anticipated film, it's better to provide as little detail as possible so that the audience can be surprised by what it sees. Which is what the Wachowski brothers should have done for The Matrix Reloaded. Too much knowledge about techniques or story ruins the viewing experience.

year: 2002
length: 179 min. theatrical release / 222 min. extended release
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/combine

Back to the Future

You really don't want to know the hullaballoo (can I just spell that any way I want?) that was my purchasing process for this film. Ugh. Let's just say that I have it now (part one of the trilogy, and the only one that counts) and have been watching it in bits and pieces over the past couple weeks. It's a definite that without Michael J. Fox in the lead role it would have sunk faster than a lead brick. Believe it or not, Eric Stoltz was originally cast in his role, and they had to fire him and beg for Fox to take the part. He was doing Family Ties at the same time, and says he was so stressed from running from TV stage to film location and back that he wasn't sleeping more than a couple hours a night and forgetting at times which set he was on. All beside the point. Time travel (or at least films that use time as a major element) have become increasingly popular lately, but this is the first one that I remember. And it's so much darn fun to watch! You have Fox's charisma, the 50s clothes and music, the deft aging and young-ing of the main characters, and a story to beat all. I love how it holds together all the way through (which is another reason not to watch parts two and three, they'll just confuse you). As a kid, this was one of my favorites (that last scene had me biting my nails), and as an adult it's one my favorite classic comedies.

year: 1985
length: 111 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/combined

The Animatrix

These are a number of animated skits based on The Matrix. Each segment explains some part of the Matrix mythology that has only been implied, or details the story of someone who broke free. Nothing is given away about the ending of the trilogy, so don't worry about that. The animation is fantastic -- each episode uses a different style, so it's just as much fun to appreciate the differences in animation art as it is to get more involved in the Matrix backstory. Part of me thinks this is how The Matrix should have been done. What with all the special effects used, why not just animate and as a result get to do more with this neat-o futuristic vision? One of the episodes I consider dangerous, in that every depressed or disillusioned kid is going to think suicide will take him out of The Matrix (read: the world we live in) and into the "real" world. I suspect that's why Warner Bros. made them put a warning label on the DVD. Just in case.

year: 2003
length: 102 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0328832/combined

Monday, September 08, 2003

8 Women

I am certain this film is meant to be slightly ridiculous. What I wonder is whether it's meant to celebrate women or slander women. Perhaps a bit of both? François Ozon pulled many famous French actresses together for this film, most notably Isabelle Huppert, Emmanuelle Béart and Catherine Deneuve. It's a grand catfight. Eight women from all walks of life who love one man (not just romantically) but not each other. And to top it all off, it's a musical! Each woman has a chance at the spotlight, but only two of the songs are really any good. Doesn't matter -- the film was clearly made for the fun of it, a chance to showcase some incredible actresses and some incredible (tight) costumes. It does make me wonder about the actresses who didn't take part. Does this mean Jeanne Moreau, Audrey Tatou and Anne Parillaud can't sing?

original title: 8 Femmes
year: 2002
length: 103 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0283832/combined

Trouble in Paradise

Gosh, this is a great film! Everyone should see it. Review over. Okay, okay, I'll be a bit more explicit. I think I've whined about how screwball comedies don't always work for me. Too boisterous and silly (although Arsenic and Old Lace is an exception to this rule). Trouble in Paradise might be billed as one of those comedies, but there's something about it that makes it much more enjoyable. I won't try and fully characterize it since it seems no one else in Hollywood was able to define "The Lubitsch Touch." If I had to guess, it would boil down to one word: sophistication. His movies, while extremely funny, never cause the actors to make fools of themselves. Case in point, two high-class jewel thieves set out to rob a rich widow, but their plans go astray when one falls in love with the widow. When you rent the DVD, watch the Peter Bogdanovich introduction, particularly for his laugh-out-loud description of Ernst Lubitsch acting out his own scenes. Oh, and the film is pre-code, so enjoy all the double entendres you never saw after 1934.

year: 1932
length: 83 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023622/combined

The Emperor's Club

How often do you enjoy watching a film that has an ambiguous ending? I think the majority of the American viewing public doesn't, but many people I know like it because they can leave the theater still thinking about the film. So, how often do you enjoy watching a film that contains an ambiguous message? I'd bet that most people would find that irritating. This film tries to highlight the difference between moral and immoral people, and the chances in life they have, and others who care for them have, to change. I think that's a great premise, and I really wish the filmmakers had taken more care with the subject matter. It's a complex subject to film -- it's easy for viewers to get lost in what's "right" and "wrong." By trying to show us how multi-faceted the issue is, they muddled it enough that I left with a shrug and a "so what?" on my lips. There's nothing wrong with Kevin Kline's acting, and I can see why he expected great things from the film. It just, unfortunately, lost its way.

year: 2002
length: 109 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0283530/combined

Sunday, August 24, 2003

Moulin Rouge!

I saw this for the first time on the big screen in Rome after having been told by a film friend to make sure my eyes were wide open to drink in all that craziness Baz Luhrmann had created. It is a crazy film, with its multiplicity of colors, characters and music, but it really does work. Luhrmann states that this is the last of his Red Curtain Trilogy films, each one of which focuses on problems surrounding falling in love. I admit that this is not my favorite of the three (Strictly Ballroom has a tighter story and has all that great ballroom dancing in it) but that's not saying much because I loved this film as a rental as much as I did in the theater. For most filmgoers, the big surprise was Ewan McGregor's incredible tenor voice. He downplays this in the making-of documentary on the DVD, insisting that he'd never done it before, but I find that quite hard to believe. He knows when to sing soft and when to sing loud and he simply steals the show. To be fair, Nicole Kidman's voice is a beautiful alto, she's just upstaged. There are numerous weirdly done homages, such as the dance in the elephant turning into every film Gene Kelly made and "Like a Virgin" morphing into a vampire film. Luhrmann requires audience participation in his films, and perhaps that's why there is so much cutting and such an over-the-top style. We remain in our reality and enjoy the film as the spectacular spectacle that it is.

year: 2001
length: 127 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0203009/combined

Samurai III: Duel on Ganryu Island

The end of the trilogy! No, not The Lord of the Rings, although I'm anxiously awaiting this December, you bet. This is the final film in Hiroshi Inagaki's trilogy about a samurai learning to become one. Unfortunately, I liked the second film in the trilogy better than the third, which is odd because second films can be more boring. You've been introduced to the world in the first film and now just want to get to the conclusion. The second film was hopping, and in this film the pace slows down. Which parallels Miyamoto Musashi's development as a samurai, but revealed more of the inconsistencies of the film to me. I particularly liked night battles suddenly changing into daytime battles. I don't think that was meant to be stylistic. And the melodrama is overly thick at times as the two women who love the samurai vie for him in different ways. It's also much easier in this film to come to the conclusion that these two women are off their rockers. One is simply a girl gone bad who can't get Musashi out of her head. The other is a good girl, but gives Musashi conflicting ideas of how she feels. The alarm bells should be going off in his head! I realize this film is from a different time and a different culture. That doesn't make it less irritating, though. All in all, it's a decent trilogy, for the cinematography, for the change from black-and-white to crystal clear color, and last but not least for watching Toshirô Mifune enact the transformation of Miyamoto Musashi from idiot boy to controlled, skillful samurai.

original title: Miyamoto Musashi Kanketsuhen: Kettô Ganryûjima
year: 1956
length: 115 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049710/combined

Happiness

If you can get past the first 15 minutes, I think you might enjoy this film. Let's put that a different way. You might appreciate this film. It is absolutely not for the squeamish, dealing as it does with pedophilia, obscene prank phone calls, and social ineptitude of every size and shape. It is so immensely sad that any opportunity that Todd Solondz gives you to feel hope for his characters swells out of all proportion to what is actually happening on screen. In the case of one character, when something nice happens to her, the next moment she pays for it, and she's the meekest, kindest, sweetest character of them all. The one who shouldn't be paying for her "sins." The music is upbeat and happy at all times, and it doesn't take long before you learn not to trust the music whatsoever. You also learn not to trust what the characters will say one minute to the next. But you still end up empathizing with them. The most creepy instance of this is during a scene in which the pedophile is luring his prey with drugged food. The poor kid politely declines all the food. And towards the end of the scene you feel yourself rooting for the pedophile, because of the way the scene is constructed. After which you want to shake yourself like a dog and wonder if you're human. Solondz is clearly a major talent if he can create this world for us. I give him high marks, but I'm not sure if I'll venture to watch one of his films anytime soon.

year: 1998
length: 134 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0147612/combined

Go West / The Scarecrow / The Paleface

A lot of the classic silents are now being released by Kino Video on DVD in a nice format: one feature film and two shorts. I watched this one, since I had heard that Go West was one of Buster Keaton's best feature films. It's the story of a down-and- out man who stumbles into work as a cowboy. As you can imagine, there is much fumbling and many prat-falls and even better, in this film one of the stars is a cow. Yup, and she's good, too. However, to be honest, I admit that I preferred the shorts, especially The Scarecrow. The genius of Keaton, besides his comedic physical prowess, was the ingenious contraptions he designed. A Victrola that turns into a stove? Salt and pepper shakers that fly across the room on strings as the diners require them? A bed that turns into a piano? I have a feeling that with his feature film, it's as if he had too much time to perform his magic, and so it ended up diluted for the audience.

years: 1925 / 1920 / 1922
length: 69 min. / 17 min. / 33 min.
rating for all: 3.0
IMDB links:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0015863/combined
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0011656/combined
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0012543/combined

Monday, August 11, 2003

Casino

I have no trouble recognizing the genius of Martin Scorsese. He is one of the few auteurs with a style that I can immediately sense. I'm unsure whether it's the same style I'm sensing in each film, but each time I view one of his films I see something that makes me go "oh!". For instance, in this film, instead of cutting out scenes that viewers can infer happened, which is a tried and true method for most filmmakers, he fades some of the infer-able scenes into each other, giving the illusion of movement. An example: a couple of guys are driving somewhere. We see them get in the car, which then fades into the car moving down the road, which ultimately fades into them getting out of the car at their destination. It's quite noticeable, and it always makes me grin because it shows he never stops thinking about how his technique intertwines with the story he's creating and the effect that will have on the viewer. He also does this with music. You'll notice yourself noticing the "background" music in this film (in quotes because it's a character in its own right). Why he's not widely recognized for his genius is a great question, but it may be a combination of the type of story he likes to tell and that he never shoots what are considered mainstream films (Gangs of New York may have been the closest he will ever get). Now, I really liked Goodfellas and Taxi Driver and Gangs of New York as well as this film because he knows how to bring complex characters and moral issues to life, but his films can often be hard to watch. The themes are highly disturbing, focused as they are on violence, mobs or deranged characters. In Casino (your basic Las Vegas mob film), I found myself looking away from the screen at times, which I almost never do. I mean, how does Thelma Schoonmaker edit some of these scenes without wanting to throw up? I was more disturbed by the violence in Casino than in Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction, which is saying a lot. I suppose being disturbed isn't necessarily a bad thing, because it makes the film stick with you, but I have to wonder at his obsession with these themes.

year: 1995
length: 178 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112641/combined

Akele Hum Akele Tum

You have to give this film a bit of time. It's as dopey as any regular Bollywood film in the beginning. A scene early on has the lead actor (Aamir Khan once again; heck, he's the best in Bollywood, why watch any other?) jumping around onstage singing and playing guitar...and it's very obviously not plugged in but is supposed to be. Everybody's wearing dorky 80s clothes, and you think the film is going to be as silly as the rest of them. It's not. It's a re-make of Kramer vs. Kramer (believe it or not), and actually gets better as the film progresses. In fact, I thought the courtroom scene was better in this film than in the original, although it has been a long time since I've seen the original. They picked the cutest, sweetest little kid to play the son. Not at all cloying, but very natural, my favorite kind of child actor. Khan does his usual magic as the father who learns how special his relationship to his son is, and Manisha Koirala surprised me with her range as the mother. The only thing I ended up not liking about the film was its insistence on having one of the leads become a big Bollywood star. This is the third Bollywood film in a row that makes this a major theme. It seems they're having a bit of trouble thinking outside the box.

year: 1995
length: 160 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112313/combined

Kiss of the Dragon

Sometimes it's a relief to watch a bad film and review it, because bad films are fun to skewer in print (for a near-perfect example of this read Stephen Hunter's review of Speed 2). Nearly everything about this film is laughable, and I well recognize that action films can in general be snickered at because they don't focus on story or characters or have thought-provoking themes. However, in this case, the filmmakers profess an understanding of the importance of those elements, which makes the film rather sad instead of laughable. OK, so, good Chinese cop (Jet Li) goes to France to assist in a police investigation helmed by a corrupt French cop (Tchéky Karyo) and gets involved with an American hooker (Bridget Fonda) whose child is held hostage by the French cop. These are not naturally bad actors. I would suggest watching them in High Risk, La Femme Nikita and Singles, respectively, since they are all painfully out of place and/or overacting in this film. Now, the action sequences are fantastic (watch for the cue ball and the guard house scenes), but how can they not be? Li is a master of kung-fu and has one of the best action directors choreographing his fight sequences. I guess I just have trouble sitting through films in which everything but the action itself makes me want to wince. Case in point, the director seems to love shooting sequences with either extraneous shots (why do we need to see Li's jacket fall to the floor in the big 40-against-one scene?) or without explanatory shots that would make the sequence run smoothly (how can we know where Li is positioned in the laundry chute?). And, the implausibility factor is notched way up as well, since Karyo and company perform shoot-em-up's all over Paris, particularly in crowded restaurants, alternately gunning down and beating up civilians. And his bosses don't seem to notice that perhaps he's not the hero cop everyone thinks he is? Gimme a break.

year: 2001
length: 98 min.
rating: 1.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0271027/combined

Ben-Hur

I kept thinking I'd seen this film, but it was completely fresh this time around, including the famous chariot scene. I didn't remember that it is the story of a Jew (played by Charlton Heston) and his opposition to the Roman conquerors. I didn't remember that it chronicles the life of Jesus. I didn't remember that one of the Romans is an old friend of Heston's character and the conflict that arises from that. I didn't remember all the opportunities for hypocrisy and/or making the wrong choices that pervade the film. And, in the long run, atlhough I think it's one of the best epics ever made, I don't understand why Heston got the Oscar. His character is definitely the tie that binds the entire film together, but I didn't think it was awe-inspiring (although his acting is first-class). Different standards then, perhaps. It won a gaggle of awards, including Best Sound, Best Film, Best Director, Best Costume Design, and Best Supporting Actor for Hugh Griffith. His portrayal of the Arab sheik is designed to be funny, but he doesn't play it as slapstick, which makes you grin all the more. If you rent the DVD, watch the making-of documentary, which is particularly nicely done because it talks about the book the film was based on, the many stage- play renditions of the book, and the silent 1925 film. The scale of these productions alone will make you gasp. I won't blame you, though, if you skip past the interviews with Gore Vidal (one of the screenwriters on this film) and his monstrous ego.

year: 1959
length: 222 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052618/combined

Tuesday, July 29, 2003

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

It's about time I reviewed this. As a DVD and film freak (not necessarily in that order), I own both the original August release and the extended 4-disc November release. I've been watching, on and off, the featurettes on the extended version (of which there are dozens) and finally finished watching the film while listening to the cast commentary (which is only one of the 4 commentaries available). I won't give a synopsis of the plot. I mean, who doesn't know what Tolkein's The Lord of the Rings is about, at least in brief? So, I'll just move onwards to raving about how this is another one of those "complete package" films. It is well-written, not exactly ripped straight from Tolkein's pages (and if you want to argue that it isn't Tolkein's book on film, I have a few choice words for that), uses special effects both subtly and extraordinarily, keeps us entertained, sports actors who both know what they are doing and have the gravitas that brings an air of intelligence and wisdom to the film, and is impressive in the quality of its detail, particularly as it's necessary to maintain this detail across three films. We've all heard how Peter Jackson has helped the economy of New Zealand by building his studios there, including his digital arts studio, and including such lovely vistas in his film that everyone wants to take a trip there. But after watching the featurettes, it starts to dawn on you what a massive undertaking this was, from making two copies of each set, both big and small (props were also made in two sizes, so there were two sizes of chairs, candlesticks, books, beer mugs, ...), to the several month-long creation of the scary model of Bilbo that we see for only a few seconds on screen, to the sounds effects guys taking an afternoon to hammer bottle caps into their shoes and walk around on a parking lot, creating that unique sound for the Orcs skittering out of the ceiling in the depths of Moria. I think I've seen the film 4 or 5 times now (and usually I pick the extended version to watch, as it is definitely better) and I become more impressed with both Ian McKellen and Orlando Bloom. There is no better actor for Gandalf than McKellen, but it's hard to go wrong with someone so tried and true. Bloom, on the other hand, was just out of acting school and he does wonders portraying elf-dom mostly through his posture and facial expressions. I'm looking forward to what he does with the character in the third film, but currently I'm looking forward to the DVD for the second film so I can see how they filmed his jaw-dropping horse-mounting scene so that it looked like he was actually doing it.

year: 2001
length: 178 min. theatrical release / 208 min. extended release
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120737/combined

Rivers and Tides

Andy Goldsworthy is one of my two favorite artists (the other being Agnes Denes), so I had to go see this film. Goldsworthy creates art out of natural elements, i.e., things he finds lying around in the countryside. This film focuses on his artwork that reflects water, hence the title. As a friend of mine said, "he's a bit obsessive," and it's true that his work is highly fragile and requires him sometimes to re-create the same work more than once, but I think I'd characterize him more as someone who perseveres, who is driven to create. He mentions in the film that he has, naturally, good days and bad days and on the days when he's creating good art he never notices the cold, the wind, or the rain. As if it warms him from inside. I marvel at the apparent simplicity of such a life, even when I know that it can't really be that simple. The filmmaker has worked hard to weave the finished products with the process of creating them, and juxtaposes this with shots of nature on its own. I found that this gave me a glimpse through the artist's eye -- this is what Goldsworthy sees when he is starting to create a new piece. Goldsworthy does try to explain the "reasons" for his creations, but I confess I remember none of them because the pieces stand on their own -- beautiful creations mimicking and representative of nature, and also wholly manmade. If you want to see what I'm talking about, start here and use the previous and next buttons to view a few of his many artworks.

year: 2001
length: 90 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307385/combined

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

I never expected to go see this flick. Action-adventure, tent-pole blockbuster, middle-of-summer trash is what I assumed. Then I heard inklings that it was a pile of fun so I succumbed. And it really is. It's all about pirates (duh), there's a complex plot plus love story, and a lot of money was spent on special effects. That's all you need to know going in, except maybe to get into the right mood first. What I mean is, it's rare that I've seen a film that relies so heavily on cliches. I'm sure that if I'd been in a sour mood this would have made my mood sourer, but if you're feelin' happy, this film will make you feel even more so. You have all the "Arrrrs!" you need, parrots on shoulders, gangplanks being walked, and more swordplay than you can shake a sword at. It's over the top, and it's supposed to be. The major drawback is its length. I love watching swordplay, but after 4 major fight scenes I was starting to wonder when they were going to wrap things up. Far and away the best thing about the film is Johnny Depp (although Orlando Bloom puts in a very nice performance). I think he's missed his calling. He should have been another Charlie Chaplin. He takes all those cliches and twists them around by creating a mad, fey character who will have you in stitches for nearly all of his scenes. Let's all keep our fingers crossed that he is chosen by Tim Burton for the title role in the new Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory film...

year: 2003
length: 143 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0325980/combined

Z

This is quite unique. It's a French film based on the assassination of a prominent Greek senator in the 1960s who leaned too far to the left for the majority of the population. The government tries to cover up the assassination, initially calling it an "accident," while a judge and a journalist try to get at the truth. The most chilling part of the film is the last one minute, which I won't give away here. I will say that the film is part mystery and part thriller, with a lot of exposition which could be considered boring by some. Costa-Gavras' strength lies in how he puts together the pieces of the story, both on a broad story-arc level and at the scenic level. In one scene, he shows government officials being indicted by the judge, but instead of showing you just one official as an example he shows them all, filmed nearly exactly the same. Naturally after the third official we get the point, but the repetition drives home how involved the government was in the tragedy.

year: 1969
length: 127 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065234/combined

Monday, July 21, 2003

Seven Samurai

I goofed and watched The Magnificent Seven before I saw this film. The former is excellent, but this film is better than excellent. I can wax poetic (again) about Toshirô Mifune (who plays kooky with abandon, purpose and brilliance), but the great strength of this film is actually its length. Akira Kurosawa gives us enough time to learn the entire story. It's in three major sections: the Japanese peasants looking for samurai to help them defend their village against bandits who steal their grain, the seven samurai figuring out how best to complete the defense, and then the fight itself. In addition to the usual themes of bravery and loyalty, we grow to understand that to fight alone is dumb and to fight together is smart. Because of the length, we get to know particular samurai and particular townsfolk, and how their stories interweave. Kurosawa even uses slow-mo during some fight scenes, I expect to draw your attention to the skills of samurai, without which there would be no film. You are always rooting for the "good guys," which grows as you learn more and more about the characters, but you never actually forget that the goal is to kill all the bandits. It gets pretty violent at the end, and at points I found myself feeling sorry for the bandits, something I'm sure Kurosawa never intended.

original title: Shichinin no Samurai
year: 1954
length: 203 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047478/combined

The 10th Kingdom

My silly TV rental for the week! I gather it didn't do too well on TV, which surprises me because it's very well done for a mini-series. Perhaps the over-the-top fantasy elements stuck in some people's craws, but that's the appeal of the series. Instead of Sleeping Beauty, Snow White and Cinderella being characters in children's books, they are part of 9 kingdoms that exist in a parallel dimension to our own kingdom, which is, you guessed it, New York City. Magic exists and mirrors help you travel and communicate between the kingdoms. Two NYC denizens inadvertently travel from the 10th kingdom to the other 9, and adventures ensue. If it weren't for the talents of John Larroquette and Scott Cohen, the series would have been a dud. They are comic relief from the apparent seriousness of so silly a tale. (At one point, after having it explained that they must guess someone's name or else have their heads chopped off, Larroquette's character says "What IS it with you people? What kind of twisted upbringing did you have?") And the places they filmed! It's almost worth it for the gorgeous scenery. You really can rent all the best fantastical TV series nowadays. I have The X-Files, The Twilight Zone and Twin Peaks all on my list of to-watch TV series. Now if only Quantum Leap would come out...

year: 2000
length: 417 min. (9-part mini-series)
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0207275/combined

Seabiscuit (PBS American Experience)

Having read the book of the same name, and loving the description of the horse races (and the whole book; it's one of the best books I've ever read), I wanted to watch the actual races. This documentary describes the life of Seabiscuit, a downtrodden horse with a failed jockey and a reclusive trainer, who captured the hearts of Americans during the Depression. It's an incredible story, and if you only have an hour, watch the documentary. If you have many days (and you won't be able to put it down), read the book and then return to this film to watch the racing. I'll admit that I found the descriptions more enticing than the filmed races, no matter how much they slowed them down. This may all change if I watch the Hollywood film that's coming out in a few weeks, also by the same name, because my guess is that they've done some fancy footwork putting together the racing shots.

year: 2003
length: 53 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372513/combined

Wings of Desire

This was my first Wim Wenders film, and I wasn't aware of his process for creating film. There was no script, just dialogue written by a scriptwriter friend that he received each day of filming. Perhaps that was his method for just this film? 'Cause I would consider that fairly scary for all involved! The film concerns angels watching over Berlin (the translated German title is Heaven over Berlin), and the need for one of them to fall to Earth and become human in order to touch, taste, see and feel for himself. As my hubby says, it's lyrical, and at times I'm afraid that the lack of script made it a bit too lyrical, i.e., lengthy and ponderous when it didn't need to be (remember, I have trouble with poetry). And yet it's one of those films that will be etched in memory for a long, long time. I, unfortunately, watched the "remake" of this -- City of Angels -- before seeing the original. Could have been a very bad mistake, but in fact it was an exercise in contrasts and similarities. While the remake is in the final analysis banal, the director did use the same library scenes, and I remember enjoying the equating of libraries with peace, quiet and spirituality, as well as a place where the angels seem to get their reading done. And Peter Falk! I didn't know he played himself, and so enchantingly. I'm a bit too young to have gotten into Colombo, but I was aware when I lived in Germany that they thought the world of that series, so it's no surprise that Wenders asked Falk to be in the film. In the end, what struck me most were the shots of the Wall (this was filmed before it fell) and the grittiness of Berlin and that entire 1980s punk-pop era that was at its heyday when I lived in Germany. And the idea that angels watch over Berlin, that sad, proud city.

original title: Der Himmel über Berlin
year: 1987
length: 127 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093191/combined

Good Morning

The appeal of this film for U.S. audiences lies in the incredible contrast between middle-class living here and in Japan. They are packed like sardines in the suburbs of Tokyo, yet seem perfectly content with that. No one ever knocks, they just walk in, slip off their shoes and call out "Anyone home?". Makes me shiver. The film revolves around the veneer of politeness that exists in such situations. Under the surface, everyone suspects everyone else and conversations among neighbors play out like that old game telephone tag. Two of the children in this suburb are desperate to watch TV, a new thing at that time, and beg their parents to own one, which they refuse because of the expense. The children are scolded and take a vow of silence to prove their point. As you can imagine, silence ends up being much more effective than talking. Yasujiro Ozu has a very simple touch; there's really just the story and not much else, but that doesn't deter from the effect of the film. The most amusing thing for me was a portrayal of what was considered a "bad woman" in the suburbs. She wore red and listened to jazz music -- gasp!

original title: Ohayô
year: 1959
length: 94 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053134/combined