Friday, May 30, 2003

Phone Booth

I saw this film at a second-run theater because I didn't think it would be good enough for me to plunk down $8 to see. I guess I should have known better, based on the combination of Joel Schumacher and Colin Farrell. (Then again, I thought the combination of Jodie Foster and David Fincher would prove that Panic Room would be excellent, and I was unfortunately quite wrong.) Farrell proves he is an excellent actor, as well as a bonafide movie star since he can carry a film without any problem. You'd never know he's Irish (his character is from the Bronx), and you'd never know he'd done some iffy acting recently. This is a command performance. (Doesn't hurt at all that he's extremely easy on the eyes.) Schumacher creates an environment in which we forget that we are watching a guy in a phone booth for an hour and a half. The impact of the film is somewhat complex, which is probably why I like it so much. Who do we empathize with? The sniper who has Farrell's character in his sights? Farrell's character himself? Poor, downtrodden, pre-Giuliani NYC? And which of these is actually evil? Schumacher deliberately shows all sides, so that we leave the theater with conflicting emotions about the situation we've witnessed.

year: 2003
length: 81 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0183649/combined

The Man Without a Past

Why can't they make more films like this? I don't think I've seen a more endearing, funny, tragic and hopeful film all year. Kaurismäki doesn't make fast-moving films (now that's an understatement) but while this film could have been unendurably boring, it's not because he suffuses it with love and caring. We completely feel for the main character who's lost his memory, and for the woman he falls in love with. We follow his path toward his re-birth with joy and hope. Along the way, we encounter characters that are side-splittingly funny and at the same time completely believable. The style of his filmmaking may put some people off -- it is very deadpan and may seem to some to be forced. I find it the perfect vehicle for the film's tragic humor. If you like this film, you'll very much enjoy his earlier film, Ariel, about a guy and a convertible. Really.

original title: Mies Vailla Menneisyyttä
year: 2002
length: 97 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0311519/combined

October

My first Sergei Eisenstein film. We talked about him so much in film class that I felt I'd already seen one of his films. Finally seeing one was a revelation -- there's a reason the man was a genius! As might be imagined, this is the story of the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, re-enacted in all the same places by the filmmaker. Eisenstein proves he is a master of montage, juxtaposing images of harps when peace is discussed or the statue of a baby when the revolution is in its infancy. While the revolution seems strangely devoid of bloodshed (was it really this peaceful?), the story is engaging and surprisingly easy to follow, with all its factions and intrigues. I found it bizarre that the film had a sound effects and music score (Shostakovich) soundtrack, it being billed as a silent film, but at least the score helped keep me engaged. The biggest surprise was the ending scenes in which the Bolsheviks overrun the palace. Hollywood action film directors would do well to take a page from this film (book). Large crowds, explosions, tons of props. I'm sure it's more expensive today, but it couldn't have been more complex. Eisenstein more than pulls it off with a fluidity and grace that is eye-opening. I also think the film's subject is relevant today as well. Watch for the looting at the end...

original title: Oktyabr
year: 1927
length: 103 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0018217/combined

And Your Mother Too

Unfortunately, this is another critically rated film that I found completely underwhelming. Supposedly an excitingly new return to realistic filmmaking, I found it so close to pornography that I took no pleasure in the style or the story. In fact, was there a story? A couple of teenaged boys in Mexico living out their fantasies, and being stupid about it. How interesting. There's nothing wrong with the camera technique and the choice of settings, but I didn't think there was enough to the story to keep the sex scenes afloat. Granted, the story really IS the sex scenes, so perhaps I just felt that if I had wanted to watch pornography I would have rented a film that claims to be that. 'Nuff said.

original title: Y Tu Mamá También
year: 2001
length: 105 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0245574/combined

Friday, May 23, 2003

Sex and the City

Can't believe I'm reviewing this, right? I admit I'm hooked on this show and have been anxiously awaiting the fourth season DVD release. (Not having cable stinks sometimes.) It's hard to explain what I like so much about the series. There's nothing deep or particularly thoughtful in it -- just a bunch of well- dressed New York single women in their 30s trying to find guys. Maybe I like that because it's an HBO show it never has to be vague about sex. Maybe I like the dresses and the shoes and the hairstyles. Maybe I just think it's fun. Yeah, that's it! It's fun, it's naughty and it's easy on the eyes. And don't watch it alone -- it must be giggled over with girlfriends while drinking Cosmos.

years: 1998-2004
length: seasons 1-4 on DVD, season 5 in play, season 6 picked up
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0159206/combined

Samurai I: Musashi Miyamoto

This will be a very brief review because this film is one part of a Japanese samurai trilogy. They all star the amazing Toshirô Mifune, and tell the tale of a man in his quest to become a samurai. Every review I've seen has told me to hang on to my horses and not judge the first film too harshly without seeing the others. So all I'll say is that this first film is a bit confusing because a lot of storylines are being woven together that I imagine play parts in the next two films. Stay tuned...

original title: Miyamoto Musashi
year: 1954
length: 93 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047444/combined

To Kill a Mockingbird

This is probably the best book I've ever read. I can't believe I was never made to read it in school, although in retrospect this is probably a good thing as I can appreciate it more now. It was recently recommended to me by three girlfriends in a row, so it shot to the top of the list. This book, after the Bible, is apparently the one Americans say means the most to them. The film is different, since nothing literary can translate as-is to the screen, but it is as great. For those of you like me who've never read or seen it (are there any of you out there?), it's the tale of a young girl and her brother in a small Southern town in the 1930s learning about the complications of race and ethics, and learning how to be humanists. Gregory Peck is phenomenal as their father, especially during the courtroom scene. It's almost as if the character of Atticus Finch was written for him, and in fact Harper Lee was unique among authors by loving the adaptation of the book. The black-and-white film has been beautifully transferred to DVD. There is a documentary but it can be missed; I'd stick with the film. It is plainly shot, without fancy camera angles or movements, so the story is what you see. Keep your eyes open for Robert Duvall. In this particular film, he's very, very good.

year: 1962
length: 129 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056592/combined

Thursday, May 15, 2003

X2

Really, not a bad film for one based on an action super-hero comic book. The X-Men comic is one of the better choices for a film because there are many varied characters to pick and choose from. They all are angst-filled and multi-layered and coming to grips with being a mutant, and one of them will have the super- power that can save the day. Bryan Singer does a nice job of bringing all that together; he's clearly a fan of the comic book and goes out of his way to bring the original creation to the screen. A plot summary is not necessary. Mutants vs. humans is all you need to know. As far as the acting, while you can't fault Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart for their performances, the best by far is Alan Cumming's portrayal of Nightcrawler. OK, the blue tattoos are supposed to be blue fur, but he sure does make that character come alive -- a God-fearing German mutant who can teleport in puffs of blue smoke. Exactly the right mix of fear and bravery and the desire to fit in. This film is a sequel, and if you think there won't be another you're not paying close enough attention to the ending. The next one should be even better if it follows the comic storyline. Angst triple-fold, mutants needing to save the world, heartbreak all around...stay tuned!

year: 2003
length: 133 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290334/combined

Rear Window

I was a little worried about watching this film again (I saw it ages ago and remember nothing) because our film class used it as an example of cognitive film theory -- asking constant questions about what we're seeing as we watch -- and psychoanalytic film theory -- how we are all voyeurs when we go to the cinema. I knew the entire plot backwards and forwards, so I figured I wouldn't enjoy watching the film. Nice to be wrong! Hitchcock knew exactly what he was doing. He was a master of providing just enough detail for the viewer to understand plot basics, but giving the viewer plenty of room to hypothesize about its meaning. Jimmy Stewart perfectly plays the guy in the wheelchair who has nothing to do but look at his neighbors through the rear window of his apartment. Has he "seen" a murder take place? Will anyone believe him, not least of which is his girlfriend, Grace Kelly? There's just not enough "wow-ing" I can do about this film, and most people have seen it. So all I can say is see it again, it's worth it! And if you rent the DVD, watch the making-of featurette all the way through. Peter Bogdanovich has a marvelous story about Hitchcock that you won't want to miss.

year: 1954
length: 112 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047396/combined

The Quiet Man

I know I'm going to get hate mail because of this review. This film won two Academy Awards, best director and best cinematography, and was nominated for five others. I fully recognize John Ford's genius, but I recognize it in a different way than I think others do (based on how popular and well-liked this film seems to be). I think Ford took a ridiculous premise and an abhorrent ideology and made a semi-OK film somehow. A man retires to Ireland, where his parents came from before they moved to America, and has to learn that things work differently in his adopted country. The problem is that this man, played not ably at all by John Wayne (more wooden acting I've not seen since Keanu Reeves in Much Ado About Nothing), was a boxer and killed a man in the ring so he doesn't want to fight in Ireland. Sounds like a good idea to me. But, everything that happens pushes him towards doing just that. And everybody is happy once he does! As you recall, I had a similar problem with Mr. Deeds Goes to Town. This is even worse -- fighting seems to be all these people live for, and it doesn't much matter that the reasons for starting a fight are noble sentiments, namely loyalty and honor. It's not very noble to physically hurt another person. Especially when there's no reason for it other than that it's tradtional and expected. I suppose this is my main problem with Westerns as well (Ford was one of the premier directors of Westerns in their heyday), but my pacifist attitude is a discussion for another time. The only things I did like were Maureen O'Hara's and Barry Fitzgerald's acting. Fitzgerald was a hoot and nearly saved the film for me. I'll have to leave this review on a negative note (are you surprised?). The folks behind the DVD transfer for some reason didn't feel it worthwhile to restore the film before the transfer. The colors are muddy and washed-out in places, and you're treated to the pan-n-scan version not the widescreen version, so that famous cinematography is wasted.

year: 1952
length: 129 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045061/combined

All or Nothing

As a friend of mine said: "This film tore my heart out." I've waxed poetic about Lars von Trier, now I get to do that for Mike Leigh, a British director who creates films that are just as raw. Not in the same style, but the emotional impact is just as high. I'm pretty sure all his films follow the same methodology: working class, emotionally dysfunctional Brits who grow and learn through heart-wrenching epiphanies enacted towards the end of the films. Brenda Blethyn was nominated for an Oscar in a previous Mike Leigh film, Secrets & Lies, which you may have heard of although sadly Leigh films are not well known in this country. My first taste was of his 1990 film Life Is Sweet. If you like All or Nothing, definitely watch the other two. I think I like them so much because you can truly empathize with the characters; they are as real as you and me. The ephiphanies are tough to watch, but mesmerizing because they seem so real. I almost wonder if he asks his actors to sit in a closet and cry for an hour before doing these scenes. (Which in fact Stanley Kubrick had Nicole Kidman do for her scene towards the end of Eyes Wide Shut.) I don't at all want to deflect you from seeing the film, because it is worth watching if only because it is so far away from the usual Hollywood melodrama. I guarantee you will be moved by it.

year: 2002
length: 128 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286261/combined

Wednesday, May 07, 2003

Lonesome Dove

I suspect this is a highly regarded TV series, based on Larry McMurtry's novel of an 1800s cattle drive from Texas to Montana. It makes you feel as if you're watching a real cattle drive, but I didn't find the story that special. It's a classic epic in which there is a long journey, many deaths, many characters coming together and then apart, but in the end I didn't feel that anyone learned anything, so what was the point? If I had to pick a favorite actor out of this star-studded cast it would be Ricky Schroder as the young illegitimate kid. But the rest acted like they were in a Hallmark movie, especially Angelica Huston. And Robert Duvall! I don't get the fascination with his method of acting. Could he stop that silly giggling/smirking at least for some of his films?

year: 1989
length: 384 min. (6-part mini-series)
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096639/combined

Planet of the Apes

Unfortunately I'd never seen this before but did know about the famous ending, which I won't ruin for those few who haven't seen it. Although my guess is that it would not be hard to figure out where the film is heading. Charlton Heston as an astronaut explorer crash-lands on a planet several thousand years after heading out from Earth. The film is rife with 60s social commentary. I particularly liked the remarks about "never trusting anyone over 30" and Heston's opening monologue in which he wonders if humans "still fight our brothers." Do we hear sentiments like this anymore? (Pity. Well, at least for the latter.) The pacing was good (never boring), the special effects really didn't seem that bad (even when compared to the excruciating 2001 re-make), and the overarching ideology (that we are not as superior as we think we are) was never force-fed. Filming in Utah at Glen Canyon underscored that ideology. These insignificant little humans traipsing across this never-ending landscape...what better way to visually prove your point?

year: 1968
length: 112 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063442/combined

Spirited Away

I had a request to review this film sooner than later, and fortunately it was just released on DVD. Many of you know that I'm a huge Hayao Miyazaki fan. I've seen all his films released in this country -- whether in the theater, on video or on DVD -- plus many that weren't (officially) released here. He is a master of animation, and not just Japanese manga-style animation, but animation period. Many of the animators at Pixar and Disney think of him as the standard-bearer. It's a pity that the American public hasn't had the chance to see more of his creations. I think this may be because the plots of his films are distinctly non-Western, and studio bigwigs think they won't be palatable to the masses. I can't claim that the plots are Eastern, because that would imply that I know enough about Eastern philosophy and culture. However, his ideas of good and evil are decidedly different from mainstream America's ideas. I'm convinced that going to his films with this context in mind will provide a better experience. The plots, though, are nearly secondary to the animation itself. While you watch this film (and if you like this one, be sure to email me for other recommendations) look at the details he includes. You thought the Disney animators were showing off when they drew reflections in the floor while Beauty danced with the Beast? Well, in this film look for the huge Chinese vases in the scene in which Chihiro meets the witch. And the entire first scene in the boiler room. And... It's clear where Pixar got their ideas for detail in A Bug's Life. And remember this: before his latest two films, he and his crew hand- painted all the animation cells. Can you imagine?! Besides coming up with an enchanting, delightful story they visually created that story cell by painstaking cell.

original title: Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi
year: 2001
length: 125 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0245429/combined

The Manchurian Candidate

What the reception to this film was like in 1962, I only wish I knew! I was ignorant about the film going in, although I suspect most people know it's a thriller about conspiracy, brain-washing and politics. Not knowing what I was getting into made the film all the more odd and suspenseful, especially those beginning scenes in which you feel like you've been ported into an alternate reality. And you can never quite tell whether the film is being anti-Communist. I mean, it's fairly clear that the Communists are portrayed as the bad guys, and yet they are treated as intelligent men, far from the black-and-white good vs. evil you'll see in most Hollywood films. And Angela Lansbury as the mother is such a patriotic American and so rabidly anti- Communist. At least you think so... That is what I found the most intriguing part of the film, that you never know who is on which side, and that it's so hard to tell by what they say. I had to re-run the train scene with Frank Sinatra and Janet Leigh more that once, because I remained perplexed as to which side Janet Leigh's character was supposed to be on. I'm sure that was part of John Frankenheimer's vision, to keep us off-balance while at the same time giving us a satisfying thriller. He sure found the right actors -- Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey and Angela Lansbury. All excellent, but was there ever a more vile portrayal of a mother? (By the way, the DVD is a great transfer; nary a spot or a streak.)

year: 1962
length: 126 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056218/combined

Lagaan

All you Bollywood enthusiasts, step right up! Oh, there probably aren't many of you because so few Bollywood films get shown in this country. Bollywood is one of India's film industries, producing musicals or more precisely highly- melodramatic films with musical numbers in them. Your first taste of Bollywood may leave you scratching your head (i.e., why are these so popular?), so I recommend you start with this film. While the film is not perfect, it is the closest thing to a perfect musical epic (perhaps that's unique; I can't think of another example). The film is set during Victorian times when the British still controlled India. The British imposed a tax upon Indian citizens known as lagaan, i.e., a portion of what was produced off the land went to the British "protectors." The film tells the tale of one village's farmers who protest a double lagaan decree, and in so doing are manipulated into playing a game of cricket with the soldiers of their protectorate to determine whether they pay the lagaan or not (depending on whether they win or not). I suppose this may seem like a frivolous way to portray how India stood up to British rule, in a (very!) different way from films like Gandhi. However, the film contains those same elements of perseverance, courage and hope plus a suspenseful, rousing game of cricket to boot. (Yes, that does seem oxymoronic. You'll just have to trust me on this.) There isn't any way NOT to learn the basics of cricket, since much of the second half of this nearly 4 hour film is the game itself. You may also get to the first musical number in the film and want to throw up your hands or at least sneer at the choreography. Beware. Those tunes are extremely catchy. You may find yourself wandering around the house for the next week humming the tunes and wishing you knew enough Hindi to sing along.

year: 2001
length: 224 min.
rating: 4.0
review written: May 7, 2003
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0169102/combined