Minority Report

It's surprising to me that the film industry doesn't do more to honor Steven Spielberg. Isn't he due for at least four lifetime achievement awards? His two films last year, this one and Catch Me If You Can, are both masterful, entertaining and thoughtful. In this film, he creates a believable future 50 years from now (I can definitely see personalized advertising on a walk through the mall in my lifetime) showcasing a police force that can capture you just as you are about to commit a murder. His long-time collaborater, Janusz Kaminski, uses overexposure to create harshly bright images with unfocused edges, perfect for a futuristic film. And it stars two of my favorite actors -- Tom Cruise and Colin Farrell (the latter one of my three favorite actors under 35; I'll let you guess the other two). As well as Samantha Morton, who ranks up there with Emily Watson in terms of heartfelt, passionate acting. Naturally, since it's Spielberg, the themes of family are very close to the surface, and that works very nicely until the second to last scene, which was so like the last scene of Bend It Like Beckham that I had to roll my eyes. Despite a few missteps, the film is one of the few fantastic sci-fi flicks around, hence the rating.

year: 2002
length: 145 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/combined

Swing Time

The thing about this film is that no matter how swell the dancing is (and it is mouth-gapingly swell), or how great the costumes are, or how many old classic songs are included, it's still kinda boring. I mean, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers weren't exactly honed actors or singers. The film is sweet, but so tame. And the jokes aren't particularly funny. Except for Astaire's right-hand man, Victor Moore, who is funny because of his schtick of having trouble enunciating. Anyway, cross your fingers that Astaire films come out on DVD someday so that you can employ the ever-so-useful chapter stops. And then watch Easter Parade first, which is a first-rate Astaire flick, and not least of all because it also stars Judy Garland.

year: 1936
length: 103 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028333/combined

The Night of the Hunter

I'm hesitant to give this film any kind of rating. I feel compelled to give it a higher rating because of its honest depiction of child abuse, but I had some trouble following the tale or enjoying the overly theatrical acting. I did like the fact that it was a quirky set piece (the river the children escape on flows in five different directions, kind of like they're boating in a Jacuzzi) and I thought Lillian Gish was the tops as the compassionate foster mother at the end, but it was simply way too weird for me to really enjoy. Robert Mitchum plays a fake preacher who marries rich widows, but he's picked the wrong woman this time because she doesn't know where her husband hid the money. He tries to force it out of the kids, who do know, but they prove stronger than him. In fact, the scene I thought was best occurs when the authorities finally take him away and the boy he has abused goes into a tantrum and desperately wants to give him the money he's held back for so long. And won't accuse his stepfather in court. Which is the evidence of child abuse -- the controller is hated by the abused but also embodies the one person that the abused needs to receive love and acceptance from. The cycle of control is something that's very hard to stop. (And if you want a heartbreaking and particularly well-written book on the subject, I heartily recommend A Hole in the World by Richard Rhodes, the autobiography of his childhood.)

year: 1955
length: 93 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048424/combined

Signs

Can I just give this film a 4.0 based on Tak Fujimoto's cinematography? I wish I could, because he does deserve kudos. There's so little movement in the film. The camera stays in one place and the characters are positioned within the frame of the camera, more often than not centered, which gives you this feeling of both space and doom. Unfortunately, great cinematography does not a movie make. (Case in point, watch Barry Lyndon. On second thought, don't watch it.) The story is actually quite good for about 1/3 of the film -- scary, funny, soulful -- but it falls apart once the aliens actually appear in the skies overhead. Aliens have invaded the earth, and one ex-preacher and his family are determined to survive them. There's no way you can't know how the story is going to end, but I didn't expect to be so irritated by Mel Gibson's attempts at emotion. He's famous for his screwed-up-I'm-not-going-to-cry face, and I'll be the first to admit that I was awed by that in the first Lethal Weapon, but it seems that he's really pushing it lately. I suppose you could watch the film for the cinematography and for Joaquin Phoenix's phenomenal acting (if there is a soulful center to the film, it resides in him), but if I were you, I'd pass.

year: 2002
length: 106 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286106/combined

Reign of Fire

It's been a while since I've seen a film with this much testosterone in it. Heck, even the lone female lead is overdosing. Earth has been infested with dragons and the remnants of humanity fight to save themselves. The dragons are cool, they look very real, and there's lots of fire for pyromaniacs. There's also a great deal of grunting, especially from Matthew McConaughey, but none of the acting is anywhere near thespian level. The plot is okay, not great. I thought the fact that the Americans were all scientific about how to kill off the dragons, and the British were more willing to keep the status quo was highly amusing. Perhaps the best scene is an homage to the Star Wars trilogy (yeah, the first set, not the recent crap) in which the "I am your father" scene is acted out for kids before their bedtime. Complete with third-rate theater costumes and fake sound effects. A complete hoot, and nearly worth the price of a rental.

year: 2002
length: 101 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253556/combined

The Recruit

Guilty pleasure flick. All this film is is a well-designed passion play and I don't mean being passionate about your job or politics or that great food you had last night. Since it's a spy flick, you never know whom to believe, and that's supposed to be the point. The real point of the film is the overheated glances between Colin Farrell and Bridget Moynahan, who seem to be slumming at times and other times are actually not too bad. Al Pacino is fine in the beginning as the CIA recruiter, but towards the end gives the most over-the-top, embarrassing speech that I've seen on film in a long time. The content is not what's embarrassing, it's the delivery. Some reviewers are likening it to his histrionics in Dog Day Afternoon, but no, that was a stupendous acting job. This was not. Give this one a miss and instead see both of the leads in better films, namely Tigerland (Farrell) and Heat (Pacino). Unless, of course, you just want to watch a "comfort flick" on a rainy, boring, nothing-else-to-do day.

year: 2003
length: 115 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0292506/combined

Voyage to the Moon

A lark! Yes, this is a short silent, but it's really fun to watch. For those who think that silents are in general too dreary need to watch this. It's purely fantastical -- a group of old tyme astronomers decide to visit the moon in a bullet-shaped rocket. They are shot out of a very lengthy cannon, walk around on the moon without benefit of spacesuits, and get attacked by a rollicking mob of aboriginal-looking aliens. You can find this short on a DVD called Landmarks of Early Film: Volume 1. (The disc includes some yawn-inducing shorts, but if you watch this, do not miss the Winsor McCay piece.)

original title: Le Voyage dans la Lune
year: 1902
length: 14 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0000417/combined

Citizen Kane

A confession. I fell asleep during this movie the first time I saw it. Which is very embarassing, as you might imagine. (Uh, it lulled me to sleep. Yeah, that's right. Lulled.) That was about 10 years ago, so maybe we can chalk that up to inexperience. Now that I've seen it again, I'm bowled over. How can anyone not be bowled over by this film? Because the genius of Orson Welles is not necessarily in his direction, acting, writing or cinematographic choices. It's in the mix of all of those. In one scene, he places his character in a room with two other men. In the background is a bank of windows. Which you completely ignore until his character walks away from the camera towards the windows, turns around, speaks, and walks back. You're then forced to pay attention to the scene's physical space and depth, while at the same time his character utters the most important line of the scene after he turns around. So, the illusion of a BIG room is mirrored in the BIG words said at that point. For me, it's the close collaboration between the production design, cinematography and writing that makes the film what it is: a complete whole, but so multi-layered that you could watch it many times, focusing only on one layer at a time. I will hold onto this rented DVD a little while longer because it contains two commentary tracks, one by Peter Bogdanovich (a director and film historian) and one by Roger Ebert. I didn't want to wait to review the film, though. I thought a more off-the-cuff review without a ton of cinephilic commentary banging around in my head would be more worthwhile.

year: 1941
length: 119 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/combined

Equilibrium

Now here's a problem. This is a sci-fi film with a great premise -- citizens of the world are given a mood-altering drug so that there's no more murder and no more war, but one man stops taking his drug and starts to feel highs and lows again. (Did I mention yet that it stars Christian Bale and he takes his shirt off more than once?) It has the feel of many other sci-fi films including 1984, Fahrenheit 451 and The Matrix. The hallway gun battles in The Matrix and this film are nearly exactly the same except in this film the main character's costume is white instead of black. It has some wonderfully subtle acting in it, which is saying a lot for an action film. Christian Bale is particularly good as the man who stops taking the drug. (Too bad he's also such a babe, it makes it that much harder to rate this film. "Christian Bale is in it? I'll give it a 5.5. Definitely.") It has what I considered a very unique fight scene at the end based on a martial art called Gun Kata in which the gun is an extension of your hand and you can anticipate your opponent's moves. (Actually, Gun Kata is used in numerous interestingly filmed sequences with Bale blowing away his opponents. Did Bale bulk up for this role or was I just watching too closely?) But somehow the film didn't quite make the grade. I'm guessing it's because I saw it too close to seeing The Matrix Reloaded and my brain synapses are overloaded with martial arts fight sequences and moralizing tales. (Besides, we get nary a smooch between Bale and his awesome co-star Emily Watson.) Time to move on now...

year: 2002
length: 107 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238380/combined

Baran

After I watched this film, I was struck by how enjoyable I had found it. Which is a little odd since it's a serious film about an Iranian boy upset that an illegal Afghani immigrant has taken his job. The film is in large part about the maturity of the boy as he recognizes that the Afghani immigrant is a girl and how hard her life has been since she immigrated. But it's also about the plight of women, albeit very subtly, in these countries. How hard was it for her to masquerade as a boy without her burqa? Would the burqa's veil have been a convenient method for shutting out the growing attentions of the Iranian boy? Why was the veil not worn by the Afghani women in the film? I admit I don't know the answers to these questions or how to find out if the director was subtly implying any feminist message, but I wonder if it would change my enjoyment of the film. That is, my enjoyment as a woman watching the film. All those unanswered questions leave me somewhat unsure about the film in general. I'm not sure a man watching the film would feel the same way, unless they were sensitized to the plight of Muslim women. Of course, if the film is only viewed as a growth and maturity story it's quite entertaining, enlightening and educational. And that's plenty good enough.

year: 2001
length: 94 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0233841/combined

The Ghost and Mrs. Muir

This is quite a unique film. A love affair between a Victorian woman and the ghost who inhabits the house she owns. The themes all focus on denial (no such things as ghosts, it was all a dream, the man she's going to marry isn't already married) but the reason to watch is the acting. Rex Harrison has never been a favorite of mine, but he transforms into the crotchety old seaman who takes a fancy to his tenant against his will. Gene Tierney, who in close-ups looks a bit ridiculous, shines as the prim, starchy, independent woman who won't give way. Probably a bit daring in the 1940s, what with her striking out on her own and raising her daughter alone after her husband dies. Shocking! The only thing I thought was rather silly was the lengthy shots of frothing, billowing ocean waves as they crash to shore. It's almost like they were added as pauses in the film and weren't connected to any particular scene. In general, though, a sweet, kindly, pleasant film at its core.

year: 1947
length: 104 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039420/combined

The Awful Truth

Cary Grant and Irene Dunne. Fine, fine comedians, both of them. A silly little plot that has little to no grounding in reality. Misunderstandings, a cute dog, and a beau from Nebraska. Hijinks ensue. Now, it's probably great fun for some folks to watch, but it seemed somewhat sterile to me. Yes, it's dated, but I guess I still expected scenes that I would understand and find mirthful. Of course, there are some that are very good. One scene in particular is giggle-icious, in which Irene Dunne's character tries to derail the potential marriage of her soon-to-be-ex (Grant) by acting like a card-carrying floozy. It's better if you recognize you're watching a 30s film in order to get why her behavior is so appalling, but her delivery is so perfect that it stands by itself. However, I thought the rest of the film was, in general, slight. I prefer others from that period, for example, It Happened One Night. Much funnier, much more realistic (really!), much easier to enjoy.

year: 1937
length: 91 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028597/combined

The Matrix Reloaded

Hmm. This is a difficult one. I like it, but it's impossible to judge it without thinking of The Matrix -- like some more successful sibling who has many of your traits but seems to have done more with them than you did. This second part of the trilogy leaves you hanging, like most second parts of trilogies do, of course. It also has the hard task of keeping you interested while you wait, most likely impatiently, for the conclusion. We get a new storyline, but we don't get much development or growth of the characters. We do get new characters, but except for the French guy (with the incredible name of the Merovingian) and Harold Perrineau's character (just because he adds some much, much needed humor) none of them are very interesting or help with much more than moving the plot towards the third installment. The story is even more about faith and trust (and a lot more about love) than the first one was. Or perhaps that's not true, it just seems that way due to some overly ponderous exposition. There were some scenes I particularly liked, especially the all too brief view of Zion central command and the dancing in the mud orgy-party. (I don't understand why folks haven't liked this scene. It's a celebration of life, people!)and the entryway fight sequence. Speaking of fight sequences, the supposedly new and exciting camera method used in the many-Smiths fight sequence (which they call the Burly Brawl) was far too video-game-like to be as breath-taking as bullet-time. I suppose I'll have to see how the series concludes before I make a real decision...which is probably why they're not making us wait too long for Matrix Revolutions (out in November).

year: 2003
length: 138 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0234215/combined

Finding Nemo

I find all Pixar animated films delightful. They're utterly Disney-fied (but their contract with Disney expires soon, so that may not be the case in the near future), but I adore them because they're clever. As with the best Bugs Bunny cartoons, the kids love 'em, and so do adults because Pixar films are peppered with jokes intended to tickle only their funny bone. (For instance, watch for when the dentist's niece appears for the first time.) Besides, who cannot marvel at all that fancy animation footwork (handwork)? Apparently, a first pass at creating a coral reef was a failure because it looked too perfect. Which is why you'll see floating specks and other carefully arranged details to de- prettify the seascape. I almost always giggle and smile my way through a Pixar film, but I nearly found it hard to breathe during the sequence in which Dory is trying to communicate with a whale. I'm giggling just thinking about it! I guarantee you'll enjoy your time. But...you may not want to go to a matinee unless you're bringing your own kids or don't mind having your chair back kicked repeatedly by a 4-year old. A different sort of movie experience, actually, once you get into the mood.

year: 2003
length: 101 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266543/combined

Ocean's Eleven

I don't know exactly why I like this film so much. Maybe because it's smart and fun and it never stops. Maybe because the plot is so intricate (So when did they actually blow up the vault? How did all the bags of money get moved out? How did they fake Carl Reiner's character's attack?). Maybe because of its humor ("Ted Nugent called. He wants his shirt back."). Maybe because it just seems like the actors were having a lark and it shows on-screen. Maybe because it's nothing like what Steven Soderbergh did in his early career (this is the same guy who did Sex, Lies and Videotape?). Heck, maybe you should just go see it. Enjoy. And if you figure out the plot twists in the last 10 minutes of the film, shoot me an email. This is my second time seeing the film and I'm not exactly lying awake nights to figure it out, but man, I've never seen a more complex heist plot.

year: 2001
length: 116 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0240772/combined

Wild Strawberries

Sometimes I wish I could give a film a 5.0. For the ones that seem head over heels better than films that are really very good and usually rate a 3.5 on my scale. This film is about...well, it's about death. And guilt, and choices made in life, and emotions, and family. I'm guessing most Ingmar Bergman films are like this. I was completely entranced. Even with these heavy-duty themes, I never noticed the time passing. The film is a study in contrasts -- death vs. life, young vs. old, caring vs. cold as ice, guilt-ridden vs. free to do whatever you want. An old man travels with his daughter-in-law from his hometown to be honored in a special ceremony for his lifetime achievements. Everything is a symbol: the journey itself, the discussions with his daughter-in-law, the people they meet along the way. So, why wasn't I bored? There aren't many jump cuts or strange camera angles or other types of camera techniques, but I felt compelete empathy with this normal man reviewing his life towards its end. What could be more universal than this type of reflection? And I appreciate the plain, clear film direction. I kept worrying that something surreal would happen that would jolt me out of the film's reality, but this never happens. (For instance, when he's standing above the baby carriage, I wondered whether he would tumble headlong into it, like the coffin scene in Brazil! I'm my own enemy, sometimes.) I can't imagine a filmmaker who hasn't seen this film dozens of time, in order to pick it apart to discover its genius. Because I'm sure that if I saw it five more times I still would only have scratched its surface. To complete the package, Criterion has released it on DVD in GBW (glorious black and white) and although the film is nearly 50 years old, it looks like it was made yesterday.

original title: Smultronstället
year: 1957
length: 91 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050986/combined