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

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

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