Young Mr. Lincoln

I'm having trouble finding a current counterpart for Henry Fonda. He is utterly believable no matter what part he plays, whether it's the young Abe Lincoln in this film, a juror trying to convince others of his point-of-view (in 12 Angry Men) or an old, crotchety coot (in On Golden Pond). No, I've never seen Grapes of Wrath, but it goes on my list today, you betcha. Young Mr. Lincoln isn't a tale of Lincoln as president, but of his life before he became president. It's entirely fictional -- based on a true story that the screenwriter witnessed, but not true to Lincoln's past. That isn't relevant though because John Ford uses this fictional past to showcase Lincoln's greatness ... although he gives it an unusual twist. He shows us the makings of a great man, but gives him an attitude that borders on arrogant. Watch how Lincoln interacts with the people on the steps of the jail and especially in the courtroom. You may think he's shy and humble, but he's also cajoling and threatening. I think Ford was trying to make Lincoln human, to take this mythological figure and make him one of us. While I enjoyed the film, I wouldn't say that the ending is anything new in this day and age (I saw it coming a mile away), which is why I didn't give the film a particularly high rating.

year: 1939
length: 100 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032155/combined

Taxi Driver

This film surprised me. I wasn't sure if I was going to like it or not because although I was quite impressed by Gangs of New York I didn't have much love for Mean Streets (reviews to come). Most of you have probably already seen this film, so you know that it's a tale of loneliness, of a man slowly losing his marbles, of the psychopath showing through. He's a cab driver, obsessed with cleaning up NYC, in a most inappropriate way. The reason the movie surprised me was its ending, which is designed to worry you and then in the very last frame of the film scare the patooties off you (no, I don't know what patooties are, but I do like that saying). I won't give the ending away, except to say that Martin Scorsese, Robert DeNiro and Paul Schrader (the screenwriter) are a brilliant team who went on to collaborate on other films. If you rent the DVD, watch the excellent documentary. It's over an hour long, and provides insights into making film in the 70s and why Scorsese's work is considered seminal. And try to remember, which I had difficulty doing, that the violent special effects towards the end are bad because they didn't have digital effects to lean on.

year: 1976
length: 113 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075314/combined

The Matrix

Naturally, I had to write a review of this film at some point. The problem with writing one is that most people have seen it. So, I'm going to go a little deeper into theory in this review than I would have normally, and only because we've reached the point in my film class where the ideas behind the The Matrix's screenplay have become clear. In high school or college I never took a class that read Plato's Republic or discussed Plato's Cave. I wish I had -- the similarities between the cave and the cinema are astonishing. The fire throwing shadows of the puppets on the wall, the chained spectators, the "truth" just down the corridor in the real world. Sounds like the cinema to me! I suspect most film theory profs use The Matrix as an example of Plato's Cave, both in terms of the film as a product and its content. It's immediately apparent that the Wachowski brothers read their Plato before writing the screenplay. For instance, when Neo meets Morpheus for the first time, Morpheus asks Neo if he believes in fate, to which Neo answers no because he prefers to believe he's in control of his life. Morpheus spills the news that he's been living in a world in which he has had no control at all, and would Neo like to know what the REAL world is? In other words, the world beyond the Cave, the world that holds the "truth," the world that is not cinema, to take the argument full circle. There are numerous instances of the Cave in the first half of the film (the latter half can be described as spectacular, and with fewer examples of the theory that grounds the film), as well as examples of Freud's theories of dream and how they relate to cinema. Obviously, I could go on and on, but I'll stop here and save you from the rest of this palaver. Suffice it to say, it was eye-opening for me to view this genre- bending, special-effects-heavy film in a new light. I highly recommend first viewings for those who've never seen it, and further viewings for those who've seen it before. I'd be interested to hear your reactions on how the film affects you, with this added knowledge under your belt. (Don't worry, you can scoff at all of this. Some of the psychoanalytic film theory we've read is just pure babble to me!)

year: 1999
length: 136 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/combined

Wit

It's very possible that I didn't understand everything there was to understand in this film. There are lots of overtones and undertones that would be difficult for your average film viewer and were doublefold difficult for me because of the amount of serious British poetry that's read onscreen. Whenever poetry is read (unless it's e e cummings, Emily Dickinson or Robert Frost) it's as if my mind shuts off and can't compute what the ears are hearing. A sad state of affairs, yes, I agree. This is not to imply that the film isn't moving, interesting, and ultimately uplifting. Emma Thompson plays a professor of 17th century poetry, specifically the John Dunne variety, who has been diagnosed with cancer. She's not a sentimental person and the film follows her course of extreme chemotherapy and how she copes with it, at first through logic and gradually with questions and doubts. At first I thought the title of the film reflected only her sense of humor, but realized as the film progressed that it encompasses all the definitions of wit -- reasoning power, mental soundness, astuteness, and "an imaginatively perceptive and articulate individual especially skilled in banter" (as defined by Merriam-Webster Online). What more perfect actor for this role than Thompson, then?

year: 2001
length: 98 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243664/combined

Not of this World

I always find it difficult to rate foreign films. Sometimes I tend to rate foreign films more highly because I expect a film that makes it to this country to be amazing or else it would never have been picked up for distribution. It's hard to keep the preconceived notions out of my head! However, this recent Italian film stands on its own. The story is of a nun who accidentally finds a baby and spends the film trying to find the mother. The film, at its core, is about her relationships -- to the baby, to the supposed father, to her order, and to the mother when she does find her and talk with her. It's hard to describe this latter scene as anything other than beautiful. It makes you feel lonely and alone, but also makes you feel at peace, as when you've finally figured something out that's been bothering you for a long time. I wish they'd make more films like this in this country -- quiet, contemplative, character-driven studies. With films like this, it's easy to recognize the craft as art.

original title: Fuori dal Mondo
year: 1999
length: 100 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0172477/combined

Young Frankenstein

Yup, I'd never seen this film (in its entirety). I loved Mel Brooks' homage to old black and white horror (and suspense) films. Black and white is so sumptuous: contrast and lighting, naturally, and in this film the special effects (e.g., the fog billowing through the train station). In terms of story, there were times I was fairly bored, i.e., between jokes. But the jokes are classic, especially the "walk this way" and "charades" scenes. Watch for the blind recluse scene -- can you guess who the recluse is?

year: 1974
length: 108 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072431/combined

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

Ooh, how lucky you all are. Another film from my film library! It's probably pretty obvious by now that I enjoy buying and re- viewing comedies, for those days when my brain is too full to watch a heartier film. Michael Caine isn't one of my all-time favorite actors, but I love his portrayal of culture and decency in this flick, as a high-class con man out-conned by a low-class con man. The sequence in which he is explaining to Steve Martin (the low-class con man) why it is worth his while to keep wine that he will never drink or sell, tend gardens just for the pleasure of it, and gaze at statues in a museum to "feed the soul" is particularly funny because he knows darn well that Martin's character is going to think this is all a bunch of hooey. As usual (even in films that are poor showcases for his talent), Martin himself is beyond funny as he plays the dim- witted "brother" of Caine. (BTW, he's hosting the Academy Awards this Sunday, and I do hope that someone told him how stiff he was last time he hosted it because he is such a naturally funny person that he should be able to breeze through something like this. Stage fright?)

year: 1988
length: 110 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095031/combined

Ossessione

This film is clearly all about trust. The trust of a husband for his wife, the trust between friends, the trust between two lovers. Apparently, the film is based on The Postman Always Rings Twice, but since I've never read the novel or seen the films, I can't compare it adequately enough. I thought it was more like Double Indemnity -- the wife uses her lover to kill her husband -- but that's only the surface of the film. It's filmed in beautiful black and white detail, which highlights every nuance and gesture better than any color film could do. Clara Calamai is the lustrous Giovanna, the wife. The camera simply loves her every expression. Luchino Visconti is a famous war-time Italian director, and this is the first film he ever directed. Quite the debut! For those of you who love black and white, aren't disturbed by sub-titles and adore sensually filmed, emotion- filled films, this is one for you.

year: 1943
length: 142 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035160/combined

Dancer in the Dark

I have to give a word of warning right off the bat. Lars Von Trier films are not for everyone. He never shies away from showing you gritty reality (even though in this film he leans towards fantasy). I don't mean violence or sex, just raw emotions. His films are emotional tear-jerkers, but not in the sense of a Hollywood tear-jerker, i.e., a film that is overly sentimental. He's definitely a realist, which is why this film surprised me so much because it contains musical numbers depicting the fantasy life of the main female character, played by the Icelandic musician Björk. (My film prof says that the musical numbers reflect the mental reality of Björk's character, instead of reflecting how out of touch she is with real life. I hadn't taken it that far, and actually I think the film does both things, which is part of why it's so powerful.) I'll admit that the musical numbers were interesting, but didn't click with me. I understood the contrast they provided, but thought that the hand-held, rawly lit, Dogme 95 style was so counter to my conceptions of how musicals should be that they threw me out of the story enough to be irritated by them. Which means this is a film I'll need to see twice...if I can get up the nerve to do so! The plot is hard to describe in one sentence, but focuses on a woman going blind, but still working in a factory to save enough money to give her son the operation he will need because the blindness is hereditary.

year: 2000
length: 140 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0168629/combined

Space: 1999

Jim's direct quote: "This is the most boring TV series I've ever seen." Yup! You know how some things hold up from your childhood: Pippi Longstocking, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Beatles? Well, this ain't one of 'em. I had to watch this particular episode again because as a kid I remember having nightmares (for months!) about the monster in the episode, and I wanted to see if it was still scary. Nope! The worse-than-cheesy effect is a monster made out of long fleshy-looking tentacles with a bright light in its middle. It sucks people in and spits out their charred bodies. For a 9 year old, this was terrifying. Watching it now just made me laugh. Poor Martin Landau, stuck in a sci-fi vehicle that is so yawn-inducing, I wonder now how I actually kept awake to watch it in 1975.

episode: "Dragon's Domain"
year: 1975
rating: 1.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072564/combined

Bridget Jones's Diary

Another film that I own. (Can you tell I'm not getting around to any new films recently? Heavy-duty film reading can do this to you...) "A silly little film," to completely mis-quote Hugh Grant. Those of you interested in seeing this film ONLY because it has Hugh Grant and Colin Firth in it must read this article first (Are You a Colin or a Hugh Girl?). Besides having two hunky actors, the film stars the chameleon Renée Zellweger, whom I'm beginning to have more and more respect for after her last few films. Big differences between acting a spacey nurse, a slinky vaudeville star and a British single woman! And the film really is silly -- the day-to-day romantic problems of "singleton" Bridget Jones, flanked by her weird friends, her stupid obsession with weight (she looks just fine to me), and her hopeless attitude towards work. But, of course, that isn't the point. It's simply a cute comedy based on a British newspaper series written by Helen Fielding, extolling the virtues and perils of nowadays female single life. My guess is there will be few people who won't have a great deal of fun watching this movie, even though it has little to nothing thought-provoking in it.

year: 2001
length: 97 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243155/combined

Brazil

I own this film and watch it periodically. It's one of my favorites, sort of the "anti-librarian" film or at least the "anti-organization-of-information" film. Ducts filled with paper, clacketing computers overseen by zealous neatniks, persnickety adherence to the letter of the overly-numerous laws. It's hysterically funny, even when people die because of this adherence to the law or are blown up by supposed terrorists. And it's wacky. What film couldn't be if directed by Terry Gilliam? He's read his film theory, too. Watch for the scene towards the end of the film in the Ministry of Information building. The cleaning machine bounding down the steps, the guy shot through his glasses, the soldiers marching with their guns blazing -- this is a direct rip-off of the Odessa Steps scene in Battleship Potemkin, a very famous very early Russian film directed by a very famous very early film theorist, Sergei Eisenstein. Why is the film called Brazil? I really don't know. Although that's the title of the main song, it doesn't seem to fit otherwise. If you know, tell me and I'll post it.

year: 1985
length: 131 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/combined

No Man's Land

What a great story. What an awful story. It's great because it is adept in showing us how inhuman war really is, and manages to even be funny in parts. It's awful because it has one of the worst final images of any war film I've seen. Two men, a Bosnian and a Serb, are at a stand-off in a trench in No Man's Land with another Bosnian who has been placed on a mine that will explode if he is moved. The press and the UN come to "help" yet the men themselves are secondary to the greater goals of informing the public and fulfilling world-mandated roles. The ending should make you wonder why we (the Americans, the world) were there in the first place, what we were meant to be doing there, and most importantly of all, what happened to the Bosnians and the Serbs when we left.

original title: Nicija Zemlja
year: 2001
length: 98 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0283509/combined

Sleuth

I gave this film good marks for its concept and its acting. The cinematography is negligible because it really is a play on film. You can't quite classify this film into the mystery genre, because although it has all the elements of a mystery, it wrenches and yanks those elements around to make something completely other than a mystery film. Maybe it's a meta-mystery film? Anyway, I can't really speak about the plot, because it would give away an important twist 1/3 of the way through. Suffice it to say that Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine act their butts off. They carry the film quite literally as they're the only actors you see. (And if you watch the DVD, be sure to watch the 20+ minute interview of the playwright. I'd be very interested in your reactions.)

year: 1972
length: 138 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069281/combined

Picnic at Hanging Rock

This film will haunt you. It's slow-paced, so for those of you who like action or animated discourse...this one isn't for you. A group of Victorian college girls picnic at an Australian landmark, Hanging Rock, one Valentine's Day and several of the party go missing. The dominoes keeping the college functioning start to topple from the weight of the mystery of the disappearances. All the elements of the film serve the same purpose -- the music (this low thrumming that causes your hackles to rise immediately), the repeated-image cinematography (okay, we've seen that rocky outcropping half a dozen times now and it gets creepier each time!), and the story itself (the mystery's never been solved). One scene (actually multiple scenes) in particular was designed to frighten. Many times the film takes us towards a passage in the rocks where whatever happened happened, and each time we get a little closer to seeing what's beyond those rocks, but never quite get there. And that's the beauty of the film -- Peter Weir took an unsolved mystery and filmed it so we feel that mystery the entire time we're watching its story.

year: 1975
length: 115 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073540/combined

Talk to Her

Yes, talk! Talking is what relationships are all about! (Well, mostly.) A highly unique concept -- two men with girlfriends in comas, each with very different attitudes about how to treat their now vegetable lovers, i.e., how they talk with them. And it isn't like this film is divisional one way or the other -- men vs. women -- because although Pedro Almodóvar makes it seem as if that is the premise in the beginning of the film, he gradually makes it clear that the need for communication is universal, by having the two main male characters learn to talk to each other. This film is one of those rarities that nearly entirely visually portrays its themes -- heck, it doesn't even need talking to show how important talking is! My favorite scene was set in a prison -- one of the male characters is talking to a (female) prison clerk behind bulletproof glass, and they're having trouble hearing each other, and we have trouble seeing each of them through the glass. What more perfect way to illustrate the necessity of clear communication? I think there may be a lot more to this film than I saw in it, because I focused so heavily on the title and saw everything in the light of talk and nothing else, so this is a film I will need to see more than once.

original title: Hable con Ella
year: 2002
length: 112 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0287467/combined

The Ipcress File

This film is where Michael Caine got his start, and he is memorable in this low-key spy thriller. The film, unfortunately, doesn't do as good a job as he does. After all, this is the director who ended up helming Iron Eagle 1, 2 and 4 in later years, so perhaps that says something. The film is convoluted, as spy thrillers tend to be, and the plot eventually makes sense, but it ended up not convincing me. There is a dopey hypnosis scene which is so hokey that it makes you laugh out loud. Too bad, since it drives the entire plot. However, if you want to watch a film that's through and through British (and understand where Mike Myers gets some of the jokes for his Austin Powers movies), this is a good choice.

year: 1965
length: 109 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059319/combined

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

Everyone knows this as a renowned classic film. Hick (played beautifully by Gary Cooper) comes to big town, acts like a hick, everyone jerks him around, he eventually gets legally accused of being too weird for the big city. How many films have been spawned from this one? (I can think of 3 off the bat.) As much as I wanted to like this film, there was something that I couldn't shrug off. The film does a good job of making Cooper a hick who's a lot wiser than the city folk, but does he have to resort to violence every time he gets upset? This happens repeatedly throughout the film, and even towards the end during the court scene, when the film is redeeming itself, blammo! It's there again. I can watch movie violence when it's accounted for (either it's war, or gangs, or sexual, so its motivations are at least clear). But in this case, it makes no sense. If the filmmakers are trying to show how wise he is, why show his irrational, violent side all the time? You could say times were different then, but I would still say that the violence sticks out like a sore thumb.

year: 1936
length: 115 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027996/combined

Reservoir Dogs

Unique concept, unique writing, highly entertaining. This film is a heist that goes wrong and the mix of morals and psychology that moves it towards its inevitable conclusion. That's as much as I can say without giving everything away, but the inevitable conclusion doesn't mean that there aren't twists that will surprise even the most cynical film-watcher. BIG warning...this film is not for the faint of heart. It will make you want to shut it off in places just because it's so squirm-inducing, and although you don't see the absolute worst stuff, there's an awful lot of very bright red blood around. It's important to note, though, that this is not just a shoot-em-up. Quentin Tarantino is known for his naturalistic writing style, and he claims that he writes just as people would speak, but in doing so he creates characters whose motives and personalities are instantly understandable, and surprisingly enough, recognizable. Even through the haze of swear words (Tarantino is quite a potty mouth). The only real failing I saw was that some of the characterizations were a bit stretched, particularly in the case of Tim Roth. He is a Brit doing an American, so perhaps that's where I picked up some inconsistencies, but it may also be due to the short shooting time frame (and clearly small budget) the film had. Actors would have had fewer takes to get it just so.

year: 1992
length: 99 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105236/combined

Lady Eve

Even though Barbara Stanwyck wasn't a great beauty, she sure was a great actress. Henry Fonda does a great job as the naive rich man up against Stanwyck as a con-woman. The plot is twisty and silly, exactly as I expect Preston Sturges meant to write it. But the ending is nonsensical! Fonda falls in love with Stanwyck on a ship, they get peeved at each other, she shows up later to seduce him (to get even with him), in the guise of her twin, he falls in love again, she gives him the shaft, and then she meets up with him "by chance" again, this time as the original woman he fell in love with. As he claps eyes on her, it's true love again. Why would he be so thrilled to see the first woman again? She who pissed him off in the first place! It's very possible I just wasn't watching this film in the right light. It's supposed to be a silly comedy, and that it sure is. Perhaps that brand of silliness doesn't hold up well nowadays...or at least not for me.

year: 1941
length: 97 min.
rating: 3.0
review written: March 2, 2003
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033804/combined

Some Like It Hot

I watched this again recently and was still amused, but remain bemused by the furor over Marilyn Monroe. Perhaps I'm unable to see her acting skills because her bombshell appearance is so diverting. It certainly seems to be for the men who watch the film...oh, sorry, who drool over the film! OK, maybe I'm just jealous. I can say with certainty, however, that without Jack Lemmon, that film would have been a dud. Imagine switching out Marilyn Monroe and Tony Curtis. Do-able, if difficult. Then imagine switching out Jack Lemmon. No go! He is a consummate comedian; all jokes naturally gravitate to him, and cross- dressing suits his acting style to a tee. Curtis is there as straight man (and pretty boy-girl) only. For those of you who've never seen it, Lemmon and Curtis dress up as women in an all- woman band (Monroe is the ukelele player and singer) to escape the mob who are tracking them for being witnesses to a mob crime. Hilarity, of course, ensues, and you will be kept giggling for the entire film. Except, perhaps, in the mob scenes. They're flat and boring, as if all the acting juice in the film was in the Monroe-Lemmon-Curtis scenes and everything else is filler.

year: 1959
length: 120 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053291/combined