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

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

A Bug's Life

I keep thinking I've reviewed this, but that's because Pixar films all sit in the same memory space in my head. As much as I love all Pixar films, this one is a cut above. It seems to have more moral heft (persevering in the face of daunting odds, chasing your dreams, learning confidence) than the others do. That could be gaggy, but it's placed in such a whimsical setting that we don't notice the educational overtones. Besides, you giggle through the entire thing. A caterpillar with a twisted German accent? A droll walking stick? A bumbling inventor ant? The characters are brilliant creations, but I think what sets Pixar films above other animated films is their storylines. Granted, this is fantasy, so you have a lot of leeway, but I never notice plot holes, continuity problems or dangling sub- plots when I watch these films. I don't know much about screenwriting (okay, I don't know anything about screenwriting) and the differences between writing for animation and for live- action, but they must be doing something better at Pixar or else I'd be as much in awe of Disney's animated works. OK, sure, the animation is like photorealism. It's mind-boggling. Still, I think without their genius at telling a good story, Pixar would never be where it is today. Beloved by 3-year olds, in body and in spirit, everywhere!

year: 1998
length: 96 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120623/combined

Samurai II: Duel at Ichijoji Temple

I wasn't sure this second part of the trilogy would be better than the first part. It is mostly because Toshirô Mifune was the actor he was. In the first part, he's a silly, mistaken young man who thinks that war is cool and life's going to be easy. He'll make a hero of himself in the war and become a samurai. That film has him learning that becoming a samurai involves sacrifice and a lot of very hard work. This film opens with him proving that he has become a good warrior but still not yet a samurai. Not a silly boy anymore, though, and that's Mifune's strength as an actor. He shows us the path of this man's life, his foibles and his triumphs, and we have no trouble believing it. And empathizing as well. The second part is in color, but lit very darkly. It's rare that a scene takes place in the daytime. Sword fights take place at dusk and creeping around happens at night. The cinematography is even more incredible this time around, e.g., early silent (except for warrior yells and screams) battles through rice paddies and forests in the moonlight. There are more villainous characters in this part and it gets a little tough to keep everyone straight. In particular because there are two women in love with him from the first part and they continue to follow him and try to win his love in this part. I found the hand-wringing of the females quite irritating the further into the film I got. The women continually moan that they can't do anything else in life but follow him around. Yet he can't be with a woman because of his samurai code. His is a life of denial and heartbreak. I understand the oath he cannot break, but I find it difficult to accept the women's point of view. They supposedly love him because he's so honorable and better than all the other guys, but in fact he consistently ignores them. Are these women who only want what they can't have? I guess I'll have to wait for the third film to find out.

original title: Zoku Miyamoto Musashi: Ichijôji no Kettô
year: 1955
length: 104 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048579/combined

Winged Migration

I'm a former birder, so I'm bound to love this film. But I think that there will be few people who won't thoroughly enjoy it. You'd think you'd be bored watching birds flying for 98 minutes with very little commentary to accompany them. You'll be surprised! These birds fly incredibly long distances twice a year in order to feed (e.g., the Arctic Tern flies pole to pole twice a year, that's 12,500 miles each way). It seems incredible to me that they'd store energy for half a year just so they can expend all of that to get somewhere and start over. Wouldn't it be easier just to hibernate for a few months?! Anyway, it doesn't matter why they do it, it's incredible to watch the process. The filmmakers spent 4 years making this film (so, yes, that is the WTC in the background as the birds fly past NYC) using ultralight aircraft and, apparently, some specially trained birds. Most of the film is from the viewpoint of a bird in the flock looking at the bird next to him. You can even hear the birds breathing and the feathers ruffling. Perhaps this feels so special because it seems as if you're flying with the birds, and who hasn't dreamed of being able to fly? I hope there's a meta-documentary on how they made this film because I think they should be given a medal just for developing a method of filming birds in flight that's so breathtaking.

original title: Le Peuple Migrateur
year: 2001
length: 98 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0301727/combined

Whale Rider

The emotions ride very close to the surface in this film, so you can expect to get very weepy watching it. It's nearly like watching melodrama (which usually is too sticky for me), except that it is saved by being rooted in legend. A young girl, born of a line of chiefs of the Maori people of New Zealand, is passed up for training to become the next chief because of her gender. It becomes apparent that she is "the one" (much more clearly than Neo in The Matrix) as she develops what can only be called powers that only she possesses. While the film's overt theme is discrimination, this is not its only feature. In the end, the film is as much about gender as it is about the nearly- forgotten mysticism of the Maori, and their hopes and dreams. Quite a difficult balance to achieve, and it's done beautifully. The girl chosen to play the main character is a marvel. She is able to play stubborn but not petulant, sad but not weepy (except in one very well-done scene), a tomboy but also plainly a girl. Weirdly, she looks like a very young Jennifer Beals (which is distracting for those who remember Flashdance). The scenery is not as extra-special gorgeous as in The Lord of the Rings series. You see how the Maori people live, and it's quite similar to the reservations here in America.

year: 2002
length: 105 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298228/combined

Rangeela

I'm renting a lot of Bollywood films lately, and while they're fun as cultural exercises, they are lacking in the sophistication department. Like most (but not all) Bollywood films, the plot is your basic love story, made a little more interesting because it's set as a movie within a movie. It stars the great Aamir Khan, who can emote with the best of them, but the film seems more like an extended Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue than anything else. Many, many shots of the female lead dancing seductively on her own. Lots of suggestive poses between the female and male leads, however since it's a Hindi film there is never anything improper, i.e., no kissing (much less anything else). Which is all the more ridiculous when the leads start singing "your body turns me on" and other variations on that theme. (Ridiculous, of course, for Western eyes.) The dancing and singing sequences are fun to watch, and the leading lady truly is gorgeous, but otherwise it's pretty laughable.

year: 1995
length: 142 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114234/combined

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

All I remembered about this film was the last 10 minutes. Yeah, a darn amazing last 10 minutes, true! But I couldn't remember one word of the rest of the film so I knew it was time to see it again. As my ancient movie reviews book at home states (the one I go to when I'm too lazy to boot up the computer), this film works on so many levels. While I think I'd have to start a dissertation to find them all, what I was most impressed by was how Jack Nicholson and, in particular, Louise Fletcher developed their characters. Nicholson plays a man who has compassion for his fellow human beings, no matter whether they're supposedly insane or not, while Fletcher as the nurse has no compassion whatsoever for her patients. Nicholson is the only person who could have played R. P. McMurphy. He makes him completely real and believable. Fletcher's role is much more subtle. You see her character modulate her voice and be consistently polite (although not nice) by using her patient's last names. By creating a character that we can easily imagine meeting, she makes us detest that character more than if it were a black "Darth Vader" caricature. On the other hand, I'm sure that when I watched it before, I sided completely with Nicholson's character. This time I viewed it from more angles, and it made the film that much more complex. Who really is to blame for what happens to Billy? That's a tough question, one which will be part of that dissertation I write. Last word, though: Kirk Douglas, who starred in the play, championed this film for years, and from the beginning thought Milos Forman was the perfect director for it. He eventually passed it off to his son, Michael, to find a producer who would be willing to make it. From start to finish, it took 13 years to make. Definitely better late than never.

year: 1975
length: 133 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073486/combined

Paths of Glory

You've probably figured out that I'm viewing a lot of classics and auteur films in my quest to see anything that's worthwhile watching. (According to whom? Well, that's another discussion.) It seems that half the time I rent one of these films it lives up to its hype. The other half of the time I'm usually perplexed. I'm getting the feeling that some of the time this can be chalked up to the subject matter, e.g., war films aren't usually my favorite. And sometimes I feel that the film is dated, e.g., 1930s brand of silliness can be very un-funny now. The remainder of this other half I pigeonhole into a category I'm going to call "doesn't have that zsa zsa zsu to it." In the case of this film, I'm placing it in the latter category. I've been known to really like war films (e.g., Patton) and potentially dated films (e.g., It Happened One Night). But if a film doesn't have anything to make me sit up and pay attention then it lands in the last category. This film has a rather pedestrian script -- three soldiers who are accused of being cowards are sentenced to death, and the only one who can save them is their commander, played by Kirk Douglas. The entire film is about the politics of war. It has what is considered an incredible ending, but which missed the boat in my opinion because it yanks the viewer away from musing about bureaucracy and politics into the broader context of "war is bad." Which is completely true, but that's not what the film is about. This is one of Stanley Kubrick's first films and I'm not sure he'd found his sea legs yet. It's better than average, but not anywhere near as masterful as A Clockwork Orange or Eyes Wide Shut. I'm guessing I'll get another round of hate mail about this, so if you'd like to disagree with me, I'd appreciate someone telling me what all the hype is about.

year: 1957
length: 87 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050825/combined