Tully

Not quite your sweet love story. Young teenager romanticizes his long-dead m other and that affects all his relationships with other women. He comes around, so it could be typecast as your typical coming-of-age film. But it doesn't feel like anything typical. Which is strange, because if you break down the plot, there's really nothing new here. I think its saving grace is in how natural it feels. Even the ending, which is telegraphed with bright red flashing lights (or the cinematic equivalent thereof). There's nothing special done with cinematography -- no close-ups when there perhaps should be, no effects, not enough sweeping vistas to show the beauty of farm country. It's the acting that gives it the über-natural feel. And, no, you won't recognize any of the actors (unless you pay extreme close attention to popular TV series). It's a very simple film with a very small budget, not meant to be clever or exceedingly thought provoking. I was aware of a devotion to Clint Eastwood-directed films, albeit with less complexity in terms of plot. I'd characterize the film as one of those under-the-radar types that tells the truth without gloss or pomp. What a breath of fresh air.

year: 2000
length: 102 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212604/combined

Ocean's Twelve

Apparently, there is this bastion of people who detested the re-make of Ocean's Eleven (from 2001). I can sorta understand where they're coming from -- the current Brat Pack getting together, having a lark, you know what the outcome will be, what's the big deal? (Of course, the other part of me says, if you don't like stuff like this, why'd you go see it?) But, Steven Soderbergh and the screenwriter of the original film deserve quite a bit of credit, in my opinion. My husband and I watched the original film in Milwaukee a few Christmases ago, when there was nothing else to do, and we wondered whether our enjoyment of it was due to our need for anything to entertain us. Still, we woke up the next morning with certain plot twists still on our mind and have watched that film a couple times over the years. We still enjoy it -- it's clever, twisty, funny, one of my favorite heist films of all time. Ocean's Twelve has all of those elements except the last. It tries to bring back the magic of the first, but it's biggest problem is that, well, nothing happens. I think it was an NPR commentator who was the first I heard to remark on the complete lack of action. Granted, the first one wasn't your blow-'em-up type of heist. Still, one daring stunt in the second film, and it isn't even performed by one of the twelve? The cleverness is almost worth the price of the film, and if you like cinematic (ok, Hollywood) in-jokes, it'll be particularly fun. But it is the Soderbergh pack, scraping by on the acting (except Catherine Zeta-Jones, who apparently wasn't aware that these films are supposed to be one big party), and just having a ball. It should bring a smile to your face, if nothing else.

year: 2004
length: 120 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349903/combined

Closer

It's only been half an hour since I saw this, but I'm going to place it in my top three films of the year (so far). Right up there with Eternal Sunshine and I Heart Huckabees. Yeah, it could be knocked off the pedestal, but it would take a lot. It's always a relief to see stuff like this. After so many mediocre films, you forget that not all the good ideas are used up. And that's not to say that the theme of the film is unique, just that its design is. This one is about unfaithfulness and deceit. That's the non-unique part. But I won't describe much more because you should walk in knowing as little as possible about it. Regarding the plot, I'll just say that your instincts on what kind of characters are being played by Julia Roberts, Jude Law, Clive Owen and Natalie Portman will be thoroughly changed by the end. The dialogue is spare, yet every line counts and every pause counts. It's a film that will make you very uncomfortable and for a reason. It's a film that is very much about sex but is not at all titillating. It's a film that should feel unreal, but doesn't. And lastly, it's a film that you should not, under any circumstance, take a first date or new lover to. Unless of course you never want to see them again. Go with trusted friends, a spouse of many years, your parents if they're ultra-hip. It'll be worth it.

year: 2004
length: 104 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376541/combined

Before Sunrise

Yet another film I'd think was sent from heaven if I was in my mid-twenties! (i.e ., angsty Garden State-like film). The tale of two twenty-somethings who meet on a train, one an American (Ethan Hawke) moping his way through Europe towards Vienna where he has a last night before heading home, the other a French woman (Julie Delpy) on her way home to Paris for school. I'd heard so much good stuff about this flick, that it was this big thought piece with lots of insight into the human condition. On some level it is, being a conversation between a woman and a man about most of the things that we find interesting. But, actually it's simply a bunch of stories strung together, the same stories you'll talk about with your friends, except maybe not all in one night. But what makes these stories special? We all spend time thinking about the questions in these stories in the course of our lives, which is of course why this film would work better for the younger crowd. Positive things about the film include the gradual revealing of differences between Hawke's character and Delpy's (e. g., Hawke's skepticism vs. Delpy's optimism) and an excellent scene in a restaurant where they make fake phone calls to friends. I found Hawke a bit irritating because he was trying too hard, not making it natural-looking enough. Still, there was definitely chemistry between the two stars, without which it would have been like watching fingernails on a chalkboard. I remain, even with reservations, interested in watching the follow-up, Before Sunset, which takes place ten years later, if for no other reason than to see if they've learned anything in those ten years. After all, what good is listening to people talk about life that they haven't lived yet?

year: 1995
length: 105 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112471/combined

The Magdalene Sisters

These Magdalene Asylums in Ireland were set up to house and care for women (the Magdalene Sisters) who had borne children out of wedlock, or even women who seemed to be good bets for tempting men. Horrible things, these asylums, and not necessarily only because of the hard slave labor conditions, or the cruel attitudes of the nuns who ran these asylums. The horror of these places was that these women were separated from their babies and sent away by their families, in some cases for the rest of their lives. It is as if these women ceased to exist. That's certainly what the Church wanted, to weed out these women from general society. Problem is, they'd done nothing wrong. They hadn't killed, stolen or maimed anyone. They'd had a child out of wedlock, which is immoral and a mortal sin in the Catholic faith, but doesn't warrant someone being "disappeared" from society. Unfortunately, while the film shows us the cruelty of these places and the desperate measures some girls went to to try and escape, it doesn't tell us what happened to these asylums and why they were finally closed (the last one in 1996). Even the documentary that the film was based on, which is part of the DVD, doesn't address this. So, the film felt incomplete to me -- if this cruelty is the basis for the film, at least do us the favor of telling us why it stopped happening! Did the women who escaped or were released let the world know? Was there public outcry? Did those who ran these institutions finally discover the errors of their ways? Without this, it's just melodrama, and that's a pity.

year: 2002
length: 119 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318411/combined

I Heart Huckabees

It's taken me some time to get to this review. I just don't know how to describe this film. In one sense, it's a straight drama. In another, it's a thought piece sorta like Eternal Sunshine. In yet another, it's a mystery, although in a dramatic, thought-provoking manner. OK, I give up -- it's a film on many levels. David O. Russell gets the prize as the most scattered (and antagonistic) director, and it's hard to believe he can put together so coherent a film. It revolves around a number of very different characters -- the poet turned environmental activist, the perfect company man, the existential detectives themselves (Lily Tomlin and Dustin Hoffman), a competing existential analyst, a tormented firefighter, a beautiful model. You wouldn't think these people have anything in common but that's where Russell's style worked for me. They discuss their life issues with each other (and I mean "why are we here" type issues) until you understand that everyone has the same life issues, in the long run. Some of the scenes are painful to watch, such as when the parents of the poet/activist are confronted by the existential analyst. Some of the childhood anaylsis that ensues hit me hard in the solar plexus. But most of it is funny. Mark Wahlberg getting hit repeatedly in the face with a big rubber ball can only be funny. If there's a false note, it's Jude Law's American accent, which sounds too contrived. Otherwise, he, and the rest of the actors, are marvelous. It's not possible to offer more of a storyline, suffice it to say that there is one and you will be rewarded for paying close attention.

year: 2004
length: 106 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356721/combined

Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason

Ugh. The worst kind of sequel is one that doesn't do anything different from its predecessor. One that uses the same gags, in the same order, with exactly the same cast of characters. (Sub- supporting characters notwithstanding.) This film has all those things, and if you like your films with no surprises, go see this one. It's got all the original stuff: the jealousy, Hugh Grant messing up the works, the enormous panties, the fist fight, etc., etc. Of course, this one does have the Thai prison in it, but it's treated so differently from its presence in the book (where it was clear that it actually was a hardship) as to be faintly embarrassing to those of us who've read it. The filmmakers seem to be trying to stuff Renée Zellweger's derriere into tighter and tighter dresses, all merely for the giggle effect, which is simply boring. Zellweger's character also seems to wobble more than in the original between being a woman with a firm grasp of what she wants and a gibbering idiot. I just would have preferred a different cinematic approach (if you can use the word cinematic in this review without getting thrown out of the Amateur Reviewers Club). I would recommend reading the book instead -- it's funny, fresh, and weirder than the first in parts, in other words much more fun that this snorer.

year: 2004
length: 108 min.
rating: 1.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317198/combined

Ray

So much has been said about Jamie Foxx's transformation in this film that to repeat it here seems almost moot. But just in case you haven't heard it already, Foxx puts in a career-defining turn channeling Ray Charles in this biopic of his life, warts and all. Although it might sound trite to say this, Foxx did his homework. His Ray is how Ray looked and sounded in real life -- high-pitched voice, slightly mumbly, but with clipped words, and of course the trademark smile and self-hug. It's not trite, because it matters. After 5 minutes, I forgot completely I was watching anyone other than Charles. There are few biopics for which you can make that claim (including Nixon and Malcolm X). The film is long, but in the long run too short. It focuses on the beginning and middle of his career (arguably his best music years), but flashes back to the tragedies of his boyhood, astoundingly assisted by Sharon Warren who plays his mother. This is the actress' first film role, and she is one to keep an eye on, no doubt. In truth, all the female roles -- his mother, his wife, his mistresses -- are richly played, more so than I expected in a film about the life of a man. Charles' unique, catchy, constantly fresh music is treated as the thread that binds the film together, as background and as distinct scenes, and here again I have to point out my awe at Foxx's work. He went to college on a classical pianist scholarship and armed with that training, learned every one of the over 100 piano cues so that he could play them himself in the film (although they are dubbed over with Charles' own playing). We should all be on tenterhooks waiting to see what this comedian, indisputably turned dramatic actor, will do next.

year: 2004
length: 152 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0350258/combined

Igby Goes Down

A film with no soul. Every line in this movie sounds like it was uttered by haughty, sophisticated, extremely well-bred morons. It's prep taken far too far. In other words, I didn't like it because I don't want to believe these people exist any more than I want to believe religious fundamentalists exist. Kieran Culkin reminds me of a cuter, younger Tobey Maguire. Same mannerisms, same baby face. The film is loaded with top actors, some of them even playing against type (although Claire Danes does indulge in one of her trademark chin-quivering scenes). But who cares? It's all ridiculous -- son hates mother, with fewer reasons we can discern as the film progresses, while getting kicked out of all the schools she labors to put him in, seemingly only as an act of rebellion. This is a great example of a youth angst film that's the complete opposite of Garden State. The latter was sweet and charming because you felt empathy for the main characters. In this film, you feel nothing but contempt for these poor little rich kids.

year: 2002
length: 97 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280760/combined

Tombstone

With lines like "Ain't that a daisy?" and "I'm your huckleberry." Val Kilmer steals this show, playing Doc Holiday, the thief with tuberculosis from the Earp brothers OK Corral tale. Spoken with a refined Southern accent the likes of which you've never heard before, he early on becomes the only reason to watch the film. Not ably assisted by Kurt Russell, Sam Elliott (who doesn't have much to say, so you can't blame him) and Bill Paxton the film devolves into the worst kind of maudlin sentiment, complete with hokey flirting scenes (worst among them the horse chasing scene). This is B-movie material and it's a great pity that Kilmer is in it as he shouldn't be relegated to drivel. I would recommend keeping one eye on the TV set and only putting down your knitting when you get to Val. Watch, rewind, re-watch, repeat. You won't be sorry.

year: 1993
length: 130 min.
rating: 1.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108358/combined

24 Hour Party People

Is it a documentary? Is it a mockumentary? Is it a biography? Yes. The story of Tony Wilson's efforts to bring punk rock to the world, beginning in Manchester, England, with all the obvious roadblocks included (e.g., punk? ew!, packed rave hall but no funds, insane musician-producer contracts). Could have been interesting as a straight-up documentary, but instead is played as a comedy with Wilson's role filled by comedian Steve Coogan. And mostly it is funny, with all the missteps and faux- violent attitudes of punk rockers, except when it's deadly serious (as when the lead singer of a seminal band dies). It's also got some unique hallucinogenic film "enhancements," such as a UFO segment that needs to be seen to be believed. The filmmakers are doing their best to mimic the feel of the punk rock movement and if nothing else it is interesting. But if punk wasn't or isn't your life, the impact of the film is less than intended. I would recommend it as slice-of-culture entertainment, and to see Coogan in a role perfect for his cynical talents.

year: 2002
length: 117 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0274309/combined

The Village

I certainly liked this film better than Signs. Those dorky-looking aliens stretched the limits of plausibility and ruined the whole film for me. This film has nothing so tangibly out of sync, however, it is a Shyamalan film, so you can assume the surprise ending. If you listen very closely, there will be no surprise (hint: listen for what's not being said), but even if you figure it out (for me it came during the wedding party, as the issue of sister bonding is being discussed) it's clever enough and revealed slowly enough to be recognized as a decent plot device. What matters is that the surprise is not what the film is about, and it separates this film from the rest of the Shyamalan pack. One has to wonder if he wrote it during the mass despair following 9/11. To me, it channeled the zeitgeist of America then (as it is now), i.e., our culture of fear. The "village" of the title is a community living in a valley surrounded by woods populated by fearsome beasts, keeping the villagers content in the life they've built but constantly scared of what could take it all away. Sound familiar? Populated by able actors including William Hurt, Joaquin Phoenix and especially the marvelous Bryce Dallas Howard as a young brave blind woman. There are further themes in the film, but they are obvious only after the surprise is revealed, so I'll leave them for you to discover.

year: 2004
length: 107 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368447/combined

Duel

I've been noticing lately a clear division between excellent films and everything else. That sounds obvious written down, but let me explain. A handful (maybe a few dozen) of films I feel I can recommend to anyone and be certain that 99% of those people will recognize their greatness. Everything else is opinion -- people can either love or hate a film depending on whether they like the actors, the theme, or the mood of the film (or what mood they're in when they go to see it). This film is one of those handful and its description is bound to increase your skepticism of my theory. A guy driving to a meeting is terrorized by a large truck. That's it. Based on a short story originally published in Playboy, it was picked up by Steven Spielberg's assistant at the start of his career, as he was shooting 1960s TV episodes. And as boring as it sounds, I place this first film at the same level as Spielberg's most serious (and masterful) effort, Schindler's List. Go right ahead and be skeptical -- the more you are, the more pleased you will be by the end result. If you rent the DVD, watch the featurette interviewing Spielberg about the making of the film. If he isn't teaching potential filmmakers, he should be. He's one of the few visionary directors who can also excels at discussing technical and compositional issues of film directing. And he's passionate and intelligent which only improves his appeal. My favorite point of his from the featurette is how important it is for a film director to believe in the film he is making -- whether it's Jurassic Park or Amistad -- because if you don't believe in it, why will the audience?

year: 1971
length: 90 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067023/combined

Withnail & I

A few of the featurettes included on this DVD looked intriguing, so I flipped through some of them. But when I reached the one describing how the producers wanted to pull the plug on the film a week in and the director is bemusedly explaining this is because they thought the film wasn't funny, I snorted and turned it off. Damn straight this film isn't funny. The word I would use is excruciating. There is maximum one very funny scene (the one with the bull), but the rest of the film is unintelligible, and that has nothing to do with the British accents. Ostensibly the story of two friends in the 1960s who decide they need a vacation from their daily grind, consisting of desperately trying out for theatrical productions, the film meanders from one boring soliloquy to the next, interspersed with dialogue that has nothing to do with the plot (what plot?). It's also offensive to gay people, in its assumption that gays are natural predators. If you make it to the end, I'd be happy if you'd let me know what it was all about (like I said, what plot?). The only reason it gets that extra 1/2 point rating is because I adore watching Richard E. Grant do his stuff. Who cares if he's impossible to understand? It's his attitude and aura that are entrancing.

year: 1987
length: 107 min.
rating: 1.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094336/combined

Captain Blood

My husband read this 1922 book by Rafael Sabatini and was so enchanted by the language that he wanted to see the film. Never seen Errol Flynn? This is a great introduction (as it was for me) to the definitive cinematic swashbuckler. I think his legend has done him a disfavor -- billed as so naughty off the set, he has a rep like Rudolph Valentino but is leaps and bounds beyond that silent screen star's abilities. It's surprising that he ever had difficulty finding a niche in Hollywood, particularly as he could have just as easily been a Shakespearean actor, with his method of delivery and subtle expressivity. If this were filmed today, the visual effects spectacle would overwhelm the story. Not so in a 1930s film, and it gives it a hokey quality (check out those fake ocean backgrounds!), but if you can look past that, sit back, and watch Flynn and the interplay between him and the lovely, spunky Olivia de Havilland, you'll have as much fun watching this as any popcorn film today.

year: 1935
length: 119 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0026174/combined

Curb Your Enthusiasm

Watched The Office? Admired and enjoyed it, while peeping through your fingers as at a horror film? Then you'll find this series a hoot. While you're cringing for different reasons (The Office: clueless people, Curb Your Enthusiasm: clueless situations), you're enjoying them for the same reason -- brilliant comedy. Larry David, writer and producer of Seinfeld, has created a show that supposedly mirrors his own life, although we have to hope everything in the show doesn't happen in his life. Happening to meet the Barney's shoe salesman on the street from whom he purchased a replacement pair of lost shoes while happening to be carrying the found shoes? Right. So, the situations are Shakespearean, in the sense of idiot plots and misunderstandings galore. It could be laughable (and not in the hilarious sense), but he's created tight scripts that are humorous on several levels -- the situations themselves, the ad-libbed interactions between the characters, and the re-visiting of elements from previous episodes. I admit I was quite skeptical myself, and unfortunately any description cannot do it justice. You just have to experience it for yourself.

year: 2000-?
length: seasons 1-2 on DVD, season 5 picked up
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0264235/combined

Empire of Dreams: The Story of the Star Wars Trilogy

Yes, this is George Lucas created, so you need to keep a healthy dose of cynicism about you as you watch. Still, much of this documentary about the making of the original Star Wars trilogy seems to be fact-based and balanced. Naturally, there is zero reference to the critical and fan revulsion of his recent Star Wars films. Instead, he makes us all laugh by acting surprised that his adherence to the independent film ethic has backfired as he's become the head of a conglomerate corporation consisting of Lucasfilm, THX, Industrial Light and Magic, and other offshoots. Still, the documentary is appealing due mostly to the interviews with the cast and crew, especially Mark Hamill, who is an engaging and humorous interviewee. How I would love to see him in some new films, and not just as the voice actor he has become. (And here's hoping he gets some in-person acting gigs because of this doc.) The other reason this documentary keeps your interest is the skill displayed in matching the interviews with production materials, no more evident than in interview segments with Lucas discussing the casting process interspersed with original casting call videos. Wonder how the lead cast members were chosen? I'm sure casting is a difficult process, but it's beyond evident to the viewer why the principals were picked. If you don't have an abiding detest of Lucas that prevents you from watching him onscreen, you shouldn't hesitate to check this out. It's on the 4th disc of the new Star Wars trilogy DVD set.

year: 2004
length: 151 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416716/combined

The Notebook

All women should take their husbands/partners to this movie, if only to ask "so, do you love me THAT much?" On the surface, the film seems like a conventional young love story, but it is interspersed with a similar tale of unrequited love, only this is between an elderly man and the wife who can't remember who he is anymore. He reads a beautiful story every day to her, trying to bring back her memories. James Garner and Gena Rowlands play the husband and wife, and they are the main reasons to see this film, as they effortlessly bring these characters into our hearts. The movie is based on the novel by Nicholas Sparks, and it follows it religiously (I think there was one scene which I didn't remember from the book). The sappy romance-novel part of the book is handled graciously in the film (except for Noah carrying Allie up the stairs with his pants down around his ankles -- yeah, right) and the trajectory of the young couple in love is more than adequately rendered by Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams, both relative newcomers to the film industry (McAdams was the meanest girl in Mean Girls). They have a palpable chemistry together, and effectively play their different acting styles off each other, making their characters more believable. If there is a flaw, Gosling doesn't always make visible the depth of his character's feeling. His character is supposed to be taciturn, but you'll see how this is somewhat unbelievable as the film continues. The best scene does belong to him, though -- the scene next to the car as she is about to leave him a second time. McAdams' reaction is that of every woman if the man she loved revealed this.

year: 2004
length: 124 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0332280/combined

Wimbledon

Without a doubt, Working Title Films has cornered the market on British romantic films. Unfortunately, at least half these films do not live up to early standards (e.g., Four Weddings and a Funeral, Bridget Jones' Diary, Elizabeth) and become dull echoes (e.g., Love Actually, Notting Hill). They've discovered their niche, and are now at the stage whereby they figure they don't need to work too hard to attract their audience. They got me to go! Even with middling reviews and the inclusion of a middling actress, Kirsten Dunst (the best thing going for her is that she's as tiny as actresses are supposed to be nowadays). Paul Bettany struggles to do something, anything, with his role, a hopeless task when he's given nothing to work with. It's the basic romance tale, with the addition of tennis, which is all anyone ever talks about when it comes to this film -- how intensely the actors trained to look like real tennis players (although those balls must be digitally included). If you like tennis, go ahead. That part's well done. (And one of the funnier things to notice is how hushed the movie-going audience gets when the tennis audience in the film is silent for the next play.) The rest of us can give it a miss. If only because the funny lines are sparse, the chemistry between the two stars is nil, and the obviousness of the ending is only for the very young and those who never, ever want their films to end with the smallest deviation from the standard plot.

year: 2004
length: 98 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360201/combined

I, Robot

I told my husband that he wasn't going to like my review. Why? Because Will Smith is definitely hot! With that out of the way, let me explain what I mean by hot. He brings something special to each role, a combination of humor, looks, a rippling bod (had to get that in there) and a unique ability to give his lines a spin that bring new meaning to them. That is no small feat and takes practice, if nothing else. He was the only good thing about Independence Day and his cameo in Jersey Girl endears him to parents (and women who think the world of committed family men). I won't go so far as to say he saves this film, but he is a large component of why it works. Bridget Moynahan is fine, nothing too special there, but the sharp script and excellent robot animation are the foundation Smith works off of. The robots act like robots, but look human (particularly the "special" robot) without which the story would have been nonsense. Smith plays a man with a deep distrust for robots who on the eve of the largest robot distribution ever plays his hunch that something is disturbingly wrong at the corporation for robot creation. It's not one of Isaac Asimov's stories, but the base elements (the three laws, the distrust, the anomalies) are taken from them. Without a doubt, for an action flick, this was great fun and worth all those pennies.

year: 2004
length: 115 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0343818/combined

Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak

Oy. The Indian Romeo and Juliet. Oops, I just gave it away. Well, I doubt any of you are going to see this film (especially after this review), so I don't feel too bad. This film was, apparently, a turning point for Indian cinema. Nothing like it had been done before. My guess is that most of their cinema was (is) silly romances (not unlike our own, in fact) and that this broke the barrier with its shocking ending. However, that doesn't mean it's a good film. In fact, most of it plays like a silly romance. At least in the beginning, this is mind-numbingly boring, what with the horrible over-acting, insipid costuming and tunes that aren't even remotely catchy. The ending (about the last 45 minutes) does make one sit up and notice, but Aamir Khan is nearly unrecognizable. He's a young budding actor and hasn't flowered yet. And that goes for his looks as well. So, I'll have to revise my method of watching all Aamir Khan films. I'll only watch his recent ones, i.e., mid-90s and onwards, unless I want to groan and roll my eyes constantly.

year: 1988
length: 162 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095936/combined

Tokyo Godfathers

I was enchanted by this film. It's got everything an animated film should have -- a good story, beautifully rendered "sets", and action that is partially rooted in reality. In this case, the latter does not mean fantastical action (like leaping off tall buildings and surviving), but action in terms of exaggerated facial expressions, slow-mo and a Martin Scorsese-like way of telling the story without showing all of the story. It's slow in parts, and then ramps up such that you almost can't keep up. It's also a film that will have you laughing one second and whimpering the next. Plus, while it's rooted in the Japanese psyche, it's not like Hayao Miyazaki's films and their potential to leave Westerners far behind. You'll "get" it, trust me. This is the tale of three homeless folk in Tokyo (as you guessed, it's in Japanese with subtitles) who find a baby and try and return it to its rightful mother. You may find yourself a little lost in places because the plot twists and turns all the time, so strap on your Mulholland Drive thinking cap and pay close attention. What a reward!

year: 2003
length: 92 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388473/combined

The Parent Trap

Hayley Mills is simply marvelous (and I understand she was never this marvelous again) in the role of twins who want to get their parents back together again so one won't have to live with one parent and the other with the other. This concept is, obviously, ridiculous in this day and age -- without a clue as to why they separated in the first place, the girls figure together must be better than apart, because surely a miserable family together is better than a miserable family apart. Sure, whatever. What they didn't know in 1961! Some of the other things they didn't know back then include how to match the speed of a fake background with the actual speed the actors are walking. Did they just not care about stuff like that? (It's Disney, perhaps it's supposed to look artificial.) Or did they just not have the technical know-how to do it right? Heck, the actors look like they're on roller skates! And, one of the songs is quite fun -- "Let's Get Together" -- but the Maureen O'Hara tune is cringe-worthy. O'Hara may be many things, but a lip-syncher she ain't. Probably the most egregious example of how clueless they were is the flippant use of violence, in this case O'Hara punching her husband, Brian Keith. It's worked in as part of the story, not at all horror-inducing. Eep. So, what makes this film worth watching? Mills, working both sides. She flawlessly plays the sisters as separate personalities (except when the story wants them to be alike), and is the perfect mixture of rebel and sweet. Just what any parent would want in a child.

year: 1961
length: 129 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055277/combined

Narc

The things I will watch in the name of complete coverage -- all genres, all types, all moods. This film has an extended scene of a three-week-old dead guy in a bathtub with his head shot off. Crime scene, cops with handkerchiefs over their mouths, a blasé medical examiner, and all you can think is -- get me away from this room!! Horrific just reading about it, right? Well, that's the tenor of the film. And if you want gritty, if you want to see what being a narcotics officer or inner-city cop might be like, or just what the world we try and ignore is like, than this is your film. (Hey, and it's set in Detroit, too.) It's produced by the team of Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner, which might be surprising to some. It's somewhat surprising to me, Cruise backing this kind of film, a film that is never going to make it big, chiefly due to its grittiness. The film uses some obvious set-ups (e.g., one cop can shoot, the other can't, the lead character's wife is upset about him taking on another job), but makes subtle differences that keep it interesting. Ray Liotta is fantastic, as usual, although still doing his freak impression. Jason Patric is restrained, which often in his case is just plain boring, but here works to great effect. I'm not sure what the intent of the film is -- illustrating the difficulty of being a cop, meting out justice even if not by the rules, the residual effects of being a narc -- but the mood of it does the job. The twist ending doesn't hurt either.

year: 2002
length: 105 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0272207/combined

My Life Without Me

Here's a simple film, not trying to be more than it is, but being less of a film for not being more complex. Sarah Polley plays a young woman who learns that she will die of cancer in the next few months. The film tells the story of what she does to try and ensure that everything in her life will go on as smoothly as it can without her around. This isn't anything new to tales of people with fatal illnesses, but you are put off by her rational, unemotional approach. In the beginning this gives the film a fantastical edge, until we understand that this is the kind of person she is. Lack of emotion about one's impending deat his disturbing, however. I'm tired of films that portray the stoic cancer patient (One True Thing, Forrest Gump, Stepmom). I'd be upset, wouldn't you? Polley is magnificent in her chosen role, though, as usual. Supporting characters are just as wonderful -- Amanda Plummer as Polley's friend, Scott Speedman as her husband, Debbie Harry as her mother and the ever-present Mark Ruffalo as the man she cheats on her husband with. It's never clear why she doesn't consider how a passionate affair that he is unaware will be short-lived might emotionally destroy him. That's a pretty selfish act, even if you're dying and want to experience as much as possible before you go. The feeling of being in a fantasy world is heightened by the final shots, and though you're meant to leave the film feeling better because of them, their unreal character ended up making me feel worse for those left behind.

year: 2003
length: 106 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314412/combined

The Battle Over Citizen Kane

This documentary makes an extraordinary effort to create similarities between William Randolph Hearst and Orson Welles. I'm not sure I agree. Hearst was a megalomaniac who was fixated on money and did anything to make it, ruining lives and public perception while at it. Welles was a child prodigy, talented beyond belief, fixated on creativity and perfection, who made some people miserable while at it and was perceived as a boy genius by the public (unless you count his War of the Worlds broadcast which freaked out the entire Eastern seaboard). Fundamental difference, there. This is not a documentary about the making of the film (for that listen to the two audio commentaries by Roger Ebert and Peter Bogdanovich on the DVD of the film itself), but a documentary about the personalities behind the film, creator and subject. It's certainly interesting to learn about these men, and in that respect it's a well-structured documentary. But when the basic premise falls flat, the weighty tenor of the narration becomes somewhat ridiculous. I would suggest instead watching the film and listening to the commentaries, because it is in fact the best film ever made.

year: 1995
length: 108 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115634/combined

Garden State

What a sweet, quirky little film. I know that if I were 10 years younger, this would be a film to see over and over and over...kind of like how I felt about The Breakfast Club. It focuses on the travails of those in their late 20s to early 30s, in particular a numb film actor (Zach Braff), an epileptic former figure skater (Natalie Portman), a grave-digging slacker (Peter Sarsgaard), and a self-made millionaire with an unfurnished mansion and a golf cart for roaming around all the empty rooms. Plus a guy, his wife and baby who live in a grounded boat on the edge of a deep canyon-quarry. Did I say quirky? I meant kooky. There is a plot that reveals itself at a nice pace, an ending that matches the rest of the film, and some nice camera touches (the trippy spin-the-bottle scenes are a hoot). For a first screenwriting attempt, and a directorial debut, and both these things being done by a new actor on the Hollywood scene (Braff, currently on Scrubs), this is phenomenal work. He should pat himself on the back, write more scripts, get in touch with excellent directors and learn at their feet. Whether he can write anything non-angsty and more universal remains to be seen, but it's an excellent start.

year: 2004
length: 109 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0333766/combined

Sports Night

A friend of mine lent me all 2 seasons of this series, bless her heart. After a slow start, I'm hooked. (I like one amateur reviewer's descriptions of series like this: "Like a crack addict, I watch, and waste.") This was Aaron Sorkin's first TV series, before he wrote the unmatchable The West Wing. Ostensibly a comedy about a fictional sports show, it's mostly a prime-time soap opera, with just a dash of sports. As opposed to The West Wing -- if you're not interested in politics most of the dialogue will pass you right by. This show stars the delicious Peter Krause (now also deliciously in Six Feet Under) and the almost equally delicious Josh Charles (most notably from Dead Poets Society). Unfortunately, it also stars Joshua Malina, and while I understand why Sorkin needs this character on his shows, this guy can't do anything other than pure geek. He's supposed to also be a sexy guy who the associate producer character is all pent up over. Unbelievable. The guy exudes about as much sex appeal as a dead rabbit, and he isn't the hottest actor either. (And Malina replacing Rob Lowe in The West Wing -- what was Sorkin smoking?) The associate producer, Sabrina Lloyd, is too perky but I don't mind Felicity Huffmann as Dana, mostly because she keeps up her end in the unrequited love battle with Krause's character. So, what makes me want to watch this unabashed soap opera slash comedy series? It's great fun to see Sorkin in his early years, trying out his wings and flying often if not always. That script timing that's so famous in The West Wing is evident here, even if the lines are sometimes far too obvious. Future genius is very clear: my faves are the "Sally" episode at the end of season 1 (I never saw it coming), the choice of music for the you-waited-long-enough-for-this kiss, and the glass of water and eggnog scenes (good enough to induce belly laughs). And I'm only halfway through.

year: 1998-2000
length: 45 30-min. episodes
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0165961/combined

Titus

I approach nearly all Shakespeare film productions with trepidation because, to make no bones about it, oftentimes they are boring with a capital B. There are a handful that I will watch over and over again (most often, Much Ado About Nothing from 1993 and Richard III from 1995). Sadly, this would not be one of them. It's not due to any lack of cinematographic, costuming or mise-en-scene skill of Julie Taymor. How she makes Shakespeare's words work with wholly new scene designs is worth the money you pay to rent it. (In particular, watch the scene in which the father, brother, sister and uncle meet at the crossroads to the hanging.) The problem is more a factor of the lack of enthusiasm on the part of nearly all the actors, Alan Cumming and Harry Lennix excluded. Anthony Hopkins as the war hero Titus Andronicus was so bland I nodded off a few times during his soliloquies. This is a death knell for Shakespeare films; if you can't keep up your own interest, how do you expect the audience to do so? The ending is a real shocker, even for one of Will's tragedies, in its fast and furiousness. So, it's lengthy and sometimes boring or incomprehensible, but if you are a fan of Taymor's, you'll enjoy it well enough.

year: 1999
length: 162 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120866/combined

Collateral

Finally, Michael Mann is back to his roots in the crime drama. This is the man who got Robert De Niro and Al Pacino together for the crime epic Heat. And while this film isn't on the same level as that masterful piece of direction, it's in the same league. Tom Cruise plays a hitman with the agenda of taking out key witnesses to a crime in one dusk till dawn play through the streets of L.A. Unwillingly assisting him is Jamie Foxx as the cab driver unlucky enough to get this particular fare. The film is somewhat slow and thoughtful, trying to convince us of the goodness of Foxx's character while also pointing out the humanity of Cruise's character. That's somewhat (if not mostly) unbelievable, and worst of all, transparent. (The method of blatantly telegraphing how the audience is supposed to feel about characters is the worst screenwriting mistake a writer can make, in my book.) There are twists towards the end, and if nothing else Foxx is superb in what could be considered a thankless role, playing next to a high-wattage superstar. Probably the most interesting thing about the film is its grayness. Cruise's character is dressed in silver gray -- sharp, edgy, professional, daring. The lighting is somewhat blurred, creating the effect of grays instead of the sharp blacks and whites you might expect from a film shot at night. I was unaware that it was entirely digitally filmed until after seeing it, and that's a good thing, as it means that digital video is finding a foothold in certain types of films.

year: 2004
length: 120 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369339/combined

Hero

I'm thinking all the critics are starving for a picture just like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which is why they're giving this film such high ratings. It's not that the film isn't good because it is -- a moving tale of assassins, lovers, sacrifice, honor and doing the right thing even when it seems wrong. And it's one of the most beautiful films ever made, with vistas, flowing fabrics and colors leagues beyond Technicolor. But it's not a great film because the tale and the beauty aren't married. Each scenario told in a different color is eye-popping, but is it necessary to the story line? And too much of the sword fighting in the air and on the water was too reminiscent of CTHD, and repetition is never good. (Think sequels to The Matrix.) Still, the ending redeemed the film for me. It's a rare martial arts film that will make such a strong case for personal sacrifice instead of triumph, as a means to a more universal triumph. Whether the story of China you see in the last moments of the film is true or not, the film packs a big moral punch. Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung star as two of the assassins, which surprised me as I'm familiar with them from Wong Kar Wai's non- martial-arts Hong Kong films (chief among them In the Mood for Love). Jet Li is one of my four favorite martial arts actors, and it's a relief to finally see him in a film worth his salt after so many duds. And, this is an interesting departure for Zhang Yimou, after so many of his serious dramas starring Gong Li, so I'll be keeping an eye out for his next one. Perhaps a musical? (Kidding; it seems to be a drama again.)

original title: Ying Xiong
year: 2002
length: 96 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299977/combined

Napoleon Dynamite

As a friend of mine says, "this film makes Rushmore look like a big-budget feature." It's a good analogy. Rushmore was a quirky, independent comedy, and so is this film. But there's one large difference. In too many spots in this film, I was thinking "um, was that supposed to be funny?" Even worse, things that are clearly supposed to be funny only elicit weak smiles. This is almost certainly due to the film's odd flavor. A geeky teenage boy, named Napoleon Dynamite for some unknown reason, is growing up in a small, boring town in Idaho surrounded by characters almost as odd as he is. Napoleon himself is a strange mixture of apathy and confidence, with a generous dollop of up-yours-ness. My most facile description of the plot is that it is like watching many stale rejects of Saturday Night Live skits. (This is especially true during interactions between Napoleon and his Mexican friend.) So, did I like anything? Sure, with caveats. There is one excellent scene towards the end which I can't say anything about, however it doesn't make the whole film worth it. It was impressive that they got Lazlo from Real Genius to play the weird uncle. And I'll give it marks for the inventive title sequence, which bodes well for what you're about to see and then lets you down.

year: 2004
length: 86 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374900/combined

Elephant

As an elegy to the Columbine High School massacre, this is a perfect film. It's also an opportunity for director Gus Van Sant to think outside the box, a box he chafes at as much as Robert Altman (to name another Hollywood outsider). Your typical day at school -- going to classes, saying hi to your friends in the halls, wondering how you fit in the social hierarchy. Except that, of course, this isn't just another day. You don't see the killers until nearly halfway through the film, and it's at this point that the film is at its best. Van Sant follows particular kids through their day. At times they intersect each other's paths, so you start to get an idea of where they are in relation to each other. Once you see the killers, the film becomes nearly unbearable to watch, as you don't know when the shooting will start, even as you know where all the pawns are. Unfortunately, once the massacre does begin, it takes on a surreal quality which didn't fit with my need to understand what really happened. I realize what Van Sant is doing here (see: outside the box), but hey, no screaming, no full-blown panic, no hall monitors?! It disengaged me, but this may be no fault of Van Sant's. Once the horror begins, you've naturally lost a lot of momentum. Most interesting is the glimpse into the lives of perfectly normal- looking kids going about their plans to destroy their school. (I believe the real Columbine kids were not so obviously normal looking.) Kudos to the children who played the roles. As excellent amateurs, they made it more real than Van Sant could have hoped for.

year: 2003
length: 81 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363589/combined

Twilight Samurai

Okay, now this is weird. As you know, I've been watching a lot of Jane Austen flicks, and I've been cataloging their qualities here for you. I would never have expected to walk into this film and find myself thinking I was watching a Japanese Jane Austen. It's a samurai flick, for heaven's sake! Except that it isn't. It's more aptly labeled a period film. The main character, a masterless samurai of very little note, is widowed with two small children and a senile mother. A divorced childhood friend returns and they renew their friendship, albeit formally. Yes, you see the sword skills of the samurai, but there are only two fight scenes in the entire film. The weight of the film is on the customs and mores of the not-peasant, yet not-wealthy, samurai class. Caring for his children, worrying about making enough money, fighting his feelings for the childhood friend -- you see why I was thinking this was an Austen! Director Yoji Yamada is known for his comedic films (this is his first samurai-style film), and this is obvious in small ways throughout. My favorite is probably the reaction of the great-uncle to his senile sister, even though it is undoubtedly cruel. Acting is impeccable -- Hiroyuki Sanaba as the main character had a small role in The Last Samurai, even though he is one of the more talented, well- known actors in Japan. Cinematography is also interesting. Very darkly lit to mirror the title and mood of the film. I would recommend this as an alternate alternative to your basic samurai film (the other alternate is Zatôichi, also not your basic samurai film but in a completely different way).

original title: Tasogare Seibei
year: 2002
length: 129 min.
rating: 3.
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0351817/combined

The Forsyte Saga

Good thing I work in a library. The internet was a complete waste of time in figuring out what constitutes "The Forsyte Saga" by John Galsworthy. Without this information, how would I know whether they've filmed the entire Saga or not? The answer is complex -- the original Forsyte Saga is done, i.e., the latest two mini-series to come from Granada Television. (I know little about the original 1960s BBC mini-series.) However, Galsworthy continued to write about his fictional Forsytes in two more sets of books. I don't know if there are plans to film these, and I waver between wanting much more of this excellent series, and wanting them to leave well enough alone. The Forsytes are a moneyed British clan coming apart at the seams due to a horrible scandal early in family history. Many hearts are broken before the end of the series; most of the time, I felt I was watching an extremely well-done soap opera. A soap opera with a society critique at the heart of it, a la Jane Austen. But wait, there's more! The final episode of the second series is eye-opening in terms of the growth of the characters. And while you might have seen it coming, it's superbly staged and scripted. I was quite impressed. If you're still in the Jane Austen mindset, rent these discs. Keep an eye out for sharp performances by Rupert Graves, Ioan Gruffudd, Amanda Root, Emma Malin, and above all Damian Lewis as Soames, played as a despicable character with uncomfortably recognizable emotions.

year: 2002 and 2004
length: 2 mini-series, 9 episodes total
rating: 3.5
IMDB links:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0260615/combined (I)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0377125/combined (II)

The Bourne Supremacy

I'm really getting jaded. I can't even muster the appropriate amount of enthusiasm for a decent spy thriller. And this film is plenty decent. It is Euro-centric (I think you see the U.S. of A. for about 2 minutes total), spare, brooding, and thrilling all at the same time. Perhaps too thrilling, since it consists mostly of car chase upon car chase that each go on a mite too long to be truly exciting. Although the first 10 minutes -- a car chase, you guessed it -- actually took me by surprise, and that ain't easy to do (see above: jaded). The brooder, i.e., Jason Bourne, is played by young Hollywood's most skillful brooder, Matt Damon, and he's as good as he was in the first flick. Still, there are far too many sad, rainy profile shots of him in cars. (Not the car chase scenes, so you're getting the idea that transportation factors heavily in this film.) And I'm going to keep a watch out for the cinematographer...so I can be sure to miss anything else he's done or will do. Talk about herky-jerky filming! There are few scenes that are more than 2-3 seconds long, everything is filmed handheld, and lots of scenes blur together too rapidly to be comprehended (yes, some of those are intentional). This is the closest I've been to feeling like I was in a video game in a long time. Plot? Eh, it's the same as the first -- an amnesiac Bourne running away from his fellow CIA operatives who want him dead. This time Joan Allen plays one of those CIA operatives, and that's fun just to see her play hard as nails (which she does so well; see The Contender). Unfortunately, she doesn't have many clever lines; no one does, it's not the point of the film. Although I smiled insanely at the Italian joke. Every good joke is built on at least a smidgen of truth...

year: 2004
length: 110 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372183/combined

Troy

Halfway through this film, a character utters the phrase "Women do have a way of complicating things." They're not talking about Helen (she has already left Menelaus), so it's quite amusing for that line to be thrown in at that juncture. This is a large reason for me liking this film as much as I did. The script is elegant, structured, and the right kind of spare. How often do you find that in an action flick? David Benioff has only one other script to his credit (so far) and that's 25th Hour, a good if not great film but not because of the script. Watch Benioff, he'll go far. And maybe he should collaborate with Wolfgang Petersen more often, because Petersen is just as elegant and structured a director. There are no extraneous scenes (except for the first narrated shot which should have been done over black), and the action and character development keep perfect pace with the script (or the other way around, depending on your view point). Ignore the movie poster which is one of the lamest on record. Yes, Brad Pitt had to get buff for this role, but it's because he's playing Achilles, for heaven's sake! If Achilles isn't buff, you have no story. And speaking of Pitt, this is my favorite role of his since A River Runs Through It in 1992. He never loses sight of the myth of Achilles, while at the same time giving him a sensitivity which is not at odds with that myth. Not easy work. Peter O'Toole as King Priam of Troy is magnificent, but that goes without saying. More intriguing was Eric Bana as Prince Hector, who is a fine actor unfortunate enough to have no zing to his looks or acting to make him a true star. There are missteps in casting, e.g., Saffron Burrows as Hector's wife. Her manner of emoting makes my skin crawl. And the casting of a blonde as Helen, as fine as Diane Kruger is, was simply stupid. At least dye her hair black! (Pitt's too, for that matter.) The impetus for the Trojan war will seem silly to some, but it was merely the trigger releasing existing venom between the Greeks and the Trojans. Petersen has given us a glimpse at the politics and culture of that time, if only so we can compare it our own.

year: 2004
length: 163 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0332452/combined

Zatôichi

Every once in a while a film comes along that I can't wait to write the review for. Case in point -- stuck in SF waiting for my unplanned red-eye flight and hauling my overnight bag all over town, well, what else is a tired film lover going to do? Go to the excellent Landmark Theatres to see the newest film by Takeshi Kitano. It was the only choice for my time frame, and I've become a bit weary of samurai films (and especially disappointed by the last one), however I'd heard raves and it won the top prize at the Toronto Film Festival. I've never seen a Kitano film and I hope this is emblematic of his work, as I will now vigorously seek it out. Zatôichi is a blind swordsman wandering the countryside as any normal masterless samurai. He stumbles into a messy situation and assists in fixing the problems. Only he's nearly background material at times because of the other stories unfolding -- a betrayed brother and sister fallen into the saddest way of life, a village idiot, a wayward nephew hooked on gambling, and a ronin burdened with a sickly wife. Each character grows or finds resolution in his or her way, and it's how Kitano puts the pieces together that makes it so intriguing. Not a perfect film (at times you are confused by the placement of some flashbacks or some additional, seemingly unnecessary scenes) and it's not like these tales haven't been told before. But the additional elements give it its special spark -- the animated spurting blood (yes, it's a bit gory, beware), the Kodo-like dance-cum-rhythm-section troupe, the extended geisha performance sequence. And last but not least Beat (Takeshi) Kitano's embodiment of the blind swordsman. Now that's perfect.

year: 2003
length: 116 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363226/combined

Spy Game

Ehh. Y'know, Brad Pitt didn't irritate me as expected and Robert Redford was his noble, enigmatic self but that doesn't mean I liked the film enough to rate it well. Pitt and Redford are spies with the CIA, Pitt deployed in exotic places, Redford a desk jockey about to retire. Pitt's in trouble, Redford feels it his duty to rescue him even though they parted ways a long time ago, and Pitt's tale is told in flashbacks by Redford. Sorta ingenious, but ultimately you're not sure what the tale is telling you -- honor among spies? love is more powerful than hate? more powerful than your life's work? even spies have morals? or remorse? Lots of good blow-up scenes, though. And the choice of Lebanon as one exotic locale is unique, and worth it simply for a view into how people with dangerous careers survive. That alone is probably useful to keep in mind in the post-9/11 world (even if you don't have a dangerous job).

year: 2001
length: 126 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266987/combined

Audition

I don't have a huge amount to say about this film, but I feel it's important to write a review in order to warn away those who might be expecting a normal thriller or mystery. You'll get the hint when you reach the brief shot of a bloody tongue flopping on a floor, but you might think this is just an anomaly. Nope. The last 10 minutes of the film are surreal and firmly planted in the horror genre. This was directed by Takashi Miike, a prolific if not universally respected Japanese film director, but the anger that greeted this film upon its arrival seems to have shocked even Miike. This anger stems from the sharp turn taken towards the end and I can understand that, as I chose the film based on many good reviews none of which hinted at the shift. Hence this review. The "normal" plot revolves around a widower who woos a strange girl he knows nothing about, although the audience is given disturbing glimpses into her life and story (see the tongue shot description before). The reason for the elevated rating is actually due to the ending -- it is so disturbing in its manipulation of what we have considered throughout to be reality that its effectiveness as a plot device cannot be dismissed. I was impressed despite my revulsion. You've been duly warned, yet those with thick skins may be able to recognize and admire the film's unique tone.

original title: Ôdishon
year: 2000
length: 115 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0235198/combined

Persuasion

This is the most non-Hollywood, plain-BBC version of a Jane Austen novel. Everything is as gray as you imagine while reading. Which gives the film that added veracity that is lacking in Emma and to a lesser extent in Sense and Sensibility. In this Austen rendition, a woman who has rejected a marriage proposal earlier in her life (see, they DO have slightly different themes) is confronted by the marriage proposee a decade later. What to do? She is a woman not unlike Emma Thompson's character in Sense and Sensibility -- she keeps her cards close to her chest, yet she feels strongly and deeply. Her fam ily is simply put quite stupid and she suffers heroically until her vindication. It's a well-acted film (except for Amanda Root's huge eyes which get in the way of the story as much as they are a part of the story), and it does its job but it's not as special as Sense and Sensibility. There's nothing wrong with it being the novel on screen, but the inevitable comparison leaves it lacking. So, here's what you've been waiting for -- the order you should see the films in from "worst" to best. Mansfield Park, Emma, Persuasion (these two are really a tie), Pride and Prejudice (reviewed earlier), and Sense and Sensibility. There. Now get to it.

year: 1995
length: 107 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114117/combined

Emma

Never forget that Jane Austen's novels were thinly veiled social critiques of English country life while at the same time typical romances (boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back). It's the latter that makes the novels appealing to Hollywood and its viewers, but the best of the ilk meld Austen's original views with the universal story. This rendition of Emma is simply fine -- it adds a dollop of those original views to the Hollywood glitz. Gwyneth Paltrow plays Emma in her big film break, with all the actor tics we're so used to now on full display. Don't get me wrong, I like Paltrow, but I prefer her when raw (see Flesh and Bone for that). Jeremy Northam is better as the foil to Paltrow's Emma, constantly commenting on her behavior and mannerisms, while of course secretly being in love with her. Delightful, of course, to watch the plot twists and turns, ogle the costume design (probably the best of them all) and enjoy, of particular note, Toni Collette as the clueless new friend of Emma's and unwitting recipient of her Machiavellian designs and Sophie Thompson as a dimwitted chatterbox friend of the family (and compare her work with that of the sister in Persuasion).

year: 1996
length: 121 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116191/combined

Sense and Sensibility

Back when I knew nothing about film, I saw this film for the first time. I sure did like it, and when Emma Thompson won the Oscar for best adapted screenplay, I smiled and nodded like everyone else. What a joy to watch this again and recognize her genius. Actually, to recognize the entire production's genius. Ang Lee as the director of an 1800s British drama caused more than a few eyebrows to raise, but the man absolutely knows what he is up to. The two scenes I remember the best... One is a shot of Elinor (Thompson) and her mother (Gemma Jones) discussing if Edward (Hugh Grant) loves Elinor or not. She dissembles and Lee pulls the camera back and back, echoing the loneliness she can't put into words. The other is when Marianne (Kate Winslet) receives the Dear John letter from Willoughby (Greg Wise; yeah, I didn't know his work either) and Lee places the camera at her feet shooting upwards, as she reads the letter to Elinor. That shot is traditionally used for suspense, and with that placement the scene becomes doubly so. The acting is uniformly excellent (except perhaps for overly Grant-like acting towards the end, but that's a minor complaint), with Thompson and Winslet simply shining in their sisterly roles. But I gave short shrift to Thompson in the beginning of the review. I read the book after I saw the film the first time and felt like it was rather plodding for Jane Austen, not the page turner that Pride and Prejudice is. Thompson has taken the novel and added comic elements, heart- rending scenes and moments of surprise that enhance the novel, as unbelievable as that may seem. This film is the perfect example of what an excellent script, excellent direction and excellent acting can create. And of how all three of those elements (and probably more that I am unable to recognize) are necessary for the perfect film.

year: 1995
length: 136 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114388/combined

Mansfield Park

I'm on a Jane Austen flick fest, so you'll see more of them reviewed here in the near future. I've seen all of them before, but decided to watch them again after realizing that all of the films I have in the house from Netflix are dull, dreary, non-summery type films. Not in the mood; at least not this weekend. So, I started with Mansfield Park, maybe because it's the newest of them all (i.e., Emma, Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, Persuasion; I'll be bypassing Northanger Abbey as it's supposed to be terrible; I may include Clueless since it's a blast to watch). I recognize the female touch, as this is the only one of the five to be directed by a woman. But I can't quite pinpoint what that touch is. Is it the overwhelming attention to the sensuality of Austen's novels? This film is almost like watching hands-off porn, in that respect. Is it the sly winks to the audience, in the form of the characters speaking directly to the camera? Patricia Rozema, the director, brought Austen's letters and journals into the scripting process, and some of that material is set apart from the tale. Or is it the director's concentration on the relationships to the exclusion of some important plot points? For instance, why does Fanny Price become so beloved as a poor relation in a rich household? Kind of important, and completely side-stepped. Never mind, though. The film is rich in the feel of Austen, and that's what counts in the long run.

year: 1999
length: 112 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0178737/combined

The Day After Tomorrow

When I was thinking of seeing this film, I kept calling it Independence Day. Granted, the two titles share a word, but I'm pretty sure I mix them up because they're both written and directed by disaster-flick impresario Roland Emmerich. And they're the same film. OK, not really, but there's sappy, flag-waving patriotism in both. The difference in this flick is that he takes the U.S. down a teeny notch by making it depend on other nations and recognize that it was wrong. (Gasp!) The plot revolves around a climatologist's realization that abrupt climate change, and therefore a new ice age, will happen within weeks instead of hundreds of years, resulting in him trying to convince the government of the danger and rescue his son in NYC at the same time. I give it the stars I do because the special eff ects are neat-o. (The swamping of the Statue of Liberty is especially nicely done.) Big however, though -- it has an asinine plot involving a Scottish scientist (what is Ian Holm doing in this dreck?), seemingly deliberately poor acting on the part of Dennis Quaid as the climatologist, abrupt scene changes designed only to keep you from falling asleep in your seats between special effects, and some of the most absurd science ever put on film. My fave is the idea that super-cold air could be pulled down from the troposphere so quickly as to freeze humans in their tracks. They predate this nonsense with a scene of kids looking at a Natural History Museum diorama of a mammoth who was found with food still in its mouth, the hypothesis being that he was frozen that way AND that this happened because of the onset of a new ice age. Horsepucky! Such abrupt change is virtually impossible (see the MSNBC report The Science, and Fiction, of Day After Tomorrow). BUT, I'm not disputing that climate change is a real problem. If all this film does is make more of the public aware of the dangers of driving SUVs, then I'm all for it and as many clones of it as Hollywood can put out.

year: 2004
length: 124 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/combined

Ulee's Gold

Peter Fonda has a unique style. But it's never the same as watching his Dad, who had a way like no other with understated acting. Peter's doing the same thing, it just comes across as slightly wooden. Direction of this film seems to be mirroring that style. While it's an engaging, realistic story (Fonda plays a Florida beekeeper with many family problems to solve), it's just stilted enough not to be completely natural. Still, the simpleness of the story is its saving grace. It rolls out slowly and surely and has a sweet, slow, well-thought-out ending. And it's true that Fonda is playing a tight-lipped, seemingly non- caring man, which is his brand of typecasting, and in that he excels even if it's not my favorite acting method. The film simply doesn't have that spark that makes it a really great tale. So, what am I saying? It's average, not bad, not good, I wouldn't go out of my way to rent it, but if there's nothing else, it's a good enough film for a lazy summer evening. (Stick around for the credits. Best Van Morrison song ever.)

year: 1997
length: 113 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120402/combined

Throne of Blood

Definitely not one of Akira Kurosawa's better works. I admit I was a bit tired when I was watching it, but if I can stay energized through the 3.5 hour Seven Samurai, then it isn't necessarily me. This is Kurosawa's take on Macbeth, and all the elements are there: the prophecy of the fates, the rivalry among clans, Lady Macbeth's evil whisperings, even the marching trees. But watching Shakespeare, you revel in every turn of phrase and twist of tongue. Either the translation of this film was poor or that wasn't Kurosawa's intent because the script was nothing special. Well, duh, you say, it's what's done with the visuals that makes all the difference. And it's true that the visuals are stunning as in all of Kurosawa's films, but perhaps he was overly excited about them since you see them over and over and over again in some scenes. Case in point, when the two warriors are lost in the forest's fog at the beginning, I definitely zoned out. After two shots of the men wheeling their horses in the mist and heading off in another direction, I got it! I didn't need 20 more. Toshirô Mifune stars and yet all I remember about his performance is a lot of yelling. There is one redeeming feature to the film and that's Isuzu Yamada who plays the Lady Macbeth character. She simply oozes evil intent with every softly spoken sentence. And with her kimono draped over her so that it drags and softly swishes every time she takes a step, she looks like a giant slug. (In fact, at some point in the film I realized that she reminded me of Roz from Monsters, Inc.!) But, hey, why not just watch her in Yojimbo, one of his much better films?

original title: Kumonosu Jô
year: 1957
length: 105 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050613/combined

Fahrenheit 9/11

It's so difficult to write this review. I seem to have a fragmented memory of watching this film. I remember laughing very hard in places, clapping in some, feeling mostly appalled by our government throughout, and at times wondering how Michael Moore gets away with scenes that so clearly manipulate your emotions. (Especially the scenes of pre-war Baghdad in March of last year. OK, we get it.) A reviewer friend of mine figures he'll write two pieces on the film, one a review specific to the craft and the other a rant on what you learn as you watch it. That's not what I'm going to do. Instead, most of what I was thinking during the film was who would be watching it and what they would come away from the film believing. The hoo-hah that preceded the theatrical release (Disney wouldn't release it; it won the Cannes Palme d'Or; Lions Gate decides to release it) nearly guaranteed the huge turnout for the film. One of the best things that can happen to a film's profit margin is controversy (look at The Passion of the Christ). Having looked at some of the votes on IMDB for the film in the first few days, it was clear to me that the publicity was bringing non-liberals to see it. The votes were nearly evenly split between "loved it" and "hated it." (Why there are more "loved it" votes now could be an interesting thesis dissertation.) I think that's all around a good thing; more of the American public that sees the film, the better. Even though I felt annoyed by Moore's attempts to manipulate my feelings at times, and worried that as usual in his films we're seeing his very biased viewpoint, there is no doubt that most of what he shows us is worth getting upset about. I won't talk about the content here -- I think everyone should see it for themselves and judge for themselves. But go and see it. It's a valuable piece of work.

year: 2004
length: 122 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/combined

Spider-Man 2

Quick, jot down everything you like about super-hero comics. I'll bet dollars to donuts the writing isn't in your list. That might have been true in The Silver Age, but now the writing counts (as witnessed by yours truly in some of the recent Spiderman story arcs -- yup, you betcha I read comics). And they made an effort for the film, so as not to piss off anyone who wanted a real movie experience as opposed to a brain-dead actioner. I'd say they succeeded as well as they did for the first Spider-man flick. It's actually somewhat of a slower film since large portions are devoted to the tragic romance between Peter and Mary Jane, and to the interaction between Peter and his Aunt May. But, zounds, when the action starts, it's good! The CGI is almost perfect -- although you can still tell it's fake, it's leaps and bounds (pun, so laugh!) above the previous film's CGI animation. Doc Ock is played by Alfred Molina, and I doubt I need to say more as I've rhapsodized about him before. Kirsten Dunst still doesn't make sense to me as Mary Jane. MJ is supposed to be a hot ticket who dresses down to conceal her beauty but fails miserably. Dunst looks more like a plain Jane, in my opinion. Tobey Maguire is just fine as our masked hero, but the award goes to J.K. Simmons who must have read every Spiderman comic ever published in order to channel yellow journalism publisher J. Jonah Jameson without flaws. Naturally, there is every indication by the end of the film that there will be a third, so you'll get to see all these favorite characters (and more!) in the next go round.

year: 2004
length: 127 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316654/combined

The Virgin Suicides

Such a pleasure to watch the freshman effort after the sophomore effort. If I'd seen the freshman effort first, I may not have seen the second film. Actually that's doubtful based on the hype surrounding Lost in Translation, and besides this first film has the glimmerings of that ambience that made people fall in love with the second film. While the story (all 5 girls in one family in 1970s Southeast Michigan kill themselves for no apparent reasons) doesn't have all the elements needed to make this a complete experience -- i.e., where are the "boys" now? exactly how are the parents strict to begin with? are all the girls virgins in the end? why does it matter if they are or are not? does Trip end up where he does because of his feelings for Lux? -- the mood of the film sucks you in. Part of that can be credited to Sofia's brother, Roman Coppola who was second unit director on the film. All those in-between shots that enhance the mood of the film are at least halfway due to his talent. However, the MVP award goes to James Woods, whom I have always admired but never liked as an actor. I've never seen him play a schlub before, in this case a spaced-out math teacher who has no idea how to raise 5 daughters, and he was as I've never seen him: funny! Another actor I've always admired but never loved on screen is Kirsten Dunst, but she is perfect as the sexy Lux, as perfect as Josh Hartnett is as Trip. In fact, probably my favorite scene in the entire movie is Trip's walk down the school corridor, not because he's gorgeous to look at, which he is, but because in most films you watch girls sashaying past guys. Sofia had the balls to perform a gender flip here and it's easily the most guffaw-inducing scene in the whole film.

year: 1999
length: 97 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0159097/combined

Coffee and Cigarettes

Poor misunderstood Jim Jarmusch. Actually, I doubt that's how he thinks of himself. Others might in watching his newest film. Essentially a set of scenarios (loosely) based on discussions of coffee and cigarettes involving pairings of (mostly) Hollywood odd couples, half of these scenarios make absolutely no sense and/or are completely boring for the viewer. Anyone familiar with Jarmusch just shakes their head and waits for the next bit, but for others this could be annoying enough that they will downplay the film when discussing it with others. A mistake, I would say. The scenarios that do work, namely the pairings Jack White - Meg White, Alfred Molina - Steve Coogan (my fave), Cate Blanchett -um- Cate Blanchett, and William Rice - Taylor Mead, and the ones that sorta work, namely Roberto Benigni - Steven Wright and The Wu-Tang Clan - Bill Murray, are alternately hysterical and thought-provoking. (Yeah, weird, I know.) I believe it would be wrong to dismiss this film just because a portion of the sketches don't work, especially because the film is made up of only sketches and can be evaluated on a per-scenario basis. I don't want to say too much more about it; I'd spoil its surprises. And if you feel like yawning during the Renee French bit, go right ahead. Better stuff is on its way.

year: 2003
length: 96 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379217/combined

Sleepers

I hate giving films about weighty subjects a poor rating. It feels wrong, since in most cases the filmmakers have made an effort to mirror the serious tone of their films in the cinematography, often leading to some stunning effects. Not so here. I love Barry Levinson's ode-to-Baltimore trilogy (Diner, Avalon, Liberty Heights -- well, not so much the last one). They're clever, meaningful, and without a lot of gloss. Still, his visuals have never fully connected with the story. I mean, what's the deal in this film with the repetitious subway train shots and the strange scenes in which characters soft-talk off-screen? The tunnel effects didn't work for me either. (Although, the chase scene in the beginning is pretty good.) The film is shot by the amazing Michael Ballhaus, so it's got to be Levinson's choice. Now, back to the premise. The film is about child abuse, namely abuse by guards at a boy's school (which is more like a prison). That's hefty stuff, and I certainly felt beyond-sad at times, but I expected something a bit more raw overall. This may be a factor of being a film addict -- the more well-done emotionally charged films I see, the more I need to see just those. In terms of the actors, Brad Pitt was awful (what, does he have marbles in his mouth?) and Jason Patric is, as usual, a lump on screen. The kids were uniformly good and Robert De Niro and Dustin Hoffman stole all their scenes, of course. And while the writing was okay, I'll bet the book is better.

year: 1996
length: 147 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117665/combined

Running Out of Time

If this isn't Quentin Tarantino's favorite Hong Kong action flick, I'll eat my shorts. (Or is that a male-specific injunction?) The combination of good writing, great leads and fantastic action makes this one of the best films of its genre that I've seen. It's not the same kind of film Jackie Chan or Jet Li make because it's missing all the jaw-dropping chop-socky stuff, but that doesn't make this less palatable. In fact, I think this film is probably more accessible to the general public than the martial arts films (which cater to a certain folk). One of the two main characters, Andy Lau (a HUGE film and pop star over in Asia), who has only a few days to live conceives of a cat-and-mouse game with a cop he admires (played by the even better actor Ching Wan Lau) centering around stealing a famous diamond. Knowing how I feel about heist flicks, it says a lot I think this film does it quite well. It'll keep you thinking hard, since the filmmakers don't wait around for you to catch up. The editing is also eye-opening in that they use techniques, such as speeding up the film during several connecting-the-dots scenes, that I think weren't being used yet in Hollywood. The pièce de résistance is the scene in the car after the two leads have crashed it and are trying to retrieve their treasure, although the bowling alley sequence comes in a close second. If you don't generally watch foreign films because the sub-titles make it hard to read and watch the action at the same time, try this one as an exception to the rule.

original title: Aau Chin
year: 1999
length: 93 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0216165/combined

Shrek 2

I'll admit, I did giggle in many places in this film, and I particularly liked the references to Tom Waits and the TV footage of the arrest of Shrek and his conspirators, but I just can't muster up the enthusiasm to heartily recommend the film to anyone, even small children. It's not that the animation is worse, or that the plot isn't as interesting, because there's nothing really wrong there. But I left the theater with two feelings. One: that I already couldn't remember any of the jokes (because they sped by? because there were too many right on top of each other?). Two: that all the things the main characters are able to pull off after they take the "Happily Ever After" potion and change into handsome men and women defeats the moral of the story -- that those things don't really matter. Sure, brand me as overly cynical, but if they're going to portray the land of Far Far Away as a Hollywood-esque land of fancy strip malls then there should be commentary on what's so fake and distasteful about it. And it wasn't there. Maybe clauses in the filmmakers' contracts prevent them from attacking Hollywood in words... Regardless, there are funny bits and Antonio Banderas as Puss in Boots steals the show, in my opinion, but it won't do any harm to wait to see it at the second-run theater.

year: 2004
length: 93 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298148/combined

Peter Pan

While I applaud the decision to cast a young boy as Peter Pan instead of a girl or young woman (as is traditional), I question the choice of actor. Jeremy Sumpter is a seductive actor. Perhaps a bit too seductive for a children's film. Maybe this is something children won't notice, but a 13-year old actor with bedroom eyes sort of threw me for a loop. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the original tale was designed as a love story between two pre-teen children. This would all be gloss except that the screenplay focuses nearly exclusively on the potential love between the two. It actually got pretty uncomfortable to watch in parts. Other than this, their sets were fun to look at, and two actors in particular stole the show: Jason Isaacs as Captain Hook (and also the dastardly Lucius Malfoy in the Potter movies) and Ludivine Sagnier as a speech-deficient Tinkerbell. It's a mindless fun video rental for adults, if you can get past the romantic love theme, but I'm not sure I'd let kids see it. It twists the boundaries in ways that tread on the forbidden.

year: 2003
length: 113 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316396/combined

Mambo Italiano

The only good thing about this film is its sense of style. And I'm not talking about cinematography, I'm talking about production design. Neon green, hot magenta pink, swirls, polka dots, it's definitely hip. And that's fun, but the film doesn't have much else going for it. The story centers around a young Italian-Canadian man coming to terms with his homosexuality. Regretfully, it has fairly poor acting (although he's not so bad, his lover is awful) and a far-too-obvious plot. He's a sappy TV writer but he can't get anyone to pilot his far-fetched ideas, so guess what series he comes up with in the end? He volunteers at the local gay phone bank (which is the funniest scene in the movie) and meets a new "friend," so guess where that leads? Needless to say, I wasn't enamored and I'd recommend it only as something to miss.

year: 2003
length: 88 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330602/combined

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

This film proves that Chris Columbus makes crappy movies. (Or at least nothing worth watching since Mrs. Doubtfire.) Either he kowtowed to J.K. Rowling more than Alfonso Cuarón did, or she watched the previous two films and realized that making a book into a film means more than translating it exactly, word for word and note for note. Which is exactly what Cuarón has not done. Instead, he's built his own vision of the book: darker, more realistic, and dare I say even wittier in parts. The kids are all still excellent actors, growing into their parts and looking like teenagers now (and yes, there are hints of sexual tension now, which might be disconcerting to some viewers). The teachers seem better integrated into the story, the atmosphere as I said is deliciously dark yet still very funny, and above all someone spent time creating subtext for the film. I certainly never expected this in a kid's fantasy-action-adventure tent-pole kind of film. For example, the director highlights the time travel portion of the latter half of the film with complex shots of the inner workings of the main school clock. Another example is the wardrobe containing the bogart -- the camera pans to its mirrored surface, reflecting the students' faces full of fear of the bogart, who will reflect their fears back at them. The third book is my favorite Harry Potter book so far because of its complexity and its surprises. Which makes giving the film my highest rating somewhat problematic. For those who haven't read even one of the books (do these folks really exist?), the plotline is going to speed by with very little explanation of the whys and wherefores of the wizard universe. Still, it's so gloriously crafted that I'm positive even those folks (who don't exist) will enjoy it. Oh, and Emma Thompson channels Bill the Cat, plus there's an homage to Wile E. Coyote. Why would you want to miss this?

year: 2004
length: 142 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0304141/combined

The Return

As the poster says, this film is reminiscent of Andrei Tarkovsky's works. It differs in one huge respect, in that the first 3 minutes of the film contain more talking than in a 4 hour Tarkovsky film. Which means that this film is more accessible to the general public than anything Tarkovsky put out. (Brilliant filmmaker that he was, natch, his films are never easy to comprehend, or stay awake during.) This is Andrei Zvyagintsev's first film, and it is surprisingly masterful for a first-time director. The father of two boys returns after many years away and they go on a vacation together to a remote island. He is clearly "of the military" and treats his sons as he would treat soldiers, something that obviously doesn't work after so many years away. Of course there's a tragedy, and of course I'm not going to tell you what it is, because you should see the film. For the acting, for the cinematography and for the Tarkovsky-like enigmatic stillness. The boys are excellent actors, one more of a brown-noser, the other more of a punk. Your affections for either switch constantly throughout the movie, a testament to the quality of their acting. The cinematography is all about long shots, mostly of the landscape, whether that's endless miles of Russian farmland or endless miles of ocean. Most of these sequences (if you can call them sequences when most of them are single shots) are as near silent as possible, reminiscent of Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring. Plot is certainly not as important as the general feeling you get as you watch and interpret, and there are any number of interpretations you can make. As the film unwinds, it becomes more and more mysterious -- Where did the father come from? What is his job? Why is he taking the boys with him on a vacation that isn't a vacation? The silent cinematography is a big part of that mystery. And the ending shots (which are suggestive of The 400 Blows) leave you wondering, which completes the film's ambience.

original title: Vozvrashcheniye
year: 2003
length: 105 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376968/combined

Wilbur Wants to Kill Himself

A friend of mine has a pet peeve, which is being manipulated in films. He abhors knowing that his emotions are being played with while he's being entertained. I've been secretly amused by this (what film doesn't manipulate your emotions to some degree?) but when I watched this film, I was right there in his shoes. It starts off quite nicely -- British-ly clever, darkly comic, definitely offbeat. Wilbur tries to commit suicide on a regular basis and his brother consistently bails him out at the last minute. You learn about some of the motivation for this behavior, and it seems as if the film will delve into an exploration of the reasons behind Wilbur's guilt feelings and his inability to start a loving relationship. And then, blammo! He falls for his brother's new wife. And something horribly tragic happens to his brother. So, you're contentedly watching this macabre film and it turns into a heavy-duty drama, but without any of the underpinnings of real drama. Instead of reflection on these incredible plot twists, you are treated to scenes between brother and wife that are so sexually charged they leave the sparse number of reflective scenes in the dust. And you wonder what happened to the comedy. Why are the filmmakers making such an effort to merely titillate (a kind word for manipulate)? Result being one very unbelievable film with one very lame ending. I didn't dislike the actors (you'll at least recognize the wife as one of the girlfriends of Bridget Jones), and the male lead is certainly working towards becoming the Scottish equivalent of Colin Farrell (whether that's good or bad is up to you), but they didn't save the picture for me. It ultimately made no sense.

year: 2002
length: 109 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0329767/combined