Waking Life

IMDB sometimes pulls an Amazon and recommends a film similar to the one you've pulled up information about. In the case of Waking Life, it recommends Mulholland Dr. Yes, that's a trippy movie as well, but I think a more fitting recommendation would be My Dinner with Andre. Both these films have little to no plot and contain almost nothing but philosophical ramblings and musings. The big difference is that Waking Life tries to merge the images with the discussions the characters are having. He does this by painting on the film. Yup, you read that right -- he animates the characters by painting over what he's shot (i.e., rotoscoping). So, you know there are real, live human beings behind what you're seeing on screen. It's a very odd effect. Instead of seeing humans engaged in discussions, we essentially see the discussions themselves. The animation becomes the discussion -- that which we can never see that exists outside but attached to our lives, e.g., the afterlife, society, language, dreams, and (not too surprising) cinema. It's a fascinating concept, and the film gets high marks for this approach. I don't think it's for everyone, though. There are some funny parts, but few and far between, and the heavy intellectual content may strike some people as grandstanding. I personally think it's a film that needs to be watched every 5 years or so...just like My Dinner with Andre.

year: 2001
length: 99 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243017/combined

The Bridge on the River Kwai

A David Lean epic, this time with the incomparable Sir Alec Guinness in the lead role. I sure do admire Lean's ability to have created lengthy masterpieces that showcase the human spirit and will to live. In this case, British POWs in WWII are forced to build a bridge by their Japanese captors. The British colonel refuses to have the officers do hard labor and the Japanese colonel punishes them for insubordination. That's the first half of the film, and I won't give away the second half for those few who've never seen it. Sir Alec gives a superb portrayal of the British colonel who won't give in, adheres to all the rules of combat, does what he should given his situation, and yet forgets the big picture. The ending is thrilling (I'm talking about the last 5 minutes of the picture), but I admit that I thought it took too long to get there. I would have cut 40 or so minutes out of the film (e.g., do we need 4 minutes on a group of men bushwhacking through the jungle?). But then it wouldn't have been an epic, I suppose.

year: 1957
length: 161 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/combined

And the Band Played On

For its depiction of the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, this film scores all stars. Using a compressed timeline, as far back as the first AIDS patient and as far forward as the fight over who discovered the virus, it does a great job of showing the myriad personalities who fought the war -- the doctors, the administrators, the activists and the gay community. The performances are almost uniformly affecting, even Matthew Modine as the head doctor especially as I've always considered him a mediocre actor. And they sure did pack the stars in -- Lily Tomlin, Ian McKellen, Richard Gere, heck, even Phil Collins as the owner of a gay bathhouse. But (you knew that was coming, right?), while the film touches your heart, it never touches your head. There's nothing stellar about the filmmaking. It's plenty adequate, but it never makes you sit up and take notice. I'm not certain that matters greatly, since the content of the film is more important than any style it might adhere to, but it did make for a less involving viewing. It's safe to say that most people are unaware to this day of how the AIDS battle has been fought and for that alone, it's worth watching.

year: 1993
length: 141 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106273/combined

Big Fish

The most amazing thing about this film is how it's written. Most of the sentences uttered by the characters are designed to illuminate the difference between big and small, right and wrong, facts and faith. The sentences tend to balance each other out, or provide balance for ideas within a single sentence. I think Tim Burton chose well -- his style of moviemaking fits with a script about understanding wholly different lifestyles. A son returns to his father's deathbed to try and understand who his father really is. He never believed his father's tall tales (i.e., Big Fish stories), although everyone else seems to have, or at least have been enamored by them. Burton enjoys making films that fly in the face of normalcy -- Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Mars Attacks! -- but that are still about basic human emotions, such as fear and love. He gets to conjure up circus show freaks and ridiculous scenery (e.g., a car stranded in a tree) but integrates this with "normal life." While at times the film seems to be running too long (a few too many Big Fish stories told), the ending is surprisingly moving. We should all have a chance to die as we lived, with those whom we cared about coming together to talk about the life we lived. (And that's an example of the kind of sentence structure I was mentioning earlier.)

year: 2003
length: 125 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319061/combined

21 Grams

Oof. Caveat: I don't think people with small kids should see this film, if only for the raw emotions you'll feel once the main intent of the film is revealed. There's not much I can say about the plot of the film, since it's important that you figure that out for yourself over the course of it, but for those of you who haven't seen Alejandro González Iñárritu's previous film, Amores Perros, you may wish to know that his narrative structure can be likened to Christopher Nolan's Memento or David Lynch's Mulholland Dr. In other words, it isn't linear. However (and it's a big however) I didn't find following what was happening at all difficult. You may be confused for the first 5 minutes, but you'll catch on very quickly. I found myself comparing the style of this film with Clint Eastwood's recent Mystic River (maybe because Sean Penn is in both of them?). While in Eastwood's films what you see is what you get, in Iñárritu's films there is something extra, perhaps what I would call the "cool" factor, or the "hey, I graduated from film school, see?" factor. I didn't find it particularly disturbing since the film itself is so involving and well structured, but I could see how others might have a quibble with it. I'm happy to learn that Benicio Del Toro, Sean Penn and Naomi Watts have all be nominated for end-of-the-year awards by various film associations, but I am surprised to see that they're nowhere to be found in the Golden Globe nominations. I could just be clueless and not understand the cut-off for GG nominations, but in particular Watts' performance needs to be recognized as a tour de force. She is fearless in what she delivers on screen, so much so that at times you need to look away because what she's showing you is so naked. Here's to more roles for this fantastic actress.

years: 2003
length: 125 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315733/combined

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three

Hey, this one's pretty good! For a 70s action flick, that is. I wasn't expecting much because of its age, even though I'd heard good things about it. It's an interesting mix of action, suspense, racial politics and funky Shaft-like music. Walter Matthau is the good guy, Robert Shaw is the bad guy, and they battle it out over the stealing of a NYC subway train. Actually, there's little action to speak of, but the tone of the film makes up for it. Action films nowadays are almost always over-the-top, guaranteed to make your blood pressure rise and increase your level of stress. I almost felt relaxed watching this film. Especially interesting is how they handle racial issues. I laughed hard at Matthau's scripted reaction to discovering the police chief is black. Important to note: several directors and actors have used elements of this film in their own creations. One, the mayor's reaction to the price tag set by the kidnappers makes you smile, and I'll bet it made Mike Myers smile as well. And, the naming of the criminals was lifted wholesale from this film for Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs. Are there other elements of the film that you see being used as references nowadays?

year: 1974
length: 104 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072251/combined

Six Feet Under

I've only seen the first three episodes of this HBO series, but had to report immediately that it's a keeper. I was concerned that they would discuss death too flippantly and/or too sensitively, and they're doing neither. The pilot is one of the best I've ever seen (if you don't laugh at the fake commercials, you don't need to watch the rest of the series). The creators touch on numerous ways that people and cultures grieve, while at the same time establishing the important characters and their modus operandi. You also learn a bit more than is comfortable about "death care facilities," which gives the show a cool "gross" factor that must pull in teens. And the title music is spell-binding. I was still enamored with the series after the next two episodes, mostly because I enjoy the characters, in particular the uptight gay brother and the wacky sister. Rachel Griffiths won a Golden Globe for her role as the girlfriend of the laid-back brother, but hers is not my favorite portrayal to date. Again, though, I've only seen a few episodes. Oh! It might help to describe the show. A funeral home director is killed and his family has to soldier on with the business. Explaining more isn't necessary; you'll get the rest by watching.

year: 2001-?
length: season 1 on DVD, season 3 in play
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0248654/combined

In America

Jim Sheridan has done a number of films in his native Ireland that you may be familiar with (chief among these is In the Name of the Father). This one is his autobiographical piece. Not completely, but enough so that it actually loses some narrative cohesiveness because of it. He lost his son and moved to America and those are the two important personal notes in this piece. The film is a number of different things: a love letter to America, particularly Manhattan, and our melting pot diversity, as well as a meditation on living and dying and the power of belief, forgiveness and forgetting. It might be because he's trying to do so much with the film that it didn't hold together as beautifully as expected, but that isn't to say that it's not a sweet film. It's sad and funny and enjoyable, and that makes it something to go see. The acting is uniformly amazing, particularly Paddy Considine as the dad, a new face in acting, and I hope this film bodes well for him because I want to see him in many more things.

year: 2002
length: 107 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298845/combined

Miller's Crossing

This script is almost too smart. Fifteen minutes in and you don't know who they're talking about anymore. (But that could be because Steve Buscemi can truly talk a mile a minute.) Halfway in, you should be having no problems. Essentially, this is a basic mob plot with Gabriel Byrne as the not-so-perfect guy stuck in the middle -- not quite a gangster, not a cop, just someone very smart who's losing what grip he had on life. As in all Coen Brothers films it is filled with scenes only there to be beautiful and/or funny and/or poignant. Those huge open rooms, which just scream "watch out!" The scene in which Albert Finney's character shoots the gangster from behind while "Danny Boy" is playing (actually, this entire scene rivals those from Scorsese or Coppola films). The hat motif, of course. Heck, the famous forest scene. It's worth it to watch the brothers (and Barry Sonnenfeld, he's no slouch either as DP) if only for how they can create a story we care about with characters we care about and still have time to be poets with the camera. I loved Raising Arizona, I loved Fargo, I really liked Blood Simple and I really liked Barton Fink (forget that I didn't care much for The Man Who Wasn't There or O Brother, Where Art Thou?). This film is on par with the first two. And I'll never forget John Turturro's DVD interview in which he compares acting to plumbing: "What if you go into a house and you can't find the leak? That's the challenge."

year: 1990
length: 115 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100150/combined

Nine Queens

Heist films are nearly always a blast to watch for one reason: trying to figure out who's conning whom. In my experience, it's important early on in any heist flick to pick the least likely person who will walk away with all the money, if only to enjoy seeing how they're going to weave the story around that person believably. This film creates some good scenarios using tried- and-true formulas, but unfortunately, you know absolutely who the winner will be when you're about 2/3 of the way through. They use a far too obvious plot twist, and your attention immediately shifts to that least likely person again. Still, it's fun to watch if only because it has a clever script (I loved the recurring "I'm not a crook" line) and some fantastic acting. But I gotta ask: how come no one ever offers them a drink anywhere they visit? Their hosts are partaking, and not once are they asked if they'd like to also. Kinda stood out.

original title: Neuve Reinas
year: 2000
length: 114 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0247586/combined

Cold Mountain

I have the feeling this will be a more enjoyable film if you haven't already read the book. It follows the book so closely that there weren't quite enough surprises to keep up my interest. Which isn't to say that Anthony Minghella didn't do wonders turning a good book into a good film. At times, it seems as if you aren't listening to a conversation between people but instead reading well-built prose. What passes between folks, in particular between Ada (Nicole Kidman) and Inman (Jude Law), doesn't seem like any sort of normal conversation. For those who haven't read the book, this is the tale of a Confederate soldier who goes AWOL to get back to his sweetie. What I enjoyed so much about the book is the trouble Ada goes through in order to keep her farm, having to learn from Ruby (Renée Zellweger), another woman also down on her luck. Ada learns that she can in fact learn to haul bales of hay until her arms ache and get up at 5am when she's worked until past dark. In the film, we see them putting up fence rails (ooh) and making a scarecrow (aah), not at all the hard labor I envisioned from the book. For some, Kidman may be too pretty for her role. Ada's beauty is pointed out early on in the film, but at times she is too luminous, although un- makeup-ed when it suits. Much better to notice how gorgeous Jude Law is, whether mussed up or not! It's a good thing they both know how to create characters we want to believe in as well as look at. Zellweger does a great job, as do others in smaller roles (Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Giovanni Ribisi), but the prize goes to Natalie Portman as a woman who gives Law food and shelter for one night. I have to take back what I've said about her not being able to act. She's a revelation. In the end, Minghella has created a glorious tapestry of words and deeds, but it didn't reach me as I think it should have. I'd be interested to know if others who have read the book have the same problem.

year: 2003
length: 155 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0159365/combined

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World

Aaahhh. An intelligent and intelligently made action film. I knew that I'd most likely be seeing above-average filmmaking going into the film, as it was directed by Peter Weir (of The Truman Show and Picnic at Hanging Rock), but with such expectations I didn't figure on being as intrigued and entertained as I was. Yes, it's an action-adventure flick with a swashbuckling sea captain (played by Russell Crowe so perfectly you wonder if his ancestors weren't English seafaring folk) whose duty is to destroy a French frigate helmed by a man who fights disturbingly like himself. However, you get to add to the mix some very funny scenes (the cook is a hoot), the tender side of the captain (as when a young lef-tenant loses his arm), and best of all the confrontation between the military duty and other duties (realized ably by Paul Bettany as the doctor and naturalist who would give his right hand to explore any land they encounter). Not to mention some stunning vistas and incredibly realistic gun- and sword-fights. So realistic that unless you know everything about naval architecture and warfare at the turn of two centuries prior, you will constantly be thinking "what did they just say?" I suggest you let it roll over you as ambience. The things you need to hear are clearly stated. If I have one gripe with the film, it's that they're trying hard to interweave several of the stories it is based on and at times you feel a just a little seasick.

year: 2003
length: 138 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0311113/combined