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