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