Thursday, September 30, 2004

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

Monday, September 20, 2004

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

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

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

Thursday, September 09, 2004

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

Tuesday, September 07, 2004

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

Wednesday, September 01, 2004

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