Sunday, May 29, 2005

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This will be biased. I'm a big fan of Douglas Adams' books and consequently it's difficult to step away from them and see this film objectively. The filmmakers do take liberties, thankfully, so this isn't just the book on screen. Mos Def -- a rap star, mind you -- plays Ford Prefect and he does it pitch-perfectly (probably my favorite casting choice). There's a scene on a planet that was never in the book, with our fearless crew having to manuveur bureaucracy as only the British can film it (Brazil!). There's a kiss at the end so completely out of place it should have all Hitchhiker's Guide fans yelping, although it's not out of place for a producer set on developing a franchise while also creating a film with a definite ending. But the bulk of the film follows the book quite religiously, especially the first fifteen minutes in which Arthur Dent (who else to play him but the everyman from The Office?) escapes the destruction of Earth by hitching a ride on a Vogon spaceship, using Prefect's electronic Thumb. Did I mention that it is sci-fi? (Have you been hiding under a couch for 26 years?) It's so nice to see science- fiction making a comeback -- big-budget with expensive names attached. It used to be that no one in their right mind (i.e., no geeks) would go see a sci-fi flick. Too much silly fantasy with no bearing on real life. I'm not sure if The Lord of the Rings or the Matrix trilogies encouraged a revival, but I'm grateful. And to cap it all off, Sam Rockwell as Zaphod Beeblebrox, even more over the top than the book makes him out to be! Sigh. This fan is satisfied.

year: 2005
length: 110 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371724/combined

Proof of Life

Way too much has been written about this film -- affair between its stars, difficulty of shooting in the Andes, freak accident killing a stand-in for one of the principal characters. Now I understand why everyone focused on these points. There wasn't much else to write about. It's a noble effort -- Taylor Hackford (of the unbeatable biopic Ray) used a magazine article as inspiration for a tale of the kidnapping of a (supposed) influential U.S. citizen at work building a dam in South America. The article described how insurance companies (so, in this case, the company that insures the corporation building the dam) use negotiators to buy back these citizens. You have the citizen, David Morse, a less well-known actor whom I've always enjoyed (particularly in Lars von Trier's Dancer in the Dark). You have the citizen's wife, Meg Ryan, doing her best not to fall into her standard comedic personality. Unfortunately, it shows. And you have Russell Crowe, without whom the film would have stunk unbearably. Oh, and don't forget David Caruso, who enters the picture normally enough but exits in one of the strangest turns I've ever seen an actor make. It left me wincing. No wonder he's done nothing of note since leaving NYPD Blue. For the plot itself, you know what's going to happen, so the film is simply biding its time getting to "the good bit." And that bit is decent, but not enough for a recommendation. You're better off renting Speed again.

year: 2000
length: 135 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0228750/combined

Saturday, May 28, 2005

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

It's over. For me, it's a special thing, to have been alive for all 6 of these movies, regardless of their critical or social acceptance. It's not the same as the Rings trilogy. For that I only had to wait 3 years. For this, I waited 28 years. Episode IV (as it's now called) was a special awakening for me, as Episodes I-III probably are for pre-teens now. I don't know if this is THE film that got me interested in cinema in general, but I remember it as a momentous one. I am under no illusion that the acting in most of the six films is under par, and that the story is a hodge-podge of mythology and run-of-the-mill adventure tales. This doesn't bother me at all. While I couldn't care less about Episodes I and II and will probably never see them again in my life, Episode III was special. If you listen to radio or TV or read newspapers you can't escape the critics saying that this one is darker, more tightly scripted and that it wraps everything up in a neat bow. I concur. And it's just what I wanted. The acting still stinks except, of course, for Ewan McGregor who emulates his parallel co-star in more ways than are obvious from this one role. Most critics, and viewers, are going to say that Hayden Christensen is as bad as he was in the last film. I agree...to a point. It's difficult, to transform from someone we're meant to admire to someone we hate. And it's no fault of Christensen's that the deciding moment is scripted weakly. It is his fault that he doesn't play that scene consistently. But, he remains alluring and enigmatic until the final showdown and that's just not easy. It's silly to describe any of the plot -- you know which pieces are needed and it's a matter of seeing how Lucas puts it together. I was impressed more by digital clarity this time around. I wonder if the brightness of the first two films made this more difficult to notice. In particular, I was thrilled by the first extended battle sequence. Everything's faster and more furious than in the other films -- a good kickoff to the final story. Apparently, Lucas and his kids are in the film but I'll have to rent (or quite possibly buy) it to pinpoint them. This does, however, let me segue into a story -- when I was in the Bay Area last summer, I went to my favorite restaurant, The Fog City Diner, to enjoy a quiet meal at the diner counter. Instead, I watched and listened to the eyebrow-raising antics of two teenagers next to me. After they left, two waiters were laughing over how crazy George Lucas' daughter was. How I would have loved to have known that earlier, if only to lean across the counter and say "So, what do you think of your Dad's films?"

year: 2005
length: 140 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121766/combined

Sunday, May 15, 2005

Super Size Me

I knew my decision never to eat fast food again was a good one. I got that notion from the superbly written book "Fast Food Nation" (and yes, it's been over a year and a half, and I've kept my promise). Others can get the same wake-up call from watching this documentary film. Morgan Spurlock's semi-scientifically rigorous experiment to see what eating McDonald's food for a month will do to you, is almost heartbreaking to watch. He doesn't eat the healthy stuff on the menu, he eats far more at a sitting than I ever could even when I'm pigging out (and I can seriously pig out), he gets the Super Size option whenever asked. It's revolting. Interspersed with scenes of him eating and feeling like crap because of it are interviews with lawyers, doctors, corporate watchdogs, political lobbyists, and his girlfriend -- a vegan chef completely horrified by this "study." We are shown statistics on how often people eat fast food and how prevalent obesity in our country is, although I wish he had also mentioned that the main reason people eat this food (besides the fact that it tastes good) is because it is cheap and quick. You're a single mother barely raking in 20K a year and trying to feed 2 kids. What would you do? It costs a great deal to eat healthy food. And while school systems are apparently still serving pop, chips, candy and fries in their lunch rooms, some schools have taken a healthier route, hiring companies that actually cook food on the premises rather than re-heating frozen processed foods. Spurlock has a breezy documentary style that makes watching the film as fun as eating a Big Mac, but when they got to the graphic description of a gastric bypass I had learned my lesson. Again. (Oh, and do not, I repeat, do not miss the bonus feature Smoking Fry.)

year: 2004
length: 100 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390521/combined

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Northfork

On the strength of one of my Netflix Friends (a very cool feature of the service, if you ask me) ratings I rented this film. I knew this was bare-budget independent filmmaking and I knew that the Polish brothers focus on "Americana," in particular ways of viewing America we're not used to. (Their first film was about conjoined twins and their love affair(s) in Idaho.) As a result, I figured this would be spare in terms of dialogue and full of expansive vistas. How right I was. But it edges into your heart as you watch it -- your sympathy and empathy for the characters grows -- and that's a little strange because the film is a little strange. Its structure seems almost non-existent at first, until you realize that you've understood what's been happening for some time. Essentially the tale of a town about to be swallowed up by an impending dam's lake, the characters are all searching for something they feel they need to do before it's too late. The urgency is what keeps the film moving forward, but the pacing (and those vistas!) are what give it its flavor. Besides, I'm more and more impressed with James Woods. First he was great in The Virgin Suicides and now he glues this entire movie together. He has the best lines, specifically during the meet-and-greet outside the dam and in the cafe scene. Nick Nolte is surprisingly excellent as well, although I am more and more convinced that he's just playing himself. Which is kinda scary. My favorite part of the film was the band of misfits who befriend the child. They all have strange names and are lacking something important: Happy has no hands, Cod doesn't speak and Flower has no hair. Why would messengers from heaven have failings? Perhaps the most interesting enigma in the film.

year: 2003
length: 103 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322659/combined

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

High Art

I have trouble with weak endings. This one gives the impression that the ending to the story was never decided on, that the telling of the story was more important than wrapping up the salient ideas. Which is silly. Sure, I'll take away how the story was told (lazily, smokily, sensually) but I'm not going to remember it later on because there isn't a story arc to hang it on. A photography magazine editor, newly minted, desires a reclusive photographer to be profiled in the magazine. Other desires soon become evident. It was interesting to see Ally Sheedy outside of the context of Breakfast Club, but the mannerisms of the high-schooler of that film and the photographer of this film are surprisingly similar. I suppose this proves that she's a perfect character actor. I rented the film because I was interested in seeing Radha Mitchell in earlier roles, as I was impressed with her take on Mrs. Barrie in Finding Neverland. She does wonderful things with facial expressions to portray her conflicting emotions as an editor needing to prove herself, a bored girlfriend, and the moth drawn to the flame of the older, more experienced photographer. Although the flavor of the film is worth a look, as mentioned the story implodes at the end, leaving the viewer wondering what the film was really about.

year: 1998
length: 101 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139362/combined

Miracle

Usually a Disney film implies sappy, melodramatic, overacted. Consequently , I was pleasantly surprised by this depiction of the U.S. win over the Russian hockey team during the 1980 Lake Placid Olympics. Those who are a certain age will remember the exultancy of that moment. Wrapped up as it was in the politics of the time, beating the Russians in any venue was considered a major victory. The start of the film focuses on the political zeitgeist of the country, and it was interesting to view my childhood through that lens. However, they take pains to include Herb Brooks' point of view on this aspect of his team's win, and that's as it should be. Brooks, as portrayed spectacularly by the under-rated Kurt Russell, was a fascinating character. He's portrayed as driven, so much that you want to hate him for it, but also sentimental. Winnowing the Olympic team was clearly heart-breaking for him. I guess what I liked most about the film (besides Russell's spot-on Minnesota accent) was its build-up. They tell the tale from the hiring of Brooks to the penultimate win over Russia almost unemotionally, with little melodrama. Dramatic tension, now that they have in spades. But it works. The hockey scenes are filmed right out there on the ice (watch the documentary attached) and they're exhilarating. If there's one thing you should walk away from the film with, it's that Jim Craig should have gotten a medal just for himself. Craig slapped away 39 attempts on his goal. If that doesn't seem like a lot, watch the film. They make it seem like a lot.

year: 2004
length: 135 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349825/combined

Saw

Definitely don't watch the attached documentary to this DVD. It gives virtually no insight into the making of the film, and neither does the "unrated" version of the music video. These are beyond lame and do no credit to the filmmakers. That being said, the film itself is professional enough, while clearly being an independent feature (small budget, tight shooting schedule, mostly small name actors). A grisly, and well-thought-out, premise is what makes it interesting. Two men held captive in a bathroom reminiscent of every wartime prison cell you've ever seen portrayed need to perform unthinkable acts to escape. (One has to wonder whether the filmmakers saw the cult Canadian film Cube and mirrored that premise.) The film doesn't stay in one room, but flashes back to prior similar situations, and the police work done as a result of their discovery. Still, shooting the film like a music video (no chance to breathe), gives it a certain youthful cachet that appeals to a smaller segment of the population than the filmmakers may have desired. I was also befuddled that they used two British actors as the main characters but set this in America. Is that a comment? The ending is decent, but the reasons for it are weak, as they are throughout the film. Which is why it doesn't rate higher than it does. A good thriller, but lacking depth.

year: 2004
length: 102 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387564/combined

Sin City

I want to recommend this to everyone but there's no way everyone will enjoy it. It's not the fact that it's based on a comic book -- this isn't superhero stuff and won't turn off those who find that silly. What it is is style on screen. It's like watching printed graphics come to life -- Sin City 3D. Except that it's more like 2.5D because nothing looks real in the film either. It's filmed in black and white with splashes of color where most appropriate (the yellow of one of the villains is particularly spot-on; effectively repulsive). Some of the scenes are exact replicas of pages from the graphic novel, which is a remarkable accomplishment on its own. Now the reason I don't recommend this to everyone is because it's ultra-violent and ultra-sexist. You could call it ultra-noir. Except that the black and white characters you expect from such noir camp reveal themselves as shades of gray (and yes, I'm sure the comparison to how it was filmed is supposed to be noticed). The violence on screen is obviously cartoonish...in parts. I would be hesitant to take any teenager because of the parts that are not evidently sent up. For those over the age of 19, I would be surprised if you didn't see the beauty and craft. My husband, the comic geek and fan of the artistic excellence of the book, wasn't sure he needed to see this kind of violence on film. If it was a pleasant surprise for him, I think it will be doubly so for those who haven't read the book and have no preconceptions. Besides, I love films with good endings and this one has a whopper.

year: 2005
length: 124 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401792/combined

Kung Fu Hustle

I hope that everyone had a chance to see Shaolin Soccer, the first of Stephen Chow's actor-director films to make it to the States. Miramax, as distributor, made a royal hash of its release and it was in my area for just a week and no more. I missed it, as a result, and had to wait another few months for its release on DVD. Well, it was worth it. Chow is far, far funnier than, say, Jackie Chan. His humor is less boisterous, less forced. He's still making a martial arts film, with the ubiquitous and required action, but incorporating unbelievably silly musical numbers (the one in the night club is a howler). Well, the same holds true of Chow's latest hit (the largest grossing film in China in 2004). I felt, though, that he was trying to do the same thing with vastly different material. I'm guessing this film is based on Shanghai's real past -- 30s gangsters and the havoc they wreaked on city residents -- and the violence of that time is translated to the screen. I wanted to laugh at how silly it's portrayed, but I was wincing as I did so. Which could be a desired effect, but I found it off-putting. Chow himself isn't as front and center in this film, and more's the pity. You'll understand when every scene he's in seems better paced and more fluid. I suspect that besides watching every Hong Kong pulp film he could (and the Matrix Trilogy over and over), Chow also is a fan of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, of the recent A Very Long Engagement and Amelie, and his weird, dark and funny flavor of directing. I reserve the right to change my rating once I've seen the film in a decent enough cinema. The screen I saw it on was not lit brightly enough, and I found myself squinting for most of the film. Irritating enough to potentially color my view of it. Or I'll wait until it's out on DVD, in digital grandeur. Plus bloopers. (I hope.)

original title: Gong Fu
year: 2004
length: 95 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373074/combined

City of God

Is this as good as the Godfather trilogy? They're both about love, loyalty and betrayal, but the strong element of (nuclear) family history is missing in this film. In its place you have the history of a city, or at least the divisiveness inherent in any city. The city in question: Rio de Janeiro, considered one of the most beautiful cities in the world (and seeing glimpses of the downtown areas and surrounding mountains, sea and clear blue sky, you can see why). Class struggle exists here, as nearly everywhere, and a large portion of the city is slum (the Cidade de Deus of the title, originally a housing project gone out of control). With the poor struggling to survive, it's not surprising that drug and gun smuggling is rampant. To protect this turf and its citizens, "soldiers" are recruited from the citizenry, effectively replacing governmental authority and clashing constantly with the police. Layered on top of this history is the story of one boy growing up amidst all the chaos, struggling to remain honest and fulfill his ambition of becoming a photographer. What makes this tale one of the greatest ever told is its epic quality told with great restraint, with nary an extraneous scene, but still full and lush and in love with its setting, regardless of the squalor it portrays. Not once was I bored, not once was I tempted to take an intermission, I was just desperate to find out how it ended. And the ending is what gives it the extra .5 stars that raises it to rarified ranks. For some, it may seem inevitable, or too tidy, but I recognized it as the filmmakers' solution to the seemingly hopeless state of affairs. I understand the filmmakers chose actors from those in the favella (slum), and they are hands-down marvelous choices. I have to wonder how difficult it was to shoot even part of this film in the slums and/or how hard it was to line up actors, whether or not they were associated with the insurgency. I recommend the documentary attached to the DVD only half-heartedly. While its images will stick in your head, watching it distills somewhat the impact of the film.

original title: Cidade de Deus
year: 2002
length: 130 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317248/combined