Foreign Correspondent

Eh. I don't get the applause surrounding this film. I keep reading that it stands the test of time. Did we see the same thing? This was one of Hitchcock's first films for U.S. studios, and it seems to reflect a transition in his directing style. It's got all the Hitchcockian elements -- a curvy, suspense-filled plot with a MacGuffin in the middle -- but they're not as perfectly structured as usual. Case in point, in the sea of umbrellas scene why does it take several more camera shots before the killer or the hero start moving, even though the entire crowd is already in a panic? This felt slow and more unnatural than your typical Hitchcock scene. The jokes all fall flat, as if he were trying to find a middle ground between American and British humor. The MacGuffin is implausible (a treaty clause never written down, only memorized by the participants?!), and the acting is, frankly, boring. There are some wonderful scenes (the interior of the windmill, the plane crash, the final shot), but the film is pulled in too many directions for it to be coherent. Still, if you like tales about journalists, especially wartime journalists, or if you really enjoy Joel McCrea as a leading actor (umm, oh-kay), you might find enough likable elements to keep you entertained.

year: 1940
length: 120 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032484/combined

Dial M for Murder

Hitchcock considered this film one of his minor efforts. Why? Because it's confined essentially to one room (similar to Rope)? Or because its fast pacing didn't let him explore characters and settings, as he was then used to doing (as in Notorious and Spellbound)? In my mind, it's the perfect Hitchcock film -- a little bit cheesy (sign of the times), refined (oh-so-British), painstakingly structured, and with the suspense and mystery we come to equate with Hitchcock. What more could you want? It's clearly a play on screen, even without the obvious limitation to shooting in one room. Five main characters -- Grace Kelly as the wife, Ray Milland as the husband and three stellar character actors as the lover, the inspector and the villain -- act out a tale of cunning betrayal with not one but two twists to keep you on the edge of your seats. You have to pay attention because the minutiae of the betrayal are, well, minute and easily forgotten. The oh-so-British manners will have you grinning, but what's most fascinating is Hitchcock's choice of camera angles and prop placement. Watch for foreground objects in prominent places. The reason? A 3-D version of this film was also released -- yup, with those red-and-green plastic glasses. Headaches notwithstanding, it would be worth seeing an original filming of this in 3-D if only to fully experience the master's vision.

year: 1954
length: 105 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046912/combined

A Very Long Engagement

Saying I had high expectations of this film is putting it mildly. After reading the book and falling in love with it, I would never have gone to see the film adaptation if it wasn't getting great reviews. Along comes the adaptation, with that bizarre, free-spirited director Jean-Pierre Jeunet at the helm, and starring his favorite actor (and all of France's favorite, as it seems) Audrey Tatou. Ever since 1991's Delicatessen, I knew I would wait and watch for Jeunet's films with as much anticipation as Hayao Miyazaki's. There's something child-like about his creations, as if he remembers a childhood full of love and hope and joy, not without traumas, but none that are insurmountable. He read Sébastien Japrisot's novel and teased out those aspects that work best with his style of filmmaking -- old videos used to illustrate a point, quick cuts that never let the admittedly complex story lag, gorgeous cinematography mimicking both the horror of war (in all its awful browns) and the golden luster of post-war France, humor where there was little in the book to create a more balanced tone... The story revolves around a French boy in WWI, executed for mutilating his hand in a bid to get sent home, and his fiance who refuses to believe he's dead. I'm tempted to give it my highest marks except that folks who haven't read the book may find themselves lost at times during the film. The book is full of characters, and the film mirrors that, yet doesn't have the time to delve deeply into each one. It doesn't help that the book/film takes a meandering course towards resolution. To be fair, I'm not sure what Jeunet could have done to make this better. All it means is that you should either watch the film many times, read the book before you go see the film, or read it afterwards to fully get its flavor. (Oh, and yes, Jodie Foster is in the movie, and yes, she does speak French fluently.)

original title: Un Long Dimanche de Fiançailles
year: 2004
length: 134 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0344510/combined

Code 46

Michael Winterbottom creates unique, offbeat, nearly unstructured musings on the human condition. An excellent niche to have found, but I've officially given up on him. The two other films I've seen of his (24 Hour Party People and Butterfly Kiss) were just as disjointed and strange as this one. Easy to say "not for me," but all of these films would have been more enjoyable if they had, well, a point. It isn't that this film doesn't have an underlying meaning (and a darn important one at that -- loss of personal freedoms creates a scary world), but that it's too obscured to readily recognize. Having nothing better to do the evening I watched this, I pulled up the DVD featurette describing the making of the film. It becomes obvious why the film feels so unstructured. This was guerilla filmmaking -- screech car to a halt, run out with cameras, a small crew and your two actors, film some quick shots, jump back in the car, race off to another place, repeat there, repeat in another country. How can you storyboard a plot? How can your actors have the faintest clue what they're doing? Which shouldn't impugn Samantha Morton and Tim Robbins, who do amazing things with what little they're given to work with. So, what is the plot? It's sorta like this: in a world where you are not allowed to liase with anyone containing similar DNA and your travel is restricted by an all-knowing corporation, a man and a woman fall in love and try to remain together against these odds. See what I mean?

year: 2003
length: 92 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0345061/combined

Before Sunset

I knew I would like this one better. I mean, you drop in on these two 9 years later, you're going to expect that they've matured. First 15 minutes, blammo, they're already discussing the shape of the world, their careers, their relationships, and skirting around issues of whether they're happy or not with the life they've chosen. Ethan Hawke sums up the picture with one phrase early on -- "If we didn't suffer, we wouldn't learn a thing." Obviously, this resonates for me because I'm of the age that I viscerally know what it means. For 20- somethings, they may not get the meaning in everything that's being said and unsaid. But the tale of romance re-visited and re-vised is something fundamentally universal. So thank goodness that someone like Richard Linklater (and Julie Delpy and Hawke as co- screenwriters) put it on film for all of us to see and recognize as our own. For some strange reason it makes you feel better. It's nice to know others feel the same way; it makes us feel a little less alone.

year: 2004
length: 80 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/combined

The Aviator

I was one of the few who loved Martin Scorsese's last endeavor (Gangs of New York) as opposed to simply liking it. This film feels more palatable to the masses, and I hope it gets the box office he deserves. That his entire career deserves. (I could go off on that tangent for some time...) By palatable I mean that this is a heartfelt tale of a super-smart visionary who changed the face of aviation in this country, all the while struggling with a mental illness that caused bizarre fits of paranoia and obsession. Who doesn't love the story of someone who triumphs against great odds? I would propose that there's more than that in this film. Scorsese doesn't shrink from making his Howard Hughes far more human. Hughes didn't pull himself up by his bootstraps (rich by birth) and his decisions often seemed misguided (designing cargo and troop transport ships when the war is almost over?). He spent far more than he had to finance his "crazy" schemes. But, at least as Scorsese puts it, he was often more right than wrong. Which is where the triumph part comes in. I expect many, many people will make comparisons to Citizen Kane, so I'll refrain from that. Except to say that the colors in this film are mind-boggling. The red in the roses, the burnt-orange of a dress, the bizarre green of the golf course... Either someone did a lot of work with filters or Scorsese has developed a new way to transform color onscreen. And Cate Blanchett as Kate Hepburn! I had my doubts going into the film that she would be able to pull that off. There is some truth to the rumor that she's the next Meryl Streep -- her ability to become someone else without breaking a sweat is similar to Streep's own abilities (although with Streep it's more than just a new language or voice, but that's for a different review). Regardless, Blanchett is stupendous as Hepburn and is one more reason to see the film.

year: 2004
length: 170 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338751/combined

Secretary

If ever there was a film not for everyone, this is it. I would go so far as to say that only the bravest should see it. It's difficult to write that about a film I admire a great deal. But easier because I, frankly, didn't enjoy it much. I can't think of another film that manipulates your emotions to such an extent. For literally three-quarters of the film I was squirming in my seat, alternately horrified by the theme and appalled by the blatant, dare I say, illegality of what was being portrayed. When you think you've figured the film out, it does a reverse face and you don't even notice it you're so relieved not to be watching the previous material. I tip my hat to the writer and director. I can clearly imagine people leaving this film with a big, mushy, dopey grin on their face. If that's the intent of the filmmakers, I am in awe. The plot itself I'm not going to reveal much of, save to say that it's about a lawyer and his new, timid secretary. Oh, and if you don't like James Spader (and I do, but I would never, ever want to have dinner with the guy) you'll enjoy the film even less. However, if you want to see Maggie Gyllenhaal in her hands-down best film role, run right out and rent this. Just don't say I didn't warn you.

year: 2002
length: 104 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0274812/combined

13 Going on 30

OK, so it's a re-make of Big with a female lead, but it is one of the few films I've seen recently that's completely worth the re-make. It doesn't coast on the strength of the main actors, Jennifer Garner and Mark Ruffalo. They build every brick of its success. Garner is eye-opening as a comedienne with some serious dramatic chops. I was really, really surprised (especially since I detested Daredevil and have never seen her in Alias). Ever since You Can Count on Me, I can't say enough good things about Ruffalo. He pops up in interesting places (Collateral?!), and is the perfect sexy schlub (as opposed to real schlubs like Paul Giamatti and John C. Reilly). I adored nearly every moment of this fun, sparkly, sweet movie. It's not the comedic masterpiece that Big is, but it's not meant to be. And it has a better moral ending, too. Grab a big bowl of popcorn, rent this movie, snuggle up with your loved one, and don't forget to watch the special feature "I Was a Teenage Geek." The perfect complement to the film.

year: 2004
length: 98 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337563/combined

Everest

When this premiered in the IMAX theaters I was too lazy to go see it. After everyone praised it to the skies, I realized what a dolt I had been and waited 6 years for it to come back to our neighboring IMAX theater. (And if you haven't seen it and live in the Detroit area, it'll be at the Henry Ford IMAX through March 10.) I'd heard about the panoramic vistas, the death-defying ladder walk across an ice chasm while pointing the camera straight down (!), and of course the story. This was the summer that over a dozen hikers were killed on the mountain during a violent snowstorm. It's been written up in Jon Krakauer's book "Into Thin Air" which is a horrifying, but well-written, account of that summer. The movie goes the book one better by making what the hikers faced a visceral experience. In some places, there are only photographic stills and it's clear that the camera operators put down their equipment to assist in helping save the lives of the snowbound hikers. Strangely, I found that the film left up in the air the question of whether or not people should climb tall mountains. It's clearly a passion for these folks, one that's integral to their lives (one hiker was there on his honeymoon!), so it would be impossible to deny them this. At the same time, the tragedies on the mountain make crystal clear the reasons why we shouldn't attempt this type of climbing. I suggest keeping tabs on your nearest IMAX theater and forming your own opinion.

year: 1998
length: 44 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120661/combined

Strictly Ballroom

This was my introduction to Baz Luhrmann films. Of which, unfortunately, there are only three, his "Red Curtain" trilogy (Moulin Rouge and Romeo + Juliet being the other two). All three are big, exciting, fun and funny theatrical numbers, but of them all this one is my favorite. I'm sure it's because it's all about ballroom dancing, which is one of the talents I dearly wish I had. There's something so appealing about professionals smoothly gliding across dance floors that makes you want to ooh and aah like at fireworks displays. Maybe that's why they dress up in outfits with big frilly skirts, loud colors and sequins galore, to make them look more like fireworks on the ground. Luhrmann takes this background and puts a love story on top of it similar to Dirty Dancing -- girl doesn't know how to dance, boy teaches her -- but that's the only comparison that can be made. Dirty Dancing is trying to be a Serious Film. This film knows it's a lark, and while not making fun of the ballroom dancers themselves, it pokes fun at the idea of standardizing the industry so that only certain steps are allowed in competition. Which is what the boy (played so ably by ballet dancer Paul Mercurio) is chafing against, rightly and ultimately triumphantly.

year: 1992
length: 94 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105488/combined

Angels in America

This is not entertainment. I mean, it is, but it shouldn't be viewed that way. In the same vein, it shouldn't be viewed as educational. I mean, it is, in that it does educate, but its intent is not to preach. What it really is is dramatic poetry, a Shakespearean play for our times. You certainly notice when monologue-itis creeps into some films, but not in this one, and I think that's because the monologues are breathtakingly true, honest, and eloquent. And they don't go on for longer than they should. This is, one could argue, yet another story about AIDS in the 80s in conservative America. But with screenwriting this intense (and I wish I could have seen how audiences reacted to the original play), it never meant to be included in the AIDs-film genre. As happens in plays, but almost never on screen, several of the actors play more than one part, chief among them Meryl Streep, Jeffrey Wright, and Emma Thompson. They and the other actors do the screenplay justice, hitting all the right notes at the right moments. I'll admit the angel was slightly off-putting initially (I'd imagined it in my mind differently), but that had to be the hardest role of them all, playing a non-human but imbuing it with human qualities without making a joke out of it. By far my favorite scene is that of heaven, which was filmed at Villa Adriana outside of Rome, a supremely beautiful and enigmatic ruin, one of my favorite places in the Rome vicinity. So I guess I get to say that I've been to heaven. Can't be flippant at the end of this review, though. I recommend this film to anyone, in particular those who are interested in all sides of the AIDS story, for it does every side justice.

year: 2003
length: 352 min. (6-part mini-series)
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318997/combined

Road to Morocco

Bing Crosby and Bob Hope. What more is there to say? That the rose-colored glasses of childhood are showing their age. Hope still tickles your ribs (his hourglass and cannibalism jokes had me in hysterics), and you can say nothing bad about Crosby's singing, but the rest of the film is capital-B-boring. I was giggling madly for the beginning and ending -- not surprisingly, where Crosby and Hope are on their own and the punch lines fly fast and furious -- but nearly nodded off for the rest of it. The twists that are necessary to get them from one place to the next are worse than any sequel-ized piece of trash put out today. The filmmakers are as cognizant of this as we are. Just listen to the title song...sung on the back of a camel, of course. If you love Hope or Crosby, it'll be worth it, but the rest of it you can pass up.

year: 1942
length: 83 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035262/combined

Velvet Goldmine

As hallucinations go, this is a good one. Your first clue is the UFO dropping the infant Oscar Wilde at the doorstep of his adopted parents. Don't run away! Roll your eyes at the first 7 or so minutes and then open them wide and hold onto your seat. As the introductory screen tells you -- this might be fiction, but it's based on reality, so turn it up. A thinly veiled account of the stars of glam rock in England in the 70s, with obvious references to David Bowie and Iggy Pop and the whole bi-sexual nature of that world. If you're turned off by men kissing or being overtly flamboyant, this isn't for you. But you'll be missing bizarre music videos, Ewan McGregor in his altogether, and one of the steamiest stage scenes ever filmed. Gives a whole new meaning to guitar licks... Anyway, it's too bad that the film loses its oomph towards the end, as the plot peters out and inconsistencies creep in. It's really a poor man's Hedwig and the Angry Inch, which is interesting since it was filmed several years before that fabulous film. (Todd Haynes is, however, thanked in the credits to Hedwig, so perhaps John Cameron Mitchell was interested in Haynes' lessons learned.) The three main actors give it their all, with Jonathan Rhys-Meyers as the stand-out. He's what I would label a scary actor because he consistently seems to be flirting on the edge of sanity (see him in Titus if you don't believe me). Christian Bale is his usual babe-li-cious self (sorry, I adore his acting, but there's no getting around the fact that he's a beautiful boy) and Ewan McGregor is fantastic in his stage scenes (although I wasn't completely convinced in his love scenes). See it not for the weak plotting, but for scenes that will be indelibly imprinted on your brain for days and days and days...

year: 1998
length: 124 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120879/combined