tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-222156512024-02-08T06:19:31.963-05:00Kat's Film ReviewsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger344125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-59984342231545560862007-01-27T20:58:00.000-05:002007-01-27T21:06:27.782-05:00The Wire<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >I resisted, strongly. Pals of mine told me this was a superb show, not to be missed. Eventually, I put it on the list. First episode, hmm. Second episode, huh? Third through sixth episodes, what the...? It wasn't until much later in the season that I eventually recognized what the creators of this show were doing. While it may be obvious that the story is about both the drug dealers and law enforcement agents of Baltimore, it's not at all obvious where that story is going for a long while. I am surprised the show ever got a following when it requires a commitment from the viewer to wait for it to unfold over several episodes (it reminds me of The Sopranos in that respect). It goes without saying that the acting is supreme, especially the drug addict trying to go straight (Andre Royo) and the clever drug boss with ESP (Wood Harris). The show does its best to capture every bit of the grittiness of a big-city project and its inhabitants, and that remains my only issue with it. I am not steeped in street language, so it was frustrating to try and understand the street code at first-- good thing I have rewind capabilities. HBO never makes it easy for you (the only HBO series I can recall that was fluff was Sex and the City), and as long as you realize this, you'll be rewarded. No spoilers-- experience it for yourself. Besides, it has the best theme song ever. I double-dog dare you to disagree.<br /><br />year: 2002-?<br />length: seasons 1-3 on DVD, season 4 aired, season 5 picked up<br />rating: 3.5<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0306414/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0306414/combined</a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-92091591089770386272006-11-24T21:22:00.000-05:002006-11-24T22:39:13.693-05:00Casino Royale<span style="font-family: verdana;font-size:85%;" >All those other Bond movies? They're like spoofs of the spy genre, with a plastic, perfect hero at the center. This movie? A human Bond. Still egocentric, to be sure, but someone you can empathize with. And in large part because of it, one-quarter of the way through I knew it was going to be the best spy thriller I'd ever seen. For all of you who have judged that a blond Bond will have Ian Fleming rolling in his grave, I strongly urge you to reconsider. Not only is Daniel Craig as good a Bond as Sean Connery (yes, you read that right), his colleagues almost give him a run for his money: Caterina Murino can fill a dress like no one else, plus she has to temerity to be a good actress; Eva Green is a match in every way to Bond's sarcasm, wit and ego; Mads Mikkelsen is a villain who does not overplay every scene (thank the gods); and Judi Dench is the icing on the cake. Above all that, the writing deserves an Oscar. I'm completely serious. You thought the era of double entendres went out when the film code came in? Each and every spark-infused conversation between Craig and Green places this film up there with the best of the Cary Grant and Clark Gable dramatic oeuvre. You want more? An opening stunt guaranteed to elicit gasps from the most jaded film viewers. Cinematography that goes the distance-- even in the stunt scenes where most directors are content to assume the audience will only be watching the action. And an opening title sequence that finally lays to rest the ultra-non-feminist opening titles of the past. If you've read the book, I will warn you that the torture scene is re-enacted. This might give some folks pause (and with good reason, although you see nothing). If you're willing to close your eyes for that part, the rest is-- well, it's obvious it's worth it, no? The only downside is that with such a successful re-imagining of the franchise, I fear the Broccoli family has an Atlantean task ahead of them for Bond #22.<br /><br />year: 2006<br />length: 144 min.<br />rating; 4.0<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381061/combined" title="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381061/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1144701008653182492006-04-10T16:26:00.000-04:002006-11-14T12:30:53.066-05:00The Inside Man<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >Bollywood music to start off with? That woke me up. Still, there is no Bollywood type in the film. There's a Sikh (who gives the best straight line) but he doesn't seem the type interested in Indian pop. Now this is Spike Lee, and he gets better and better as time goes on in waking us out of our racial stereotypes. And molding them as well. I would consider Lee our best commentator on racial problems-- what they are, how they change, what in heck we can do personally. What's unfortunate is that he can't take a film like this-- one with a bank robber heist scenario that I've never seen done before-- and not make one of the best films ever out of it. It's as if it's so ingrained in him to "lesson" us, even if subtly, that he can't build a film that has a complete thread from beginning to end. Take for instance the Jodie Foster character, supposedly a very powerful woman with very powerful friends. It's not that her character isn't needed, in fact it very much is, but he doesn't weave her tale in with the rest of the tales. It doesn't help that she is super-duper annoying in this role. That insipid smiling/laughing act she does fits like a poorly designed glove, although she shows her rare talent when she finally does get serious towards the end. I've been disappointed in her last few roles (yeah, even the surprise cameo in The Very Long Engagement). I wish she'd do something like The Accused again (that oughta take you back). And maybe she should stay off the heels, too. I thought I took the cake as least graceful in anything above an inch.<br /><br />year: 2006<br />length: 129 min.<br />rating: 3.0<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454848/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454848/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1144697260962099762006-04-10T15:21:00.000-04:002006-11-14T17:19:36.261-05:00Slither<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >OK. Nathan Fillion phase now. Not that he's done much, so I don't know how much of a phase this is going to be. Bummer-- while he's not magnetic onscreen like say, Terence Blanchard, he has a unique mix of dramatic and comedic talent that makes him nigh on perfect for many types of film. Like Slither. Oy, that title. I very nearly didn't bother with it based on that tremendously disgusting title. And movie poster. And very lame trailer. I thought-- oh, just a stupid sci-fi horror film along the lines of Tremors or Gremlins. How could that possibly rise above? Well, lemme tell ya. It's a zombie film! And you know how much I love zombie films (<a href="http://kathagedorn.blogspot.com/2004/03/28-days-later.html">28 Days Later...</a>, Shaun of the Dead, <a href="http://kathagedorn.blogspot.com/2004/04/dawn-of-dead.html">Dawn of the Dead</a>). Well, this one's nastier, grosser and fouler. And I mean foul language-- if that kinda stuff bothers you, stop here. But I honestly have never seen foul language used to such effect-- the best lines are the crudest. I'm still giggling over them several days later. It has its sweet moments because of course there's a love interest-- how could the delectable Elizabeth Banks be anything but? I can tell you now that I'll be renting it not because I want to see the film again so soon after seeing it in the theater but because I need to see Fillion in the outtakes. The man is the funniest dramatic actor on the planet right now (Steve Carrell's moving up there though), and those Serenity outtakes are still popped in the DVD player when I need a laugh. He's ranking right up there with "top 10 folks in Hollywood I'd like to have lunch with." The other 9? More later.<br /><br />year: 2006<br />length: 95 min.<br />rating: 3.5<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0439815/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0439815/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1153164266958387622005-12-13T15:23:00.000-05:002006-11-14T15:42:47.891-05:00Syriana<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >I know, this is going to make me look like the worst kind of zombie (actually, are there grades of zombies?), but I'm going to have to go along with Mr. G. Kenny again. Who wrote the longest review I can remember him writing, giving his point of view on why this film isn't as good as it seems on the surface. Four tales, interwoven, of people involved in oil in the Middle East. A lawyer (the awesome Jeffrey Wright), a CIA man (George Clooney), a financier/family man (Matt Damon), and a sheikh prince (the inspiring, understated Alexander Siddig). Some of their paths meet, and in the meanwhile, you hear a great deal about oil politics. Because of the quick jumps from storyline to storyline, the film as a whole can be difficult to comprehend. A result of the obvious fact that oil politics are intricate and that this is a "smart" script, meaning clever (sometimes too clever to follow). You won't leave the theater misunderstanding the gist of the screenplay, but you will wonder why it was filmed in the first place (which is Kenny's argument). This is a movie with such a dearth of hope that it leaves you far more depressed about the world we live in, and the America we live in, than before you went to see it. Look, everything about the situation in the Middle East sucks, and the one ray of sunshine in the film has so many powerful people and nations thwarting him that it makes no difference whether his politics are "right" or not. To top it off, at the end of the credits is the URL of a website (<a href="http://participate.net/oilchange" target="link">http://participate.net/oilchange</a>) where you can learn and act on methods for bringing relief to the Middle East situation. How dare they show us this after leaving us with nothing? How dare they indicate that there is hope when they've just torn down every shred of hope they could muster? Feh. I was willing to give it a decent rating, mostly for performances (and the poster). But what would that serve?<br /><br />year: 2005<br />length: 126 min.<br />rating: 2.5<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365737/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365737/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1149107066718138892005-12-09T16:21:00.000-05:002006-11-14T12:30:54.321-05:00A Love Song for Bobby Long<span style="font-family: verdana;font-size:85%;" >Show offs. This film was made specifically for showcasing talent. Not that it isn't a sweet tale -- girl, having lost her mother, comes home and finds it is a home after all. Filmed in New Orleans, it has a nostalgic feel completely unintended by the filmmakers. Doesn't do quite enough to exude the stickiness of a summer on the bayou (what, is Scarlett Johansson too cool to sweat?) though. Although it does plenty to make obvious the sticky situation of three people -- Johansson, Gabriel Macht, and John Travolta -- not quite sure they all want to be together in the same house. Each character gets his or her showy (see above) speech, and they all do a splendid job at that. Problem is, the film leaves us at the 10 minute-to-go mark with a hastily tacked-on ending. All is suddenly bright and sunshiny which is bad enough, but worst of all we have a dangling plot line. Now, I'm one who loves unresolved endings, but the attraction between two of the principal characters is touched on here and there and finally ignored. If it's clearly a big enough deal to include in the first place, why not give us a hint as to its resolution? Too touchy a subject? Worse, you could interpret the last scene multiple different ways in this regard. I guess I'll have to read the book to know what happened.<br /><br />year: 2004<br />length: 119 min.<br />rating: 3.0<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369672/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369672/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1149177786864613102005-12-09T12:00:00.000-05:002006-11-14T12:30:55.023-05:00Kiss Kiss Bang Bang<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >The second this film was over, my friend turns to us and says "I could watch that film if it was four hours long." I say in return, "I want four more films just like this, right now." Hands-down, this is the best comedy I've seen this year. (OK, the comedy market wasn't that great this year, but bear with me.) It may be violent (dropping bodies off skyscrapers and NOT making the dumpster makes you wince) and it's slightly plot-heavy (whose daughter is the body in the car and whose daughter is the body in the shower?!), but it's so darn funny that who gives a rat's ass about those slight problems. Shane Black is back on top, this time as director as well as screenwriter (he wrote the undeniably awful Long Kiss Goodnight but opened everyone's eyes with the script for the original Lethal Weapon). What other screenwriter can take a classic caper plot, add in every cliché known to that genre, and at the same time include dialogue that has one character correcting another's parts-of-speech? I simply couldn't wait for the next scene, and it's been a depressingly long time since that has happened. Both main actors are the bee's knees -- Robert Downey Jr. as a petty thief suddenly thrust into the acting business and Val Kilmer as a gay cop (yes, the jokes are over-the-top, as if you couldn't guess) attempting to advise Downey Jr. on his acting role as a cop. Best of all, the lead actress Michelle Monaghan actually gets to show chops instead of being window dressing (well, she runs around in a pervy Santa suit for a bit; ignore if you're a girl). Obviously, I want you to run out and see this. If it's gone from your area, support Mr. Black by buying it on DVD. You will not be sorry.<br /><br />year: 2005<br />length: 103 min.<br />rating: 4.0<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373469/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373469/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1158351800023858222005-11-27T16:21:00.000-05:002006-11-14T12:31:08.086-05:00Wallace & Gromit in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >Who doesn't love the heroic Gromit and the affable, dopey, cheese-loving Wallace? Only in this film, Nick Park's first full- length feature starring his original creations, Wallace may not be as much a cheese lover as you once thought... This time they're in the vegetable piracy deterrent business (called "anti- pesto" -- get it? get it?), on the run after a giant rabbit beast called, naturally, the Were Rabbit. Mixed in is Wallace's usual love interest, Lady Tottington (Helena Bonham-Carter), her gun- loving suitor, Victor Quartermaine (Ralph Fiennes), and many silly-looking rabbits. Park does his usual genius with the story and his usual skill in mirroring human traits in his clay characters, although this is the first film of his in which I noticed mars in the clay figures. The figures almost seemed hastily created, but perhaps this is simply a factor of having a longer time to look at them than usual. Also weird is a fair number of sexual innuendos -- nothing too bad, mostly (ahem) titty jokes, but odd for a film that is family friendly fare. Do 10-year-olds get these kinds of jokes? Hmm. Regardless, I was, as usual, enchanted. The story flows fast, there are more silly inventions than in the previous short films, and one of the final scenes between Gromit and another dog should make you laugh yourself silly. In the immortal words of Wallace, "it's a veritable vegetable paradise!"<br /><br />year: 2005<br />length: 85 min.<br />rating: 3.5<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312004/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312004/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1158350199315264642005-11-27T15:55:00.000-05:002006-11-14T17:26:14.528-05:00Serenity<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >Too many of you won't give two figs about this film. And more's the pity. It's an intelligent, action-filled, extremely well-acted, humorous, soon-to-be-classic from the pen of Joss Whedon (better known for writing Buffy). Worlds apart from the latest Star Wars trilogy (George, take notice). The story behind this film (bear with me here) is that Whedon created a TV series that was sci-fi but not in any way fantastical. The crew of a spaceship are renegades after a multi-planet war that they lost, making them and the rest of the planets part of the (of course it's evil) Alliance. They scrounge their keep from planet to planet by taking on morally questionable jobs. Kinda like playing cowboy on the edge of known space. That was the series, called Firefly (reviewed <a href="http://kathagedorn.blogspot.com/2005/02/firefly.html">here</a>), and it was aired on the Sci-Fi Channel to almost no notice at all, in the grand scheme of things. Didn't help that they aired the episodes out of order which confused the general populace. The fervent few, who call themselves Browncoats after the popular name for the renegade soldiers, were devastated at the lost of "their" show. Fortunately, Whedon has come roaring back with this film, named after the spaceship itself. I had the great fortune to see this on opening day with Browncoats in abundance and while I'm not always a fan about doing that, I couldn't have asked for a more exhilirating experience. The audience, seeing as they knew the backstory backwards and forwards, laughed uproariously and gasped in shock at all the right points. I have met a few folks who didn't know the backstory and they all liked it hugely. So! Rent it when it's out on DVD (next month; yeah, disappointing box office take, but what did the studio expect?). And let me know what you thought of it.<br /><br />year: 2005<br />length: 119 min.<br />rating: 4.0<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1153166105398582682005-11-27T15:53:00.000-05:002006-11-14T12:31:04.183-05:00The Squid and the Whale<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >Remember Jesse Eisenberg from Roger Dodger a few years back? Without him as the foil (fool?) in that flick, it would merely have been overly pretentious film-student fare. He does the same thing in this film, only snarkier. The (nearly true) tale of two literates in the 80s and how their divorce affects their two children needs snarky actors, if only to offset the cringe-inducing writing. It 's one of those films you watch between your fingers at times (which has relevance in the film itself), kinda like you'd watch a really gory horror film. Most cringe-worthy is the undeniably excellent portrayal of the younger kid (Owen Kline) and his shenanigans. Yuck, ugh, ick. And this is not because we see him murdering puppies -- it's all about what's going through his head. All four main actors give us a no-holds-barred look at how divorce affects intellectuals, with all the pop-psychology spouting and well-essayed rationalizations that you'd expect from that type of divorce. It goes without saying that Laura Linney is every filmmaker's dream for spiritually-tortured females. Jeff Daniels throws away his comedic schtick with great abandon. Anna Paquin is eye-popping. Heck, even William Baldwin is perfectly cast. Don't take your kids, don't take your estranged spouse (duh), just take yourself. It'll be a film you'll keep on thinking about long after it's over.<br /><br />year: 2005<br />length: 88 min.<br />rating: 3.5<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367089/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367089/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1142973524877950252005-11-27T15:37:00.000-05:002006-11-14T12:30:50.928-05:00The Interpreter<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >What a great premise -- interpreter hears of an assassination plot, enlists the help of the feds, but is so shadowy and secretive we're unsure whether she's telling the truth. If only Sydney Pollack would have kept this thriller on a higher intellectual plane, say, more along the lines of Constant Gardener than The Bourne Supremacy. I can see that he was trying to channel Rear Window in terms of its style and class (that's what you should do if you have such high-profile and highly-skilled actors as Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn). What he ended up with was unique views of a unique building and a stilted plot trying gamely to enlighten us on opposing views of international communications -- United Nations diplomacy vs. terrorism. Really, the shots of the UN building in NY are astounding, and not just because most of us have never seen the General Assembly. It's astounding architecturally, and holds its beauty and power after 56 years. Equally surprising is Kidman's facility with the fake African language they concocted for the film. Even the elves in Rivendell didn't sound as convincing as she does. (It's a pity she keeps choosing films that aren't as successful as they should be; she is immensely talented and not given her due.) Penn disappointed me. It looked like he wasn't putting much into it, and that may have been an effect of his role being more supporting than leading. Essentially, a pity all around -- I wouldn't waste my time.<br /><br />year: 2005<br />length: 128 min.<br />rating: 2.0<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373926/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373926/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1153165000753918272005-11-27T15:34:00.000-05:002006-11-14T12:31:03.499-05:00Mr. & Mrs. Smith<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >Some star recently said what a miracle it is that any film is successful -- at any point in its lifecycle something can go so wrong as to make it fail. I feel for Doug Liman in this particular instance because he created something smart and classy, and the lives of his stars almost derailed it. I imagine he was tearing little chunks of his hair out. Hey, Mr. Liman (and others just like him), a film rests on its own merit. Gossip is fleeting, buzz is fleeting, word-of-mouth sticks. That's my lesson for the day -- I'm sure everyone in Hollywood is hanging onto my every word. If you like even a bit of Brad Pitt's or Angelina Jolie's acting or looks, you'll like the film. If you're particularly keen on films about marriage, it's a must-see. Pitt and Jolie play competing contract killers who also happen to be married to each other. They become aware of each other's professions by contracting the same job. Now, there's nothing nice about killing, but this is smart screenwriting. What could be more incongruous than to juxtapose the day-to-day life of a marriage with an immensely dangerous career? Talk about every banal aspect of marriage thrown into sharp relief. Okay, so it's a stylish, lives-of-the-rich-and-famous look at marriage, but it points out the difficulties in all marriages, e.g., mis-communication, irritation, boredom. With a few extremely weighty secrets thrown into the mix. If nothing else, it'll make you happy your marriage doesn't have this particular problem, and that's the secret of successful filmmaking -- creating entertainment that resonates. Lesson over.<br /><br />year: 2005<br />length: 120 min.<br />rating: 3.5<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356910/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356910/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1139946729099351302005-11-27T14:50:00.000-05:002006-11-14T12:30:44.663-05:00Finding Forrester<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >That critic you hear so much about on this site, Mr. Glenn Kenny, recently wrote a review in which he pissed and moaned about films about writers. Being one himself, he has trouble watching writers portrayed on film, and he asserts that what you see on screen is 99% bad in this regard. I wonder what he thinks of this film. I wonder if he doesn't even consider it a portrayal of writers, seeing as you hear little more than a few phrases of writing in the entire movie or see the characters doing any actual writing (the one time you do see this, the lesson learned is an excellent one, by the way). But what is the film, then? Is it a study of racism? If so, how come you never see the reality of that either? Gus Van Sant is known for understated works, laid-back works, in fact, and very smart screenwriting. The latter exists here, but I'm not sure the former does. It's too clever, too polished, too unreal. The conflicts are predictable, regardless of how well acted they are by Sean Connery and the new, but wise beyond years, Rob Brown (whoo, where'd they find him?). It's entertaining, natch -- you know that the young black word whiz will end up being tutored by the white, experienced writer, and that the secrecy of their relationship will end up being undermined. How? Well, that's what you're watching for. Besides which, the end cameo is worth every penny.<br /><br />year: 2000<br />length: 136 min.<br />rating: 3.0<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181536/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181536/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1140032912595304572005-11-27T14:46:00.000-05:002006-11-14T17:26:39.370-05:00Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >Choosing more daring directors as the books get darker is one of Warner Bros. smartest moves concerning this series. Y'all know I <a href="http://kathagedorn.blogspot.com/2004/06/harry-potter-and-prisoner-of-azkaban.html">raved about the last one</a>, and this one is just as good. Better in some respects -- the kids are definitely coming into their own. Daniel Radcliffe emotes beautifully when needed and acts like the teenager he is everyplace else. I wasn't quite as impressed with Emma Watson. She's as acerbic as she was before and I suppose I want her not to be, which is silly, as that's the way she's written. Most impressive is Rupert Grint as Ron. Ron's always been played as somewhat of a dolt, and in this film Grint gives us a more mature, less fearful teenage dolt. Perfect, as far as I'm concerned. Special effects are grand, especially the Quidditch arena (although we get no actual Quidditch, unfortunately). The plot is, well, the book, minus a few story lines (such as Hermione's alliance with the house elves), and needs the full 2.5 hours to be told. Supporting characters are, as usual, marvelous, especially Miranda Richardson as Rita Skeeter, the incredibly nosy journalist. But all I could think about at the end was how they better hurry the hell up. Film books five and six before Rowling gets seven out! That way we can be all be on the same "page" at the end. Besides which, there are 16-year-olds playing 14-year-olds now. How will it work when a 20- or 21-year-old is trying to play a 17-year-old in the last film? Let's hope they all keep their baby faces.<br /><br />year: 2005<br />length: 157 min.<br />rating: 4.0<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330373/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330373/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1158863941434305972005-11-27T14:38:00.000-05:002006-11-14T12:31:19.338-05:00The Wizard of Oz<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >Advertising works! See the ad in Premiere, order the DVD the next day, spend the next few days hopping around in anticipation, and race home from work on the appointed day to ooh and aah over the new digital transfer of this beloved 1939 film. I was, as most kids, a huge fan and having to wait to see it once a year on television was downright depressing. Naturally, when it came out on VHS I ran out and got it right away. But the difference between that and the current DVD is like the difference between a Munchkin and Glinda. My husband got completely sick of me saying "that was the true color of the [insert whatever here]?!". It has to be seen to be believed. The DVD extras give you the low-down on how they created the new transfer, plus many mini- documentaries hosted by the charming Angela Lansbury that illumine and enlighten the process of putting this treasure on screen. What a hoot to see Liza Minelli in better days with her brother and sister (Judy Garland had three kids; yeah, I didn't know either). And Jack Haley and Ray Bolger reminiscing on how much they complained during filming about their makeup and the heat. Not to be missed is an extended scene of the first meeting between Dorothy and the Scarecrow that showcases Ray Bolger's dancing. What, was he made out of rubber?! I don't know many who don't love this film, so go buy the DVD and smile, smile, smile.<br /><br />year: 1939<br />length: 101 min.<br />rating: 4.0<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032138/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032138/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1158345178478770942005-11-27T14:31:00.000-05:002006-11-14T12:31:05.854-05:00The Man in the Moon<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >People seem to have a special fondness for this film. As if everyone's grown up on a farm and had a crush on the boy next door but lost that boy to their older sister. Uh-huh, sure, that happened to me and everyone else I know. What I mean is, I'm not sure I see the universality of the thoughts and emotions, particularly in terms of the film's ending. Even without the ending's upheaval in our young protagonist's life, there's a lot in this film that doesn't ring true. When her mother trips and nearly loses her baby, besides its obvious contrivance so that the plot can continue on, it's filmed so over-the-top as to be utterly unbelievable. Without Reese Witherspoon's pluck and verve, I would have rolled my eyes and turned it off. Oh, except that Jason London is pretty hot stuff, so maybe that would have kept me watching. Which is another thing to complain about -- the poor kid is evidently supposed to be beefcake and nothing more. It reminds me of Viggo Mortensen's role in A Walk on the Moon, and I suspect that as a feminist I'm supposed to rejoice that these films are about the women and so the men are relegated to supporting hunk roles. But when they ring false, they're ridiculous. Still, watch it for Witherspoon who showcases the talent that made her what she is today. And then finish off with Freeway or Election so you can wash the stale taste of this film out of your mouth.<br /><br />year: 1991<br />length: 99 min.<br />rating: 2.5<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102388/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102388/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1139858759209009672005-11-27T14:24:00.000-05:002006-11-14T12:30:42.254-05:00Dangerous Beauty<span style="font-family: verdana;font-size:85%;">Imagine yourself in Venice in the 16th century, a time and place of decadence and power. Imagine yourself as a woman in that time and place, one without family connections to bring yourself power. Imagine what your career choices are. In essence: either scullery maid or courtesan. Now there's an old-fashioned word! Based on this film, I would say a courtesan's a cross between a geisha and a whore. Who would want this kind of life? Someone who wants power and prestige -- as in the real-life Veronica Franco, who rose to fame due to her beauty and grace, and most of all her ability to turn a phrase. She was a poetess and used that skill to capture and keep the men of Venice's attention. This film would be nothing more than a slice of history but for two things: the writing and Catherine McCormack. It's rare to find such a Hollywood screenplay, one in which conversation is juxtaposed with verse and remains entertaining. McCormack herself plays the title role with a dose of humor, which helps bring the real-life character to "real" life. The courtroom ending is a bit overwrought, as the men of Venice she bewitched take her side against the Inquisition. One hopes that part is true, because the original choice between scullery maid and courtesan can be firmly planted on the shoulders of the men of that town. If they wouldn't stick up for her, who would? Certainly not the wives of those men...<br /><br />year: 1998<br />length: 111 min.<br />rating: 3.0<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118892/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118892/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1139598848175397582005-11-27T14:11:00.000-05:002007-01-27T21:26:53.727-05:00Band of Brothers<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >Ever since I made the mistake of writing about a series before I'd gotten very far into it, i.e., Red Dwarf (for which I now take back everything I said as it is uniquely hysterical, which reminds me that I owe a certain friend a new review...), I've been rather skittish about doing it again. Problem is, I've been dying to write this review since I saw the first episode many moons ago and if I don't get to say something now I just might bust. Now, I've seen my fair share of war films (of all kinds, from Ken Burns' Civil War to Jean-Pierre Jeunet's A Very Long Engagement) and I figured I'd seen pretty much every depiction of the horror of war. And yet I was wrong. This series gives us all that and more because every episode is taken straight from the mouths of the soldiers who lived it. It stands above the rest because you live with these men from the parachute drops over France to VE day and you see everything -- obviously, the horror, but also the cold, the humor, the maneuvers, and above all the camaraderie that comes from having lived through it all together. I've found all the episodes so far riveting but difficult to watch, particularly the day-in-the-life of a medic, and what they found outside Thalem when they liberated Germany. The mostly no- name actors do a splendid job telegraphing all the emotions of soldiers, notably Damian Lewis and Donnie Wahlberg as officers. Not for the faint of heart, but if you want to know more about the men of the Army's 101st Airborne's 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment's Easy Company and why they're heroes, you won't want to miss this.<br /><br />year: 2001<br />length: 705 min. (10-part mini-series)<br />rating: 4.0<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185906/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185906/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1140019890142962312005-11-27T11:09:00.000-05:002006-11-14T12:30:45.985-05:00Good Night, and Good Luck.<span style="font-family: verdana;font-size:85%;">History lesson? A lot of films are even when they're not biopics or sweeping epics. This one really is straight from the pages of history, being Edward R. Murrow's "attack" on Senator Joseph McCarthy and his House Unamerican Activities Committee. Attack is in quotes because Murrow does not so much attack as try to reveal the whole truth, at the same time providing editorial comment. Every minute of this film is fascinating as a result -- from George Clooney's schlumpy producer to Ray Wise's unstable, fearful co-anchor to, of course, David Strathairn's layered rendition of Murrow. Strathairn is a marvel, no more so than during the few minutes preceding his first editorial. He clearly becomes more and more nervous as the seconds tick by, chain smoking like a fiend, but focused on the task at hand and obviously far more eager for this type of news show than the insipid programs he usually anchors. Clooney has done two brave things: shot his film in black and white, thereby alienating one half of his potential audience immediately, and had McCarthy play himself, which doesn't necessarily alienate the other half, but creates more difficult situations for the screenwriter (i.e., how to integrate film of McCarthy and still have the story flow). Clooney's decision to include the story of the husband and wife (Robert Downey Jr. and Patricia Clarkson) who kept their marriage secret from their co-workers is far less successful even though it does mirror the secrecy and fear inherent in the creation of the Committee itself. It feels added on to the plot. Still, for those of us who are fascinated and impressed by the actor-turned- director Clint Eastwood, I think the protégé has arrived.<br /><br />year: 2005<br />length: 93 min.<br />rating: 3.5<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433383/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433383/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1139857011866976472005-09-30T13:55:00.000-04:002006-11-14T12:30:41.921-05:00Constantine<span style="font-family: verdana;font-size:85%;">John Constantine--not British? Shocking. Still, you pick Keanu Reeves to play the part, it's better that he not even try to use a British accent. "Constant" cigarette action, that's imperative, and the filmmakers obviously recognized that, thank Heavens. Making it the raison d'être of the film, well, that was unexpected. Not that I've read the comic books in a long time. Perhaps there is a sub-plot wherein Constantine is dying of lung cancer from prolonged cigarette use. He's a bit pissed to be leaving Earth so early, seeing as he's intimately acquainted with Hell and has no desire to return any time soon. Mixed in with that is a woman who can see and hear the same evil beings he can and actually wants to go to Hell to save her twin sister. Crazy girl, and he thinks so, too. Seeing as Hell is the main topic of conversation in this flick, expect dark, bleak and fiery. It's also definitely not for the squeamish or kids under the age of, say, 16. For those who do like this kind of stuff (me!), the film is surprisingly tight -- tightly written (almost sparse, so you have to pay attention to all that's said), tightly directed (someone story-boarded like Hell), and, surprise surprise, well acted. Rachel Weisz is the crazy woman, and she's always great, her sincerity always in-your-face. Reeves is fine with hints of what makes him special. But Peter Stormare. Ah! He's Lucifer, played with glee and camp, without losing any hint of the obvious terror of the Devil incarnate. He's got maybe 5 minutes on screen towards the end. Watch it for him.<br /><br />year: 2005<br />length: 121 min.<br />rating: 3.0<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360486/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360486/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1140218174590591852005-09-05T18:14:00.000-04:002006-11-14T12:30:49.058-05:00Hitch<span style="font-family: verdana;font-size:85%;">For so many reasons, Will Smith is currently the king of Hollywood. He's the king of comedy, hip-hop, adventure films and now romances. He could aptly be called the most self-confident man alive, and he's done it all under the persona of all-around nice guy and family man. It's very clever. I wish him the longest reign, as I am as rapt in his spell as the rest of the country. (Besides, he should also be crowned the sexiest man alive, knocking Denzel from that top spot.) So, it's charming to finally see him using all of his talents in one film, even one so sweetly dopey as this. Smith stars as the title character, essentially a dating counselor, who helps men get the girls of their dreams and hold onto them. Of course, he falls for someone himself (Eva Mendes), makes an utter mess of it, naturally, and you can guess the ending. Why watch it? Well, why wouldn't you watch the king? His over-abundant charm, his willingness to do anything for comedic effect (witness the food-allergy scene, which I dare you not to laugh out loud at). And his excellently chosen co-stars (among whom Kevin James plays a worthy comedic adversary as the main hapless dater) and the general ambience. Race, age and size issues abound, but are thankfully completely ignored, rare in a comedy rife with opportunities for such jokes. This is, literally, a film for everyone so ignore the silly ending and enjoy.<br /><br />year: 2005<br />length: 118 min.<br />rating: 3.0<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386588/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386588/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1157486920040063962005-09-05T16:06:00.000-04:002006-11-14T12:31:05.190-05:00Madagascar<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >First, I saw the last one-third of this film on the ferry from Muskegon to Milwaukee. And I thought, without having seen the first bits, that this was one of the dopiest kids films ever. Here's a zoo-based lion, deprived of food for a week in the wild, ready to eat his pals. What kind of moral message are we sending children when it involves actually eating other beings? I know, I know, it's all a metaphor for learning the value of friendship, but I found it a rather distasteful one. Then, I watched the whole film from start to finish at a drive-in in lower Ontario (at which the drive-in, and only the drive-in, got soaked in a monstrous thunderstorm) and actually laughed at the first two- thirds. Because the first parts in the zoo are quite funny, especially the bits with the mafia-like penguins and the erudite chimps. And once they're shipwrecked on the island of Madagascar (don't ask) the lemurs' funky dancing and silly king (voiced uniquely and hysterically by Sacha Baron Cohen) are even funnier. Then the movie devolves into the part I saw on the ferry and I was as disturbed by it as earlier. But if the ending gets people to eat more fish (I'll say no more) and to hire Cohen for more (more! more!) parts, and not only voice parts, then the movie has done its job.<br /><br />year: 2005<br />length: 86 min.<br />rating: 2.5<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0351283/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0351283/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1142974313415245802005-09-05T15:50:00.000-04:002006-11-14T12:30:51.312-05:00The Island<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >Right off the bat -- I didn't choose to see this movie. (Yes, it was foisted on me! I was tied down, strapped in, eyes stretched wide open! Oh, wrong film.) It was part of a double feature at our local (okay, so 30-some miles away isn't really local) drive-in, and my summer urge was to see as many drive-in movies as I could. Sadly, it was not nearly as good as the first feature (Red-Eye) and it was far longer, which goes a long way towards proving the adage that brevity is the soul of wit. (OK, so Red-Eye isn't necessarily witty, but it's compact, doesn't try your patience.) I'm not one of those who slobber over Ewan McGregor (I know, what's wrong with me?) but I fully recognize his acting skills and those of his co-star Scarlett Johansson. So what are they doing in a Michael Bay film? Wouldn't a short conversation with John Cusack or John Malkovich or, heck, Ben Affleck, dissuade them of the ridiculous notion that acting would be required? Bay gives interviews now that run interference against reporters assuming his films are strictly in the blow- things-up vein. What a useless endeavor. If he's not blowing things up, he's showing off his sets, costumes and stunt driving. How can he be proud of a film that exists solely for these reasons? (Why would he care? Everything he makes rakes it in.) The plot itself is a tired rehashing of Blade Runner, The Matrix and Coma. (Remember Coma? So much spookier.) Clones who don't know they're clones are promised retirement on a beautiful island, while instead they're being used as spare parts for the original person (believe me, it matters very little that I gave away the reveal there). The only redeeming features of the movie are the futuristic scenes of Detroit city (where some backgrounds were filmed), the cool flycycles and Steve Buscemi. He's a comic genius, and I have no idea why he has such a fondness for Mr. Bay.<br /><br />year: 2005<br />length: 136 min.<br />rating: 2.0<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399201/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399201/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1139863603444098642005-09-05T15:45:00.000-04:002006-11-14T12:30:43.232-05:00Double Indemnity<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >As an old(-ish) fart, I'm allowed to say that they just don't make 'em like this anymore. Not that I was born when this film was made, but I (hopefully) like so many other Americans, yearn for the films in which scripts were written with oodles of sub- text. In which everything, but everything, is hidden under layers of shifting words. The first major repartee between Fred McMurray's hapless insurance rep and the oh-so-evil, but oh-so- alluring (can't quite call her beautiful), Barbara Stanwyck is dazzling in its wordplay, while at the same time inducing giggles at how different the world is now. Which is probably why nobody makes films like this anymore. I mean, having the lead man constantly calling the leading lady "baby" would be, hmm, off- putting nowadays. Still, the best line in the whole movie is "Shut up, baby." so there you have it. The movie conforms to the all the rules of noir -- a plot that holds water but only if you don't look too closely, plenty of intricacies involving other characters and set pieces, a somber, bleak tone, and above all as little light used as possible. The beauty and mystery of the darkest film noir, and this is one of them, creates the tragedy we know we're in store for. Does it matter? Not in the least. Knowing there will be a tragic ending doesn't dissuade us, it pulls us in deeper. Are we entranced by the mirror it holds to our own lives? Maybe. I like to think part of why we watch noir is a sense of relief -- there's no way we're as messed up as those lost souls on screen.<br /><br />year: 1944<br />length: 107 min.<br />rating: 3.5<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036775/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036775/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22215651.post-1150829892770957182005-09-05T14:56:00.000-04:002006-11-14T12:30:56.636-05:00A Night at the Opera<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >I've watched a couple of Marx Brothers films (the one in the fake country, the one in the country house), but neither have come close to being as funny and brilliant as this one. It's as if all the classic jokes are told for the first time all in the span of an hour and a half. When Groucho is on screen, it's one- liner after one-liner, constantly interrupting all the "serious" actors. And you can barely keep up with him -- you're finished laughing at the first joke while he's through telling the second one! When Chico enters the picture, the brothers engage in extended comedic dialogue -- witness the contract scene, which while not a leg-slapper has wordplay that rivals the Who's on First skit. What I wasn't aware of (or had forgotten from the previous films) was the musical talents of at least two of the Marx Brothers. I knew Harpo played the harp, but that he and Chico also played the piano, and marvelously at that, was a surprise to me. The film is daring in that it pits musical numbers, and not just the individual talents but full-blown ensemble singing and dancing pieces, against the comedy. At first, you're not sure if this juxtaposition works, but when Harpo plays a most haunting, and not-at-all-silly, composition on the harp, it doesn't matter anymore. (And that little number Chico plays on the piano -- gosh, that sounds awfully like the music in the Coconut Grove dance in Singin' in the Rain, hmm?) There's actually a plot to this film, and real romance, but of course also Groucho bidding for the attentions of Margaret Dumont, their ever-present foil. And although basic, the plot works. It effectively gives the film a grounding and provides context for some of the sillier numbers (like, baseball in the orchestra pit!). Until I see a better one, this remains my fave film of theirs.<br /><br />year: 1935<br />length: 96 min.<br />rating: 4.0<br />IMDB link: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0026778/combined" target="blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0026778/combined</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0