The Adventures of Robin Hood

I can't believe I never saw this film as a child. It's the sort of film every kid should see -- pompous, arrogant bad guys, purely wholesome good guys, innocent damsels in distress, and lots of jolly peasantry. (In fact, the one time you see the peasants down on their luck they look like you and me on a good day. That's 1930s Hollywood for you.) Errol Flynn plays what he always played -- the lead with a heart of gold, a catchy laugh, and excellent swordsmanship. His ever-present co-star, Olivia de Havilland, is the tops as Maid Marian, although you can't help but wonder how she would have sunk her teeth into a leading role of her own. Marian is barely there -- necessary but not at all the focus of the film. Which is all the swashbuckling antics. As well as the moral judgment of not being a rich bastard 'cause look what it gets you in the end! I'm not sure if the print I saw (fortunately on the big screen) was restored or not -- the colors looked so bright and defined. Nothing pastel here: reds, blues, greens, and not just in the costumes. The sets use the same color palette and it gives the picture a cheery, kid-friendly visual appeal. Moralizing may be an obvious theme of the film -- one kid asked his father after the film why Flynn allowed the bad guy to pick up his sword again when he was clearly beat. Certainly a super opportunity to teach morals, you betcha. Mostly, though, it's just fun to see everyone dressed up in tights and having a ball.

year: 1938
length: 102 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029843/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

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

Audition

I don't have a huge amount to say about this film, but I feel it's important to write a review in order to warn away those who might be expecting a normal thriller or mystery. You'll get the hint when you reach the brief shot of a bloody tongue flopping on a floor, but you might think this is just an anomaly. Nope. The last 10 minutes of the film are surreal and firmly planted in the horror genre. This was directed by Takashi Miike, a prolific if not universally respected Japanese film director, but the anger that greeted this film upon its arrival seems to have shocked even Miike. This anger stems from the sharp turn taken towards the end and I can understand that, as I chose the film based on many good reviews none of which hinted at the shift. Hence this review. The "normal" plot revolves around a widower who woos a strange girl he knows nothing about, although the audience is given disturbing glimpses into her life and story (see the tongue shot description before). The reason for the elevated rating is actually due to the ending -- it is so disturbing in its manipulation of what we have considered throughout to be reality that its effectiveness as a plot device cannot be dismissed. I was impressed despite my revulsion. You've been duly warned, yet those with thick skins may be able to recognize and admire the film's unique tone.

original title: Ôdishon
year: 2000
length: 115 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0235198/combined

The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension

As one reviewer puts it, "switch off your cynicism" when you watch this film. Difficult for me to understand how anyone watching it could take it seriously, but it takes all kinds. It involves the adventures (aptly named) of a rock-n-roll-guitar-playing, martial-arts-devotee, particle-physics-tinkerer brain surgeon. See what I mean? Silly stuff. Besides it having one of the two most handsome leading men, Peter Weller, as its main character (you'll have to guess the other one), it includes everyone else fromthe 1980s, and I do mean everyone. Ellen Barkin is the sultry seductress, Clancy Brown plays a good guy for a change (I guess he turned bad guy later), Jeff Goldblum is a fellow (but nutty) brain surgeon, Christopher Lloyd and Dan Hedaya are some of the bad "lectroids from Planet 10," heck, even Detective Taggart from Beverly Hills Cop is here. Last but not least, John Lithgow goes WAY over the top to play the Italian scientist, delusional due to a bad particle physics experiment. It's a cult movie, sure, andnot just because of all the great character actors. Many quotable lines -- my fave is "no, no, don't tug on that, you never know what it might be attached to" as Weller and Goldblum are inside someone's brain. You want a really good laugh? Watch this. Better yet, own it. It's something you'll return to again and again.

year: 1984
length: 103 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086856/combined

And the Band Played On

For its depiction of the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, this film scores all stars. Using a compressed timeline, as far back as the first AIDS patient and as far forward as the fight over who discovered the virus, it does a great job of showing the myriad personalities who fought the war -- the doctors, the administrators, the activists and the gay community. The performances are almost uniformly affecting, even Matthew Modine as the head doctor especially as I've always considered him a mediocre actor. And they sure did pack the stars in -- Lily Tomlin, Ian McKellen, Richard Gere, heck, even Phil Collins as the owner of a gay bathhouse. But (you knew that was coming, right?), while the film touches your heart, it never touches your head. There's nothing stellar about the filmmaking. It's plenty adequate, but it never makes you sit up and take notice. I'm not certain that matters greatly, since the content of the film is more important than any style it might adhere to, but it did make for a less involving viewing. It's safe to say that most people are unaware to this day of how the AIDS battle has been fought and for that alone, it's worth watching.

year: 1993
length: 141 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106273/combined

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert

The best thing about this flick is that it takes itself seriously. It's a comedy, but it doesn't make fun of its subject. Three gay men (well, one transsexual, one gay and one who-knows- what) travel from Sydney to the middle of Australia to perform a drag queen concert. All the usual stereotypes apply, but it's a film with a plot and a message. That is, it has a message if you consider that the main impact of the film is to make this potentially alternative lifestyle so palatable that you want to try it yourself. It has two of the best lines in movies. One is "nice night for it" and the other I'll let you spot (and that's a hint). You'll never believe Terence Stamp (The Limey), Guy Pearce (Memento) and Hugo Weaving (The Matrix) were in this film. Especially Stamp, who has a history of playing violent characters. He so transforms himself that by the end we've forgotten every one of his previous roles.

year: 1994
length: 104 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109045/combined

American Splendor

I have a confession to make: I don't much like Harvey Pekar. OK, a double confession: I haven't actually read more than two pages of his comics. And that must have happened when I wasn't at all in the mood for something depressing. He's a depressing (not depressive, big difference) personality. Sees everything in negative terms, but his way of dealing with that is to write amusing comics about his point of view. Very freeing for him, and many think they're a breath of fresh air, but I've never found them appealing. (Maybe because Robert Crumb was the first to draw his comics and I despise Crumb...which I guess is another story.) On the other hand, the film of his life and his comics is well worth watching. Mostly because of its uniqueness -- the real Pekar is in the film alongside Paul Giamatti's spot-on imitation of him, the comics are integrated throughout, and the style of the film never seems out of context with the subject matter. But also because of its humor. Even though its on the whole quite depressing, you have to laugh at his behaviors. My fave was his overt irritation while waiting behind an old lady in a checkout lane. I was nervous about how Pekar's wife, Joyce Brabner, would be portrayed. Hope Davis pulls off her usual miracle here and what you see really is what I've heard about Brabner. Warts and all.

year: 2003
length: 101 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0305206/combined

The Animatrix

These are a number of animated skits based on The Matrix. Each segment explains some part of the Matrix mythology that has only been implied, or details the story of someone who broke free. Nothing is given away about the ending of the trilogy, so don't worry about that. The animation is fantastic -- each episode uses a different style, so it's just as much fun to appreciate the differences in animation art as it is to get more involved in the Matrix backstory. Part of me thinks this is how The Matrix should have been done. What with all the special effects used, why not just animate and as a result get to do more with this neat-o futuristic vision? One of the episodes I consider dangerous, in that every depressed or disillusioned kid is going to think suicide will take him out of The Matrix (read: the world we live in) and into the "real" world. I suspect that's why Warner Bros. made them put a warning label on the DVD. Just in case.

year: 2003
length: 102 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0328832/combined

Akele Hum Akele Tum

You have to give this film a bit of time. It's as dopey as any regular Bollywood film in the beginning. A scene early on has the lead actor (Aamir Khan once again; heck, he's the best in Bollywood, why watch any other?) jumping around onstage singing and playing guitar...and it's very obviously not plugged in but is supposed to be. Everybody's wearing dorky 80s clothes, and you think the film is going to be as silly as the rest of them. It's not. It's a re-make of Kramer vs. Kramer (believe it or not), and actually gets better as the film progresses. In fact, I thought the courtroom scene was better in this film than in the original, although it has been a long time since I've seen the original. They picked the cutest, sweetest little kid to play the son. Not at all cloying, but very natural, my favorite kind of child actor. Khan does his usual magic as the father who learns how special his relationship to his son is, and Manisha Koirala surprised me with her range as the mother. The only thing I ended up not liking about the film was its insistence on having one of the leads become a big Bollywood star. This is the third Bollywood film in a row that makes this a major theme. It seems they're having a bit of trouble thinking outside the box.

year: 1995
length: 160 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112313/combined

The Awful Truth

Cary Grant and Irene Dunne. Fine, fine comedians, both of them. A silly little plot that has little to no grounding in reality. Misunderstandings, a cute dog, and a beau from Nebraska. Hijinks ensue. Now, it's probably great fun for some folks to watch, but it seemed somewhat sterile to me. Yes, it's dated, but I guess I still expected scenes that I would understand and find mirthful. Of course, there are some that are very good. One scene in particular is giggle-icious, in which Irene Dunne's character tries to derail the potential marriage of her soon-to-be-ex (Grant) by acting like a card-carrying floozy. It's better if you recognize you're watching a 30s film in order to get why her behavior is so appalling, but her delivery is so perfect that it stands by itself. However, I thought the rest of the film was, in general, slight. I prefer others from that period, for example, It Happened One Night. Much funnier, much more realistic (really!), much easier to enjoy.

year: 1937
length: 91 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028597/combined

And Your Mother Too

Unfortunately, this is another critically rated film that I found completely underwhelming. Supposedly an excitingly new return to realistic filmmaking, I found it so close to pornography that I took no pleasure in the style or the story. In fact, was there a story? A couple of teenaged boys in Mexico living out their fantasies, and being stupid about it. How interesting. There's nothing wrong with the camera technique and the choice of settings, but I didn't think there was enough to the story to keep the sex scenes afloat. Granted, the story really IS the sex scenes, so perhaps I just felt that if I had wanted to watch pornography I would have rented a film that claims to be that. 'Nuff said.

original title: Y Tu Mamá También
year: 2001
length: 105 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0245574/combined

All or Nothing

As a friend of mine said: "This film tore my heart out." I've waxed poetic about Lars von Trier, now I get to do that for Mike Leigh, a British director who creates films that are just as raw. Not in the same style, but the emotional impact is just as high. I'm pretty sure all his films follow the same methodology: working class, emotionally dysfunctional Brits who grow and learn through heart-wrenching epiphanies enacted towards the end of the films. Brenda Blethyn was nominated for an Oscar in a previous Mike Leigh film, Secrets & Lies, which you may have heard of although sadly Leigh films are not well known in this country. My first taste was of his 1990 film Life Is Sweet. If you like All or Nothing, definitely watch the other two. I think I like them so much because you can truly empathize with the characters; they are as real as you and me. The ephiphanies are tough to watch, but mesmerizing because they seem so real. I almost wonder if he asks his actors to sit in a closet and cry for an hour before doing these scenes. (Which in fact Stanley Kubrick had Nicole Kidman do for her scene towards the end of Eyes Wide Shut.) I don't at all want to deflect you from seeing the film, because it is worth watching if only because it is so far away from the usual Hollywood melodrama. I guarantee you will be moved by it.

year: 2002
length: 128 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286261/combined

Adaptation.

I was not as enamored of this film as everyone else seems to be. The consensus seems to be that it's a quirky film, which is neat in and of itself and therefore worth seeing. I'm not sure I agree. The acting is stellar. I have no quarrel with that. It's that the concept of a screenwriter having trouble writing a screenplay and therefore showing us that particular struggle was irritating to me. In fact, he says it himself in the movie -- it's solipsistic. Why should I care about him and his struggles with the screenplay? I'd care a lot more about a movie about the actual book! I fully understand that the premise of the film is also the "trick" of the film, but that's all there is to it. The theme of finding something you're passionate about (i.e., flowers) is engulfed by the theme of discovering a way to write something you can't write. Besides which, in the "third act" he gives us a completely untrue fantasy tale about Susan Orlean (the author of the book it's based on) and drug smuggling, which if it's not supposed to be a cliche, what IS it supposed to be? I was rather appalled by that choice of ending. I hope Orlean was. I fully expected to love this film (as I loved Being John Malkovich), so I'm honestly surprised at my reaction.

year: 2002
length: 114 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268126/combined