Band of Brothers

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.

year: 2001
length: 705 min. (10-part mini-series)
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185906/combined

Batman Begins

Here's what I wanted: the first act of this film as an Oscar contender, with the last two acts as a follow-up tentpole. Meaning that the first act -- in which Batman works through the pain of his parents' demise, takes on the guise of that which scares him the most, and decides to become a hero -- is completely different from the other acts. Those make up your run- of-the-mill superhero action flick, complete with wilting female, nifty gadgets and an ending so reminiscent of Spiderman that you wonder if DC and Marvel aren't in cahoots behind the scenes. It's not what I wanted to see. And I freely admit that I had high expectations, which always damns me in the end. There's a lot riding on the team of Christopher Nolan (of Memento fame) and Christian Bale (whom you all know is one of my top three fave actors). Nolan tries admirably -- the screenplay's arc is better than most (although I would have jettisoned all the jokes) -- but his method of filming action sequences made my eyes glaze over. Bale gives us his usual, outside the suit. He can morph among the multiple facets of Bruce Wayne's personality seamlessly, and his facial acting gives me chills. Which is maybe why once he got the suit on I was so taken aback. He changes his voice (as he's famous for) to sound more like a bully, and while that may fit the story it threw me out of the movie each time. The requisite love interest is annoying. Even though Katie Holmes is a fine enough actor, there is nothing outside the first act for her to sink her teeth into (and, please, our last glimpse of her should have been when she discovers who's under the cape). Cillian Murphy as the Scarecrow, on the other hand, mesmerizes and that's not simply the effect of those inordinately blue eyes. Since there's more than enough set-up at the end for a sequel, and the Joker will be introduced, I'll be glad to return for another dose. I just hope they take my advice.

year: 2005
length: 141 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/combined

The Butterfly Effect

The entire plot of this film revolves around the holes in the plot, and what we learn about each of them as the plot progresses. But it's the plot twists that'll get ya. Especially the one just as Ashton Kutcher's character begins to understand what's going on and goes to see the one person he should have seen at the beginning. Up until then, the film is interesting -- offbeat, structured to keep you guessing, and sparely written. Then, things start unraveling a bit too quickly and the film loses its shape as a consequence. What plot, you say? Kutcher plays a man who suffered from blackouts as a kid, and finds himself unable to retrieve these memories...until...well, you'll need to see the movie. Should you see the movie? The premise is somewhat unique, so it's a pity Kutcher doesn't hold his end up better. He's okay, but he pales in comparison to his younger co- stars who play him at age 7 and 13. Their range far surpasses his. It's a bit disturbing, and also a bit disturbing to hear such foul language from the mouth of babes. Granted, I watched the Director's Cut (because I couldn't get the theatrical version to load), so perhaps filmgoers experienced a more PG version. I hope so; jaded as I am, I was taken aback. Did I mention the flick is creepy, too? Not exactly horror-creepy (although there are some scary, somewhat bloody parts), but psychological-creepy. If you don't like your head messed with, don't watch this. If you do, watch Silence of the Lambs again.

year: 2004
length: 120 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289879/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

Before Sunrise

Yet another film I'd think was sent from heaven if I was in my mid-twenties! (i.e ., angsty Garden State-like film). The tale of two twenty-somethings who meet on a train, one an American (Ethan Hawke) moping his way through Europe towards Vienna where he has a last night before heading home, the other a French woman (Julie Delpy) on her way home to Paris for school. I'd heard so much good stuff about this flick, that it was this big thought piece with lots of insight into the human condition. On some level it is, being a conversation between a woman and a man about most of the things that we find interesting. But, actually it's simply a bunch of stories strung together, the same stories you'll talk about with your friends, except maybe not all in one night. But what makes these stories special? We all spend time thinking about the questions in these stories in the course of our lives, which is of course why this film would work better for the younger crowd. Positive things about the film include the gradual revealing of differences between Hawke's character and Delpy's (e. g., Hawke's skepticism vs. Delpy's optimism) and an excellent scene in a restaurant where they make fake phone calls to friends. I found Hawke a bit irritating because he was trying too hard, not making it natural-looking enough. Still, there was definitely chemistry between the two stars, without which it would have been like watching fingernails on a chalkboard. I remain, even with reservations, interested in watching the follow-up, Before Sunset, which takes place ten years later, if for no other reason than to see if they've learned anything in those ten years. After all, what good is listening to people talk about life that they haven't lived yet?

year: 1995
length: 105 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112471/combined

Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason

Ugh. The worst kind of sequel is one that doesn't do anything different from its predecessor. One that uses the same gags, in the same order, with exactly the same cast of characters. (Sub- supporting characters notwithstanding.) This film has all those things, and if you like your films with no surprises, go see this one. It's got all the original stuff: the jealousy, Hugh Grant messing up the works, the enormous panties, the fist fight, etc., etc. Of course, this one does have the Thai prison in it, but it's treated so differently from its presence in the book (where it was clear that it actually was a hardship) as to be faintly embarrassing to those of us who've read it. The filmmakers seem to be trying to stuff Renée Zellweger's derriere into tighter and tighter dresses, all merely for the giggle effect, which is simply boring. Zellweger's character also seems to wobble more than in the original between being a woman with a firm grasp of what she wants and a gibbering idiot. I just would have preferred a different cinematic approach (if you can use the word cinematic in this review without getting thrown out of the Amateur Reviewers Club). I would recommend reading the book instead -- it's funny, fresh, and weirder than the first in parts, in other words much more fun that this snorer.

year: 2004
length: 108 min.
rating: 1.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317198/combined

The Battle Over Citizen Kane

This documentary makes an extraordinary effort to create similarities between William Randolph Hearst and Orson Welles. I'm not sure I agree. Hearst was a megalomaniac who was fixated on money and did anything to make it, ruining lives and public perception while at it. Welles was a child prodigy, talented beyond belief, fixated on creativity and perfection, who made some people miserable while at it and was perceived as a boy genius by the public (unless you count his War of the Worlds broadcast which freaked out the entire Eastern seaboard). Fundamental difference, there. This is not a documentary about the making of the film (for that listen to the two audio commentaries by Roger Ebert and Peter Bogdanovich on the DVD of the film itself), but a documentary about the personalities behind the film, creator and subject. It's certainly interesting to learn about these men, and in that respect it's a well-structured documentary. But when the basic premise falls flat, the weighty tenor of the narration becomes somewhat ridiculous. I would suggest instead watching the film and listening to the commentaries, because it is in fact the best film ever made.

year: 1995
length: 108 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115634/combined

The Bourne Supremacy

I'm really getting jaded. I can't even muster the appropriate amount of enthusiasm for a decent spy thriller. And this film is plenty decent. It is Euro-centric (I think you see the U.S. of A. for about 2 minutes total), spare, brooding, and thrilling all at the same time. Perhaps too thrilling, since it consists mostly of car chase upon car chase that each go on a mite too long to be truly exciting. Although the first 10 minutes -- a car chase, you guessed it -- actually took me by surprise, and that ain't easy to do (see above: jaded). The brooder, i.e., Jason Bourne, is played by young Hollywood's most skillful brooder, Matt Damon, and he's as good as he was in the first flick. Still, there are far too many sad, rainy profile shots of him in cars. (Not the car chase scenes, so you're getting the idea that transportation factors heavily in this film.) And I'm going to keep a watch out for the cinematographer...so I can be sure to miss anything else he's done or will do. Talk about herky-jerky filming! There are few scenes that are more than 2-3 seconds long, everything is filmed handheld, and lots of scenes blur together too rapidly to be comprehended (yes, some of those are intentional). This is the closest I've been to feeling like I was in a video game in a long time. Plot? Eh, it's the same as the first -- an amnesiac Bourne running away from his fellow CIA operatives who want him dead. This time Joan Allen plays one of those CIA operatives, and that's fun just to see her play hard as nails (which she does so well; see The Contender). Unfortunately, she doesn't have many clever lines; no one does, it's not the point of the film. Although I smiled insanely at the Italian joke. Every good joke is built on at least a smidgen of truth...

year: 2004
length: 110 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372183/combined

Bruce Almighty

The trailer for this film was hysterically funny. I must have made more than a few people watch it with me. But I worried. Were those all the funny bits? Was it one of those trailers that gives too much away, so that when you finally watch the film, it's a major letdown? I suppose I shouldn't have watched the trailer over and over again, because well, uh, yeah, it was. I like Jim Carrey even though sometimes he makes me want to bite my fingernails to the quick. And I admire that he's been quite successful in not-necessarily-comedic roles. But this poor film is trying too hard to blend slapstick comedy and philosophy. It most definitely doesn't succeed. Meeting God, disbelieving in God, getting excited about being God, learning that those powers aren't what he wants, that he just wants to be happy and have the people around him be happy, ho hum. I could have written this myself. Still, it's amusing for the parts in which he's trying out God's powers. Jennifer Aniston surprised me as well (though she moved down a notch from The Good Girl), not for her role, which was your typical boring girlfriend role, but for a scene in which she cries over losing Carrey. She really isn't a bad dramatic actress, and I hope she stops hesitating and jumps into those roles again.

year: 2003
length: 101 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315327/combined

Blue Car

Others might consider this a slight film, in that everything seems to happen inside the characters' heads and there isn't a "large" plot or even a great deal of action. Kinda like Pieces of April and films like that. But what the film ends up saying, or actually shouting out loud, is worth the rental. It may be that I was so moved by the film because it's about a girl in high school, and hey, I've been there before. In her case, though, her family has been torn apart. Her sister won't eat and her mother is too busy to take care of them, so she takes out her frustrations in poetry. Her English teacher sees her talent and encourages her to enter a poetry contest. This all sounds benign, but feelings run very close to the surface, and those erupt during the course of the film. The under-rated David Strathairn plays the teacher and the perfectly cast Agnes Bruckner plays the girl. Strathairn is a veteran of John Sayles films, so he's familiar with subtle acting. He helps create an atmosphere in which although you know what's going to happen, and you can see it coming a mile away, it doesn't make it less abhorrent when it does. When Bruckner finally reads her poetry at the contest, you can't help but be moved by this lost child who attempts to hold her life together while everyone in her life is failing her, and not only holds her head above water but triumphs. Every young girl should watch this film (although I imagine many parents might be wary of that advice), if only because it's a wonderful example of overcoming adversity.

year: 2002
length: 96 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290145/combined

The Bridge on the River Kwai

A David Lean epic, this time with the incomparable Sir Alec Guinness in the lead role. I sure do admire Lean's ability to have created lengthy masterpieces that showcase the human spirit and will to live. In this case, British POWs in WWII are forced to build a bridge by their Japanese captors. The British colonel refuses to have the officers do hard labor and the Japanese colonel punishes them for insubordination. That's the first half of the film, and I won't give away the second half for those few who've never seen it. Sir Alec gives a superb portrayal of the British colonel who won't give in, adheres to all the rules of combat, does what he should given his situation, and yet forgets the big picture. The ending is thrilling (I'm talking about the last 5 minutes of the picture), but I admit that I thought it took too long to get there. I would have cut 40 or so minutes out of the film (e.g., do we need 4 minutes on a group of men bushwhacking through the jungle?). But then it wouldn't have been an epic, I suppose.

year: 1957
length: 161 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/combined

Big Fish

The most amazing thing about this film is how it's written. Most of the sentences uttered by the characters are designed to illuminate the difference between big and small, right and wrong, facts and faith. The sentences tend to balance each other out, or provide balance for ideas within a single sentence. I think Tim Burton chose well -- his style of moviemaking fits with a script about understanding wholly different lifestyles. A son returns to his father's deathbed to try and understand who his father really is. He never believed his father's tall tales (i.e., Big Fish stories), although everyone else seems to have, or at least have been enamored by them. Burton enjoys making films that fly in the face of normalcy -- Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Mars Attacks! -- but that are still about basic human emotions, such as fear and love. He gets to conjure up circus show freaks and ridiculous scenery (e.g., a car stranded in a tree) but integrates this with "normal life." While at times the film seems to be running too long (a few too many Big Fish stories told), the ending is surprisingly moving. We should all have a chance to die as we lived, with those whom we cared about coming together to talk about the life we lived. (And that's an example of the kind of sentence structure I was mentioning earlier.)

year: 2003
length: 125 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319061/combined

Better Luck Tomorrow

Actually, I think I like the title of this film more than the film itself. What happens to smart, rich, entitled Asian-American high school kids who start getting mixed up in crime and drugs? Things go more awry (as could probably be expected). The film got made as part of a young-promising-director's prize (which I don't remember the name of and can't find info on), and this is obvious in some of the choices Justin Lin makes for camera placement and movement (the most eye-catching is the camera revolving around three boys huddled together doing...well, I can't tell you). So, it has some interesting elements (other good bits are the dictionary entries and the slow-mo high school scenes). I felt pretty iffy about the ending, though, and since endings are so important, that diminished the quality of the film overall in my eyes. It's entertainment, but I'm not convinced it's saying anything worthwhile. I realize that it caused a great deal of consternation at The Sundance Film Festival because it wasn't "positively portraying Asian Americans," but I think it's more important to find out for yourself whether you enjoy a film all on its lonesome without outside influences. And it is enjoyable, it's just not doing anything earth-shaking.

year: 2002
length: 98 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280477/combined

Bullitt

Stylish. That's this film in a word. I believe the 60s and 70s were a time of experimentation for many filmmakers and it shows in this film, both to its credit and as its downfall. The negative first: there are many, many shots that are extraneous. Often the camera shows us minutes of the story that would have been better excised (why watch the corpse be transferred to an ambulance when we already know it will happen by what came before?). On the other hand, we have fantastic camera angles and movements that come as a result of these extraneous shots (panning onto the face of the policeman's wife sitting vigil in the hospital is nothing less than beautiful). There is also an effort to be as realistic as possible. Instead of filming surgery with actors playing the part of the doctors and nurses, real doctors and nurses perform a mock surgery. You wouldn't believe the volume of arguments among realists and those that believe you never are able to show reality (because you're always watching a film, to boil the argument down). Of course, most folks watch this film for Steve McQueen (who only played a cop once, and an honest one to boot) and the car chase in which he plays his own stunt guy, without resorting to special effects. For that alone, the film is worth seeing. You think we've perfected the car chase onscreen? Think again.

year: 1968
length: 113 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062765/combined

Back to the Future

You really don't want to know the hullaballoo (can I just spell that any way I want?) that was my purchasing process for this film. Ugh. Let's just say that I have it now (part one of the trilogy, and the only one that counts) and have been watching it in bits and pieces over the past couple weeks. It's a definite that without Michael J. Fox in the lead role it would have sunk faster than a lead brick. Believe it or not, Eric Stoltz was originally cast in his role, and they had to fire him and beg for Fox to take the part. He was doing Family Ties at the same time, and says he was so stressed from running from TV stage to film location and back that he wasn't sleeping more than a couple hours a night and forgetting at times which set he was on. All beside the point. Time travel (or at least films that use time as a major element) have become increasingly popular lately, but this is the first one that I remember. And it's so much darn fun to watch! You have Fox's charisma, the 50s clothes and music, the deft aging and young-ing of the main characters, and a story to beat all. I love how it holds together all the way through (which is another reason not to watch parts two and three, they'll just confuse you). As a kid, this was one of my favorites (that last scene had me biting my nails), and as an adult it's one my favorite classic comedies.

year: 1985
length: 111 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/combined

Ben-Hur

I kept thinking I'd seen this film, but it was completely fresh this time around, including the famous chariot scene. I didn't remember that it is the story of a Jew (played by Charlton Heston) and his opposition to the Roman conquerors. I didn't remember that it chronicles the life of Jesus. I didn't remember that one of the Romans is an old friend of Heston's character and the conflict that arises from that. I didn't remember all the opportunities for hypocrisy and/or making the wrong choices that pervade the film. And, in the long run, atlhough I think it's one of the best epics ever made, I don't understand why Heston got the Oscar. His character is definitely the tie that binds the entire film together, but I didn't think it was awe-inspiring (although his acting is first-class). Different standards then, perhaps. It won a gaggle of awards, including Best Sound, Best Film, Best Director, Best Costume Design, and Best Supporting Actor for Hugh Griffith. His portrayal of the Arab sheik is designed to be funny, but he doesn't play it as slapstick, which makes you grin all the more. If you rent the DVD, watch the making-of documentary, which is particularly nicely done because it talks about the book the film was based on, the many stage- play renditions of the book, and the silent 1925 film. The scale of these productions alone will make you gasp. I won't blame you, though, if you skip past the interviews with Gore Vidal (one of the screenwriters on this film) and his monstrous ego.

year: 1959
length: 222 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052618/combined

A Bug's Life

I keep thinking I've reviewed this, but that's because Pixar films all sit in the same memory space in my head. As much as I love all Pixar films, this one is a cut above. It seems to have more moral heft (persevering in the face of daunting odds, chasing your dreams, learning confidence) than the others do. That could be gaggy, but it's placed in such a whimsical setting that we don't notice the educational overtones. Besides, you giggle through the entire thing. A caterpillar with a twisted German accent? A droll walking stick? A bumbling inventor ant? The characters are brilliant creations, but I think what sets Pixar films above other animated films is their storylines. Granted, this is fantasy, so you have a lot of leeway, but I never notice plot holes, continuity problems or dangling sub- plots when I watch these films. I don't know much about screenwriting (okay, I don't know anything about screenwriting) and the differences between writing for animation and for live- action, but they must be doing something better at Pixar or else I'd be as much in awe of Disney's animated works. OK, sure, the animation is like photorealism. It's mind-boggling. Still, I think without their genius at telling a good story, Pixar would never be where it is today. Beloved by 3-year olds, in body and in spirit, everywhere!

year: 1998
length: 96 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120623/combined

Baran

After I watched this film, I was struck by how enjoyable I had found it. Which is a little odd since it's a serious film about an Iranian boy upset that an illegal Afghani immigrant has taken his job. The film is in large part about the maturity of the boy as he recognizes that the Afghani immigrant is a girl and how hard her life has been since she immigrated. But it's also about the plight of women, albeit very subtly, in these countries. How hard was it for her to masquerade as a boy without her burqa? Would the burqa's veil have been a convenient method for shutting out the growing attentions of the Iranian boy? Why was the veil not worn by the Afghani women in the film? I admit I don't know the answers to these questions or how to find out if the director was subtly implying any feminist message, but I wonder if it would change my enjoyment of the film. That is, my enjoyment as a woman watching the film. All those unanswered questions leave me somewhat unsure about the film in general. I'm not sure a man watching the film would feel the same way, unless they were sensitized to the plight of Muslim women. Of course, if the film is only viewed as a growth and maturity story it's quite entertaining, enlightening and educational. And that's plenty good enough.

year: 2001
length: 94 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0233841/combined

Bend It Like Beckham

Fresh, that's how I would characterize this film. It has a great sense of what's funny about an Indian girl from a traditional family wanting to play soccer instead of getting married like her sister. (Keep an eye out for the "aloo gobi" kitchen scene.) Someone also spent their time working on the soccer scenes. The camerawork and the music act together to make you feel that soccer is THE sport, and why have you been wasting your time with anything else? An added benefit is learning about traditional Indian culture (watch Monsoon Wedding if you want to learn even more). But why, oh why, do they have to ruin nice, sweet films like this with cliches? I was gritting my teeth at the ending. Of course the boy and girl have to get together in the end (it can't be more obvious, so I don't think I'm giving anything away). Of course the sister has to get married and be pregnant at the end. Bleah. Why not do something totally original like making it clear that even though the girl wants to play soccer and is breaking her family's heart because of it, she still loves her family, comes from their tradition, and respects it to some degree. So, no kissing the boy until you're engaged! I'm probably asking too much.

year: 2002
length: 112 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286499/combined

Breathless

Jean-Luc Godard is one of the most influential New Wave French cinema directors. Translated that means that he "invented" some new film styles, namely the jump cut (when a scene gets chopped into little bits and put back together in a jumpy, but still essentially continuous manner). The French in the 1960s were also influential in making things look very natural, what I expect would be called neo-realism. The actors (Jean-Paul Belmondo and Jean Seberg, whose careers took off after this film) look straight at the camera at points and they talk like we talk. This film is so natural in its conversation style and character mannerisms that you don't even realize you're watching film sometimes. But then Godard will put in some heavy-duty melodramatic music and you laugh because you remember. There is a plot, which almost seems not to matter, mostly about a criminal on the loose. The film is of the beat generation, so fairly loose in its morals, and that keeps us edgy because we're not sure what the characters will do next. We like them but we don't understand why they keep doing such awful things, especially at the end of the film. Try to ignore Seberg's French accent. She does a fairly good job except for those hard American R's.

original title: À Bout de Souffle
year: 1960
length: 87 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053472/combined