Casino Royale

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.

year: 2006
length: 144 min.
rating; 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381061/combined

Constantine

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.

year: 2005
length: 121 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360486/combined

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Ah, a worthy heir. (Joke! Don't worry, you'll get it when you see the movie.) Johnny Depp steps smartly into Gene Wilder's shoes and pulls off one more portrayal of the distinctly nutty, bizarrely childlike, and decidedly eccentric Willy Wonka. For those of you who loved Wilder's version as a child, it may be difficult to fathom what good a remake can bring (as yet another of the endless stream of remakes), but I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. This one may not have the googly-eyed man himself, but it has overabundant color! and surreal sets! and cute little musical numbers! and really funny lines! and trained squirrels! and to top it all off Depp!, who has his feet planted firmly as the cleverest actor of his generation. Here he's channeling Pee-Wee Herman, albeit a Pee-Wee with extra bite and wit. For those who've read the book, this film adds a bit of backstory to Wonka's childhood, but otherwise is completely faithful. Wonka's reminiscences of his childhood are a teeny bit distracting, as they drag you away from the main thrust of the film (that being the removal of every one of the naughty kids who gets to tour Wonka's chocolate factory except Charlie himself, of course). And yet I thought they made the ending all that more sweet and caring. I do hope Tim Burton gets to make The Great Glass Elevator, if only to see who he'd cast at the President of the U.S. (Jack Nicholson again?) and as the Vermicious Knids (Jack Nicholson again?). Probably a good thing I'm not a casting agent, but let's hear it for more from the Burton-Depp team!

year: 2005
length: 115 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367594/combined

The Coca-Cola Kid

I don't remember now why I even had this movie in my queue. I guess it's interesting for three reasons: 1) to see why Greta Scacchi has no shame 2) to see how far Eric Roberts has fallen and 3) to see why Australians are ever so much cooler than Americans. Roberts is some big-shot Coca-Cola marketing genius, sent to Australia to shake up the Aussies and make them sell, sell, sell! Scacchi is his secretary who has never heard the phrase "playing hard to get," culmintaing in them at long last going to bed together...amidst big fluffy pillow feathers. It's ludicrous. Especially since Roberts has made it abundantly clear that he is not in the least interested throughout the film and then all of a sudden they're smooching on a big red bed. We don't even see the "caving in" scene! That's not just bad plotting, that's extraordinarily bad acting. I guess Roberts was still a possibility as a leading man in Hollywood at this time; after this you'll see why he's remained a B-movie actor. (His sister's astronomically better; must be galling.) The rest of the plot is too silly and poorly directed to mention. Ok, one mention: the cross-dressing party and subsequent singing-in-the-rain scene. What the heck was that?! Talk about ludicrous. Anything good about the movie -- yes, the Coca-Cola song (I see at least one IMDB reviewer thinks exactly the same as me) and the cute little girl playing Scacchi's daughter. Not enough for a recommendation, I'm afraid.

year: 1985
length: 98 min.
rating: 1.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088931/combined

City of God

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

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

Code 46

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

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

Closer

It's only been half an hour since I saw this, but I'm going to place it in my top three films of the year (so far). Right up there with Eternal Sunshine and I Heart Huckabees. Yeah, it could be knocked off the pedestal, but it would take a lot. It's always a relief to see stuff like this. After so many mediocre films, you forget that not all the good ideas are used up. And that's not to say that the theme of the film is unique, just that its design is. This one is about unfaithfulness and deceit. That's the non-unique part. But I won't describe much more because you should walk in knowing as little as possible about it. Regarding the plot, I'll just say that your instincts on what kind of characters are being played by Julia Roberts, Jude Law, Clive Owen and Natalie Portman will be thoroughly changed by the end. The dialogue is spare, yet every line counts and every pause counts. It's a film that will make you very uncomfortable and for a reason. It's a film that is very much about sex but is not at all titillating. It's a film that should feel unreal, but doesn't. And lastly, it's a film that you should not, under any circumstance, take a first date or new lover to. Unless of course you never want to see them again. Go with trusted friends, a spouse of many years, your parents if they're ultra-hip. It'll be worth it.

year: 2004
length: 104 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376541/combined

Captain Blood

My husband read this 1922 book by Rafael Sabatini and was so enchanted by the language that he wanted to see the film. Never seen Errol Flynn? This is a great introduction (as it was for me) to the definitive cinematic swashbuckler. I think his legend has done him a disfavor -- billed as so naughty off the set, he has a rep like Rudolph Valentino but is leaps and bounds beyond that silent screen star's abilities. It's surprising that he ever had difficulty finding a niche in Hollywood, particularly as he could have just as easily been a Shakespearean actor, with his method of delivery and subtle expressivity. If this were filmed today, the visual effects spectacle would overwhelm the story. Not so in a 1930s film, and it gives it a hokey quality (check out those fake ocean backgrounds!), but if you can look past that, sit back, and watch Flynn and the interplay between him and the lovely, spunky Olivia de Havilland, you'll have as much fun watching this as any popcorn film today.

year: 1935
length: 119 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0026174/combined

Curb Your Enthusiasm

Watched The Office? Admired and enjoyed it, while peeping through your fingers as at a horror film? Then you'll find this series a hoot. While you're cringing for different reasons (The Office: clueless people, Curb Your Enthusiasm: clueless situations), you're enjoying them for the same reason -- brilliant comedy. Larry David, writer and producer of Seinfeld, has created a show that supposedly mirrors his own life, although we have to hope everything in the show doesn't happen in his life. Happening to meet the Barney's shoe salesman on the street from whom he purchased a replacement pair of lost shoes while happening to be carrying the found shoes? Right. So, the situations are Shakespearean, in the sense of idiot plots and misunderstandings galore. It could be laughable (and not in the hilarious sense), but he's created tight scripts that are humorous on several levels -- the situations themselves, the ad-libbed interactions between the characters, and the re-visiting of elements from previous episodes. I admit I was quite skeptical myself, and unfortunately any description cannot do it justice. You just have to experience it for yourself.

year: 2000-?
length: seasons 1-2 on DVD, season 5 picked up
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0264235/combined

Collateral

Finally, Michael Mann is back to his roots in the crime drama. This is the man who got Robert De Niro and Al Pacino together for the crime epic Heat. And while this film isn't on the same level as that masterful piece of direction, it's in the same league. Tom Cruise plays a hitman with the agenda of taking out key witnesses to a crime in one dusk till dawn play through the streets of L.A. Unwillingly assisting him is Jamie Foxx as the cab driver unlucky enough to get this particular fare. The film is somewhat slow and thoughtful, trying to convince us of the goodness of Foxx's character while also pointing out the humanity of Cruise's character. That's somewhat (if not mostly) unbelievable, and worst of all, transparent. (The method of blatantly telegraphing how the audience is supposed to feel about characters is the worst screenwriting mistake a writer can make, in my book.) There are twists towards the end, and if nothing else Foxx is superb in what could be considered a thankless role, playing next to a high-wattage superstar. Probably the most interesting thing about the film is its grayness. Cruise's character is dressed in silver gray -- sharp, edgy, professional, daring. The lighting is somewhat blurred, creating the effect of grays instead of the sharp blacks and whites you might expect from a film shot at night. I was unaware that it was entirely digitally filmed until after seeing it, and that's a good thing, as it means that digital video is finding a foothold in certain types of films.

year: 2004
length: 120 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369339/combined

Coffee and Cigarettes

Poor misunderstood Jim Jarmusch. Actually, I doubt that's how he thinks of himself. Others might in watching his newest film. Essentially a set of scenarios (loosely) based on discussions of coffee and cigarettes involving pairings of (mostly) Hollywood odd couples, half of these scenarios make absolutely no sense and/or are completely boring for the viewer. Anyone familiar with Jarmusch just shakes their head and waits for the next bit, but for others this could be annoying enough that they will downplay the film when discussing it with others. A mistake, I would say. The scenarios that do work, namely the pairings Jack White - Meg White, Alfred Molina - Steve Coogan (my fave), Cate Blanchett -um- Cate Blanchett, and William Rice - Taylor Mead, and the ones that sorta work, namely Roberto Benigni - Steven Wright and The Wu-Tang Clan - Bill Murray, are alternately hysterical and thought-provoking. (Yeah, weird, I know.) I believe it would be wrong to dismiss this film just because a portion of the sketches don't work, especially because the film is made up of only sketches and can be evaluated on a per-scenario basis. I don't want to say too much more about it; I'd spoil its surprises. And if you feel like yawning during the Renee French bit, go right ahead. Better stuff is on its way.

year: 2003
length: 96 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379217/combined

Conspiracy

Another film that gets high marks for its content. It differs from And The Band Played On by being a very engaging film. HBO Films is fast becoming an obvious place to go for quality films that might not be made for theaters (I'm looking forward to Angels in America coming out on DVD since I've heard it's super). The film tells the story of the Wannsee Conference -- the meeting in which Nazi officials decided the fate of the Jews in Germany and its occupied countries. And, yes, it is basically the meeting on film, which sounds almost too boring for words. As you watch, though, you realize that you're looking at a meeting that could be happening in your own offices, in that it feels so normal...except for the horrific fact that they're discussing the extermination of an entire race. There was only one account that survived of this meeting and you have to believe that the personalities around the table, the jokes made, and the utter sincerity of these insane men is for real. But your mind wants to shy away from believing that people like this actually existed. You get a short description at the end of what happened to each man. Surprisingly, most of them died shortly after the Nuremberg Trials of fairly normal causes, but pay attention to what happened to Adolf Eichmann. If that's not karmic justice, I don't know what is.

year: 2001
length: 96 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266425/combined

Cold Mountain

I have the feeling this will be a more enjoyable film if you haven't already read the book. It follows the book so closely that there weren't quite enough surprises to keep up my interest. Which isn't to say that Anthony Minghella didn't do wonders turning a good book into a good film. At times, it seems as if you aren't listening to a conversation between people but instead reading well-built prose. What passes between folks, in particular between Ada (Nicole Kidman) and Inman (Jude Law), doesn't seem like any sort of normal conversation. For those who haven't read the book, this is the tale of a Confederate soldier who goes AWOL to get back to his sweetie. What I enjoyed so much about the book is the trouble Ada goes through in order to keep her farm, having to learn from Ruby (Renée Zellweger), another woman also down on her luck. Ada learns that she can in fact learn to haul bales of hay until her arms ache and get up at 5am when she's worked until past dark. In the film, we see them putting up fence rails (ooh) and making a scarecrow (aah), not at all the hard labor I envisioned from the book. For some, Kidman may be too pretty for her role. Ada's beauty is pointed out early on in the film, but at times she is too luminous, although un- makeup-ed when it suits. Much better to notice how gorgeous Jude Law is, whether mussed up or not! It's a good thing they both know how to create characters we want to believe in as well as look at. Zellweger does a great job, as do others in smaller roles (Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Giovanni Ribisi), but the prize goes to Natalie Portman as a woman who gives Law food and shelter for one night. I have to take back what I've said about her not being able to act. She's a revelation. In the end, Minghella has created a glorious tapestry of words and deeds, but it didn't reach me as I think it should have. I'd be interested to know if others who have read the book have the same problem.

year: 2003
length: 155 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0159365/combined

Cries and Whispers

This is a meditation on dying, mostly symbolic with little exposition, as in many Ingmar Bergman films. Two sisters return home to their manor to take care of a dying sister, along with their long-time maid. I doubt Bergman thought of the film as melodramatic, probably more a thoughtful description of dying, whether corporeally or emotionally, but all the long glances and overwrought expressions can get on your nerves after a while. Besides, these are rich people dying, so already we're not inclined to be sympathetic. (Although it's clear that making it the rich dying serves to enhance the difference between the maid and the sisters.) The repetitious images of how bored and lonely the sister are just doesn't make sense in the time-crunched society I live in. Still, it's affecting in that it's difficult to watch someone die. And it is wondrous in its bleakness. I've only seen a couple other Bergman films, and the last one I enjoyed thoroughly (Wild Strawberries), but I don't remember leaving a film feeling so bereft of hope. The last scene is meant to bolster you, but how can you forget everything you've seen them do and say to each other? It makes you want to give up, and that's not a feeling I like to be left with no matter what form of entertainment I've chosen.

original title: Viskningar och Rop
year: 1972
length: 106 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069467/combined

A Christmas Carol

It's unfair of me to say that this rendition of Charles Dickens' famous story is my favorite, because I've only seen one other, Scrooged, and that was an adaptation (although Bill Murray was pretty darn funny). Among the A Christmas Carol cognoscenti, this one seems to be top-rated and I believe that's in large part due to Alastair Sim in the lead role. I watch the film every holiday season (on VHS, sadly) and every season it's more delightful than the last. This time around, I noticed what a comic genius Sim is. For those of you who have seen it, you may be thinking "well, duh, that's rather obvious" but what I mean is that he's using his comedic sensibilities throughout the film, even when he's a being a grinch. When the ghost of Christmas past asks him to follow him, he grimaces as a child would who doesn't want to do what his parent is asking. It at least brings a smile to your face. Of course, he's also very good at being a stinker, being heartbroken, and being tender, as in the scene with his nephew's wife. He, and the fantastic supporting cast, make this a joy to watch. It does exist on DVD, but beware the colorized version. It also might be difficult to purchase (Amazon doesn't seem to have it in stock), but I'm sure stores will be carrying it for the holidays to rent.

year: 1951
length: 86 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044008/combined

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle

Jim here, senior citizen guest reviewer on Kat's page. In the first few minutes of my 41st year (that means it was my 40th birthday) I came home from another gin-soaked ultimate frisbee bash to find Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle in the house. The house I live in! Talk about attraction-repulsion. After all, I had a great time watching the first Angels movie at Ann Arbor's Top of the Park Summer Festival with some ultimate frisbee pals a couple of summers ago. Since the point of Top is to hang out with your friends and hundreds of kids and teenagers and families and people who are mostly interested in hanging out with their friends and kids etc. outdoors on a summer night and looking up at the screen when the occasional explosion catches your eye, it was perfect. So here's the sequel, available indoors on a cold and wet November night, and Cameron Diaz is still pretty! Jump cut to the morning (there were a lot of jump cuts in the movie) and a return to my plotless life (there was no plot in the movie) and we talked about it as if it mattered (nothing in the movie mattered) over breakfast and tried to figure out all the ways it was bad. I got impatient with that -- time is precious now that I'm old -- so I said I'd write it out instead. It turns out that now that I've written this much I don't care enough to make a comprehensive list, so I'll sum up: I think we must have hit the wrong button on the remote, because what I saw was a collection of deleted scenes whose total running time was coincidentally about as long as a real movie would be. Maybe there was a script and a story and those are part of what you get from one of the other DVD menu selections, but I'll never know. I would have spent the time more productively drinking cheap liquor alone on a street corner in the rain.

year: 2003
length: 106 min.
rating: 1.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0305357/combined

The Civil War

There's one point in this documentary series, I believe at the end of the first episode, in which a letter is read from a soldier (it makes no difference what side he's on) to his wife a few days before his death in battle. It's read against a beautiful Southern landscape and it'll bring you to tears. It says everything about The Civil War that you'll need to know. But stick around to watch the other 8 episodes because Ken Burns knows how to give you a story and a history lesson and entertain you all at once. He shows you the good, the bad, and the worst. The most odious character in the whole war was General George McClellan, as he tells it, who sat on his rear end for so much of his tenure that he was personally responsible for the deaths of thousands of men. He, believe it or not, went on to become the governor of New Jersey, and even made a try to oust the presidency away from Lincoln before that. The man we should all revere is General Robert E. Lee. I knew next to nothing about him before the documentary, but came away believing he was a great and honorable man, beloved by even his enemies. In his dying hours, he went back to the battlefield, and his last words were "strike the tent," which are probably the most perfect last words spoken. The interviews are stellar, and without the different voice talents, it wouldn't be nearly as powerful a series. Particularly Morgan Freeman speaking the lines of civil rights activist Frederick Douglass. One great orator speaking another great orator's lines. It's enough to give you shivers.

year: 1990
length: 680 min. (9 episodes)
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098769/combined

Casino

I have no trouble recognizing the genius of Martin Scorsese. He is one of the few auteurs with a style that I can immediately sense. I'm unsure whether it's the same style I'm sensing in each film, but each time I view one of his films I see something that makes me go "oh!". For instance, in this film, instead of cutting out scenes that viewers can infer happened, which is a tried and true method for most filmmakers, he fades some of the infer-able scenes into each other, giving the illusion of movement. An example: a couple of guys are driving somewhere. We see them get in the car, which then fades into the car moving down the road, which ultimately fades into them getting out of the car at their destination. It's quite noticeable, and it always makes me grin because it shows he never stops thinking about how his technique intertwines with the story he's creating and the effect that will have on the viewer. He also does this with music. You'll notice yourself noticing the "background" music in this film (in quotes because it's a character in its own right). Why he's not widely recognized for his genius is a great question, but it may be a combination of the type of story he likes to tell and that he never shoots what are considered mainstream films (Gangs of New York may have been the closest he will ever get). Now, I really liked Goodfellas and Taxi Driver and Gangs of New York as well as this film because he knows how to bring complex characters and moral issues to life, but his films can often be hard to watch. The themes are highly disturbing, focused as they are on violence, mobs or deranged characters. In Casino (your basic Las Vegas mob film), I found myself looking away from the screen at times, which I almost never do. I mean, how does Thelma Schoonmaker edit some of these scenes without wanting to throw up? I was more disturbed by the violence in Casino than in Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction, which is saying a lot. I suppose being disturbed isn't necessarily a bad thing, because it makes the film stick with you, but I have to wonder at his obsession with these themes.

year: 1995
length: 178 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112641/combined

Citizen Kane

A confession. I fell asleep during this movie the first time I saw it. Which is very embarassing, as you might imagine. (Uh, it lulled me to sleep. Yeah, that's right. Lulled.) That was about 10 years ago, so maybe we can chalk that up to inexperience. Now that I've seen it again, I'm bowled over. How can anyone not be bowled over by this film? Because the genius of Orson Welles is not necessarily in his direction, acting, writing or cinematographic choices. It's in the mix of all of those. In one scene, he places his character in a room with two other men. In the background is a bank of windows. Which you completely ignore until his character walks away from the camera towards the windows, turns around, speaks, and walks back. You're then forced to pay attention to the scene's physical space and depth, while at the same time his character utters the most important line of the scene after he turns around. So, the illusion of a BIG room is mirrored in the BIG words said at that point. For me, it's the close collaboration between the production design, cinematography and writing that makes the film what it is: a complete whole, but so multi-layered that you could watch it many times, focusing only on one layer at a time. I will hold onto this rented DVD a little while longer because it contains two commentary tracks, one by Peter Bogdanovich (a director and film historian) and one by Roger Ebert. I didn't want to wait to review the film, though. I thought a more off-the-cuff review without a ton of cinephilic commentary banging around in my head would be more worthwhile.

year: 1941
length: 119 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/combined

Carrie

Watching the DVD extras gave me more insight into the technique behind this film. That should have upped my rating, but the film is just so corny and camp that I couldn't give it more than "enjoyable, decently made." Critics seem to love the beginning shot -- this slow-mo pan of women in a locker room in all states of undress with Carrie in the shower getting her period for the first time (foreshadowing, anyone?). I got the fact that the shower scene underscores the erotic overtones of the film, e.g., the overly religious mother (played perfectly by Piper Laurie) who confesses her inner sexual thoughts at the end of the film, the romance and beauty of the prom before all hell breaks loose. And it is a powerful scene, it just seemed gratuitous. Of course that may be the point and I'm just missing it. While there is some great acting (Sissy Spacek is a marvel), there is also some bad acting, especially on the part of William Katt as the prom date. What a dumb, smirky grin! If he's supposed to be so enlightened and nice, why does he have such an evil grin, especially in the prom scene? As horror films go, it's good enough, and not that horrific even when Carrie unleashs her power and burns everything at the end (especially if you compare it to the incredibly creepy The Exorcist).

year: 1976
length: 98 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074285/combined