Dangerous Beauty

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...

year: 1998
length: 111 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118892/combined

Double Indemnity

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.

year: 1944
length: 107 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036775/combined

Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story

As Steve Zahn says in That Thing You Do, "[that] was...terrible." (It's not the phrase, actually, it's the way he says it that makes it so funny, 'cause he kinda drags the pause out and...oh, never mind.) This film has one saving grace and that's Vince Vaughn, who plays the most believable straight man, possibly ever. This is completely necessary as nearly every scene contains Ben Stiller as laugh track. Now, I have nothing against Stiller. (Loved Meet the Parents and Keeping the Faith.) But his incarnation as an overly manic gym owner only points out which features you never liked about the actor in the first place. Vaughn plays a competing gym owner whose gym is about to be taken over by Stiller's mega-corporation. The only way to prevent it is to enter into a dodgeball championship. Yeah. Well, I'm still unsure whether dodgeball is a real adult sport or not, but it's treated as such by the filmmakers. Seriously. At least I think it's seriously. Watch the first extra feature and see for yourself. On second thought, skip that one and just watch the alternate ending to the film. Now that's funny.

year: 2004
length: 92 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364725/combined

Dinner Rush

If you haven't read Anthony Bourdain's book Kitchen Confidential and don't think you'll be getting to it anytime soon, try this movie instead. It has all the elements of Bourdain's ultra-hip, ultra-honest take on the behind-the-scenes restaurant world: what it takes to be a line cook, who should own restaurants and who should just work in them, and the vaudeville show that nouvelle cuisine has become. It's not Big Night, but it's certainly taking its cue from that film. Complete with mouth-watering masterpiece. What I'm unsure of is whether it's insufferably smart or right on the money. Upon reflection of a few days I've decided that it's scattered -- too many stories, and only a few of them resolve in the "surprise" ending. Edoardo Ballerini, who plays the chef, usually plays guys called Vincent and Victor, so a chance to play a guy named Udo must have been a career capper. Seriously, the guy looks like an assassin, which is why he's cast as a bad guy most of the time. This must have been a big break for him, I imagine. And you can't make a small-budget Italian-flavor film nowadays without Danny Aiello (actually, when wasn't that true?) so of course he plays the restaurant owner with the shady past. Exception being Big Night, and if you're torn between renting that one or this one, definitely go with that one.

year: 2000
length: 99 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0229340/combined

Dial M for Murder

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

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

Duel

I've been noticing lately a clear division between excellent films and everything else. That sounds obvious written down, but let me explain. A handful (maybe a few dozen) of films I feel I can recommend to anyone and be certain that 99% of those people will recognize their greatness. Everything else is opinion -- people can either love or hate a film depending on whether they like the actors, the theme, or the mood of the film (or what mood they're in when they go to see it). This film is one of those handful and its description is bound to increase your skepticism of my theory. A guy driving to a meeting is terrorized by a large truck. That's it. Based on a short story originally published in Playboy, it was picked up by Steven Spielberg's assistant at the start of his career, as he was shooting 1960s TV episodes. And as boring as it sounds, I place this first film at the same level as Spielberg's most serious (and masterful) effort, Schindler's List. Go right ahead and be skeptical -- the more you are, the more pleased you will be by the end result. If you rent the DVD, watch the featurette interviewing Spielberg about the making of the film. If he isn't teaching potential filmmakers, he should be. He's one of the few visionary directors who can also excels at discussing technical and compositional issues of film directing. And he's passionate and intelligent which only improves his appeal. My favorite point of his from the featurette is how important it is for a film director to believe in the film he is making -- whether it's Jurassic Park or Amistad -- because if you don't believe in it, why will the audience?

year: 1971
length: 90 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067023/combined

The Day After Tomorrow

When I was thinking of seeing this film, I kept calling it Independence Day. Granted, the two titles share a word, but I'm pretty sure I mix them up because they're both written and directed by disaster-flick impresario Roland Emmerich. And they're the same film. OK, not really, but there's sappy, flag-waving patriotism in both. The difference in this flick is that he takes the U.S. down a teeny notch by making it depend on other nations and recognize that it was wrong. (Gasp!) The plot revolves around a climatologist's realization that abrupt climate change, and therefore a new ice age, will happen within weeks instead of hundreds of years, resulting in him trying to convince the government of the danger and rescue his son in NYC at the same time. I give it the stars I do because the special eff ects are neat-o. (The swamping of the Statue of Liberty is especially nicely done.) Big however, though -- it has an asinine plot involving a Scottish scientist (what is Ian Holm doing in this dreck?), seemingly deliberately poor acting on the part of Dennis Quaid as the climatologist, abrupt scene changes designed only to keep you from falling asleep in your seats between special effects, and some of the most absurd science ever put on film. My fave is the idea that super-cold air could be pulled down from the troposphere so quickly as to freeze humans in their tracks. They predate this nonsense with a scene of kids looking at a Natural History Museum diorama of a mammoth who was found with food still in its mouth, the hypothesis being that he was frozen that way AND that this happened because of the onset of a new ice age. Horsepucky! Such abrupt change is virtually impossible (see the MSNBC report The Science, and Fiction, of Day After Tomorrow). BUT, I'm not disputing that climate change is a real problem. If all this film does is make more of the public aware of the dangers of driving SUVs, then I'm all for it and as many clones of it as Hollywood can put out.

year: 2004
length: 124 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/combined

Dogville

A brave friend and I went to see this film together. Just as it started, we turned and said "Good luck" to each other. And we meant it. Lars von Trier films are notoriously difficult on the nerves. While he will do almost anything to make you squirm (those final scenes of Dancer in the Dark are etched on my retinas), he does provide entertainment (and yet Bjork dances and sings!). At least I could say that about his previous films. There is nothing whatsoever uplifting about this film. In fact, it genuinely seems to be a giant middle finger to the U.S. of A. And weirdly, that will only be obvious after you see the credits. The story itself is played out on a large soundstage with demarcations on the floor showing you where the houses and streets are supposed to be. Grace (the name itself a sad irony), played sweetly and innocently by Nicole Kidman, happens into town but is wanted by the police. The townsfolk agree to hide her, and begin to care for her, but they get too invested and the ugly cracks in their characters start to show. Everything is revealed and called into question: weakness, shame, betrayal, choice, reason, arrogance, even prostitution, and especially slavery. It's a flaying of human personalities, set up so logically that you recognize and accept it all. My main quibble is that the film is too long -- while I understand that you need to see how the community attitude changes towards Grace, I'm pretty darn sure I didn't need to give up 3 hours of my life to understand von Trier's philosophy. Whether this world view is valid would involve a completely other kind of review. Let's just say that while some Americans will agree wholeheartedly with his take on socialism (and therefore most Americans should see it to be equally enlightened), the rest of what he seems to be saying about America (and Americans) is hogwash. If, in fact, he's pointing a finger at the world in general, that's a bit more palatable. But then -- what's the deal with those end credits?

year: 2003
length: 177 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0276919/combined

Dawn of the Dead

I just can't give a ZOMBIE movie more than 3 stars, I just can't. I mean, it's a ZOMBIE movie, for goodness sake! There's nothing enlightening or uplifting or hopeful or useful about them. They're only meant to make you pee in your pants. Which I didn't do during this one because I've learned to laugh at them. Even the absolute grossest stuff (like a baby ZOMBIE that must be shot) is hilarious. Because I know that the filmmakers are doing it to scare the bejeezus out of you -- that is their raison d'etre. All put together though, this film is not as entertaining as 28 Days Later... was. It wasn't as scary, which some folks may disagree with me on, but I'll stand firm. 28 Days Later... seemed plausible, which is infinitely more terrifying. This one was implausible from start to finish. I mean, why leave the mall to begin with, you dummies? Of course, the ZOMBIES will get you. That's what they're there for! Anyway, go see it if you just want to have a fun time with your pals, but if you want to watch a real ZOMBIE film, rent the British one instead.

year: 2004
length: 100 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363547/combined

Duplex

Another film watched on the transatlantic flight back from Copenhagen. See, it's difficult for someone who watches so much film to have this cool little video unit in your seat, and have watched 98% of the films listed. You end up watching dopey ones you would never pay money for, in the theater or on DVD. I really like Ben Stiller; I think he's one of our best comedic actors (I have a special fondness for Keeping the Faith, albeit for more reasons than that), but he gets involved in some fairly silly projects (Starsky and Hutch, anyone?). Alongside Drew Barrymore the potential for a quality project sinks even lower. You can guess what it's about -- two young yuppie types buy a home in NYC but are terrorized by the sweet old lady upstairs. In the process, they nearly destroy the house. There are funny scenes, e.g., installing the clapper, the raisin / mouse turd (yup, you betcha), but it's just, well, dumb. I would recommend skipping this film and renting the much funnier Tom Hanks / Shelley Long film The Money Pit (or The 'burbs, for that matter).

year: 2003
length: 97 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266489/combined

Down With Love

Another film you can't trust critics on! Oh, wait, that's me. I'm going to go against the grain, though, and not review it in terms of its use of film language or inclusion in the film oeuvre. Bleah. You need to recognize the spirit in which it was made: fun! The director had fun, the costume designer had fun, the score composer had fun, the actors definitely had fun. A tale of a woman who writes a how-to book -- how to not fall in love but still have plenty of sex -- and the one man she can't seem to work her theory on. So, your classic man meets woman, woman loses man, man and woman reconcile type script. Except that this one is a re-make of Pillow Talk (Rock Hudson and Doris Day) and includes Ewan McGregor and Renee Zellweger. I have to admit up front that his teeth and her chipmunk cheeks never did much for me, but this is okay for this film. They don't have to be classic model types. The film's too much fun for that. So, put a big smile on your face, slip this into the player and enjoy a well-made fluff movie.

year: 2003
length: 101 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0309530/combined

Dirty Harry

I've never much liked Clint Eastwood in his ride-'em-cowboy mode, and never understood why women swooned over him in his tough-guy roles, but the original Dirty Harry stands on its own (as yet another honest cop film, just with a very different style from Bullitt). And, I'm convinced it's not all due to him. Yup, he sure does squint good and can give the evil eye like few others on film, yet without a decent story (very much a product of the times) and a superbly acted nutso villian, I don't think it would have become such a classic. The actor who played the villain has had that famous line delivered to him thousands of times (the one with "do you feel lucky, punk?") and I do feel sorry for him. I doubt the film makers or actors knew what a cult film it would become. I almost gave it my highest mark, but refrained because of the final show-down scene. How in the world does he know where to find that bus? The bus driver is most certainly off her route by that time. Plot holes like that just get my dander up.

year: 1971
length: 102 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066999/combined

The Day the Earth Stood Still

What better film to watch during the war? An alien visits Earth and appeals to the leaders of nations to stop their aggressive and violent policies towards each other. Except that no one will pay attention to him and to his warning that the Earth will be destroyed if they don't listen up and act wisely. Sound vaguely familiar? Of course, this film was produced during the Cold War and is most relevant to that period, but it certainly wouldn't hurt for Mr. Bush and his advisors to watch it now. I missed watching the commentary on the DVD, which I heard was full of wonderful anecdotes from the director, Robert Wise. And what do you think "Klaatu Barata Nicto!" means? My guess: "Klaatu's okay, you big dumb robot, so quit killing people, it's not helping matters any."

year: 1951
length: 92 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043456/combined

Daredevil

I'm pretty sure that this film meant to be something else. So many deft comparisons of vision and sound -- reflections in mirrors and glasses, how Ben Affleck's character uses his extra- sensory capacity, what happens when it rains -- but this premise is downplayed and confused because they had to modify the film to compete with X-Men and Spider-Man and The Matrix (X-Men became wildly popular as they were filming this). OK, so a film about a comic-book hero is going to have a lot of action in it anyway, but it's obvious that many of the action and CGI animation sequences were tacked on after the script was finished. Daredevil, for the uninitiated, is a blind lawyer/superhero who meets the woman of his dreams but loses her when he fights the bad guy, Bullseye. Everyone in the film is slumming -- not much thoughtful acting happening -- especially Colin Farrell. He showed such promise in Tigerland but hasn't lived up to that eyebrow-raising performance. I hear Phone Booth is supposed to be decent, thank goodness. For the those in the know, there are some cameos by famous artists and moguls within the comics world. Even the characters are named after artists who have done stints drawing Daredevil. So, at least that part was fun.

year: 2003
length: 103 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0287978/combined

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

Ooh, how lucky you all are. Another film from my film library! It's probably pretty obvious by now that I enjoy buying and re- viewing comedies, for those days when my brain is too full to watch a heartier film. Michael Caine isn't one of my all-time favorite actors, but I love his portrayal of culture and decency in this flick, as a high-class con man out-conned by a low-class con man. The sequence in which he is explaining to Steve Martin (the low-class con man) why it is worth his while to keep wine that he will never drink or sell, tend gardens just for the pleasure of it, and gaze at statues in a museum to "feed the soul" is particularly funny because he knows darn well that Martin's character is going to think this is all a bunch of hooey. As usual (even in films that are poor showcases for his talent), Martin himself is beyond funny as he plays the dim- witted "brother" of Caine. (BTW, he's hosting the Academy Awards this Sunday, and I do hope that someone told him how stiff he was last time he hosted it because he is such a naturally funny person that he should be able to breeze through something like this. Stage fright?)

year: 1988
length: 110 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095031/combined

Dancer in the Dark

I have to give a word of warning right off the bat. Lars Von Trier films are not for everyone. He never shies away from showing you gritty reality (even though in this film he leans towards fantasy). I don't mean violence or sex, just raw emotions. His films are emotional tear-jerkers, but not in the sense of a Hollywood tear-jerker, i.e., a film that is overly sentimental. He's definitely a realist, which is why this film surprised me so much because it contains musical numbers depicting the fantasy life of the main female character, played by the Icelandic musician Björk. (My film prof says that the musical numbers reflect the mental reality of Björk's character, instead of reflecting how out of touch she is with real life. I hadn't taken it that far, and actually I think the film does both things, which is part of why it's so powerful.) I'll admit that the musical numbers were interesting, but didn't click with me. I understood the contrast they provided, but thought that the hand-held, rawly lit, Dogme 95 style was so counter to my conceptions of how musicals should be that they threw me out of the story enough to be irritated by them. Which means this is a film I'll need to see twice...if I can get up the nerve to do so! The plot is hard to describe in one sentence, but focuses on a woman going blind, but still working in a factory to save enough money to give her son the operation he will need because the blindness is hereditary.

year: 2000
length: 140 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0168629/combined

Dodsworth

A Sinclair Lewis book adaptation, about a man who leaves his work to discover what leisure really is. His wife desperately wants to leave their town, they sail to Europe and she becomes an unabashed flirt, in a desperate bid to stay young. Walter Huston and Ruth Chatterton do amazing things with these roles, but the real prize goes to Sinclair Lewis and Sidney Howard for the writing. This is not your everyday tale of a wayward wife! Remember the times when you watch this film.

year: 1936
length: 101 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027532/combined