Finding Forrester

That critic you hear so much about on this site, Mr. Glenn Kenny, recently wrote a review in which he pissed and moaned about films about writers. Being one himself, he has trouble watching writers portrayed on film, and he asserts that what you see on screen is 99% bad in this regard. I wonder what he thinks of this film. I wonder if he doesn't even consider it a portrayal of writers, seeing as you hear little more than a few phrases of writing in the entire movie or see the characters doing any actual writing (the one time you do see this, the lesson learned is an excellent one, by the way). But what is the film, then? Is it a study of racism? If so, how come you never see the reality of that either? Gus Van Sant is known for understated works, laid-back works, in fact, and very smart screenwriting. The latter exists here, but I'm not sure the former does. It's too clever, too polished, too unreal. The conflicts are predictable, regardless of how well acted they are by Sean Connery and the new, but wise beyond years, Rob Brown (whoo, where'd they find him?). It's entertaining, natch -- you know that the young black word whiz will end up being tutored by the white, experienced writer, and that the secrecy of their relationship will end up being undermined. How? Well, that's what you're watching for. Besides which, the end cameo is worth every penny.

year: 2000
length: 136 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181536/combined

The Fly

Among the list of foods you should NEVER eat while watching this film is cherry pie. I'm not one to get squeamish while watching make-believe (although I may shake my hands or make a face during a particularly grody scene), but David Cronenberg takes the cake. The film only reveals itself as horror halfway through, so there you are enjoying mid-80s costuming and amusing repartee between the leads, Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis, when the full effect of Cronenberg's special effects masters splatters across the screen. Blechy. Although I don't recommend eating while watching, I wouldn't avoid it in the video store because it deserves a viewing. Goldblum delivers, well, himself, and there are soulful moments that mesh nicely with his halting speech patterns and spazzy mannerisms, as bizarre as that may sound. Perhaps Cronenberg chose him because the actor is so obviously himself even under pounds of fake-fly makeup. Davis does good counterpoint, although it's not one of her best films, and the writing is often funny and always clever. But the soul of the picture lies in the recognizably human emotions evident in this fly-man even as he becomes something unrecognizable and disgusting to us. For that alone, it's worth peeking between your fingers and relegating the cherry pie back to the kitchen for the time being.

year: 1986
length: 95 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091064/combined

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

I would never recommend this film for everyone. Some will find it boring, others perplexing (to say the least), still others very stupid. Now me, I've never read the book and what I know of Hunter S. Thompson is from Duke, the Doonesbury character (heavily) based on Thompson. So I can't claim to fully understand the differences between the book and the film. But based on some beautiful lines towards the end of the film, clearly taken verbatim from the book, I would venture to say that the film fails in its inability to do justice to Thompson's writing. Others may say it fails because it's an incoherent mess. What is perceived as incoherent, however, is merely one way of describing the sheer wackiness and paranoia of Thompson's and Dr. Gonzo's drug trips. And most of it is downright funny. (Also downright gross, so be warned.) There are those who were unaware of Johnny Depp's comedic talents before Pirates of the Caribbean. (How could anyone forget Ed Wood and Edward Scissorhands?) Depp apparently hung out with the journalist for some time to learn his mannerisms, including his walk and his fashion sense. What you see on screen is a very close approximation of the man himself, disturbingly enough. I would say that the film grew on me after repeat viewings (no, I didn't really watch it repeatedly, just to show some favorite scenes to my husband) and the parts I really liked before were twice as funny the second time. If there could have been a way to make it more prosaic, it would have been brilliant.

year: 1998
length: 118 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120669/combined

Firefly

If you watch sci-fi, when was the last time you got hooked on a good sci-fi TV series? If you said Red Dwarf, that's close. If you said Babylon 5, that's closer. If you said Quantum Leap, you're reaching. All these series went to completion (Red Dwarf is still running, bless the BBC). So how depressing is it when you find a series worth watching week to week and they cancel it, even before the first season ends! Of course cancellation isn't relegated to sci-fi (think Sports Night), but it really seems that all the smartly written TV series get cancelled. If this doesn't point to the idiocy of the television watching audience... I mean, it only aired on the Sci-Fi Channel. What else was competing with it?! This series had quirky characters, a bizarre setting (heart-of-gold rum-runners roaming from planet to planet), a uniquely designed spaceship and several good storylines, building on existing tensions between the crew and the setting. Not the perfect series -- the cheese factor is full blown -- but the combination of the actors (clearly having a ball) and the design of the show should have sent it on a successful voyage. Luckily, the crew will be back in a feature-length film, Serenity, this fall. As the producer says in one of the featurettes, perhaps someone will see the film and offer to host a TV series based on it.

year: 2002-2003
length: 15 60-min. episodes
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0303461/combined

Finding Neverland

How can Johnny Depp have gone from 21 Jump Street to Victorian England? I remember one of the few episodes of that weird series in which he ably acted out The Little Tramp, and it made me wonder if he was going to go places. Obviously not just another pretty face, he seems to be able to do comedy and drama with the same ease. This dramatic role gives him the opportunity for understatement, and I have zero complaints about it, even if I felt he was eclipsed in some ways by Radha Mitchell as his wife and Kate Winslet as the Davies boys' mother. It's more precise to say that the ensemble underpins the screenplay, and it's as elegant a screenplay as the one for Closer. More so, as the themes are tightly woven and unfurl only as you're drawn deeper into the film. Reality vs. pretend, a child's view of the world vs. a more severe (and weary) adult outlook, the simplicity of childhood itself and how we lose sight of it as we age. All wrapped up in the tale of how J. M. Barrie created one of our most beloved plays, Peter Pan. You know you're in for a good experience within the first few minutes, during the conversation between the usher (yes, that's Gareth from The Office) and Depp. It's always a treat to see understated humor that makes you laugh out loud. (The penny-stamp trick is another howler.) I can't give this film a higher rating. Plenty of critics out there are getting all hoity-toity about the schmaltz. I don't much care that it fairly drips with emotion all the way through. It made me feel like a kid again while engaging me as an adult and that's the best kind of entertainment there is.

year: 2004
length: 106 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0308644/combined

Foreign Correspondent

Eh. I don't get the applause surrounding this film. I keep reading that it stands the test of time. Did we see the same thing? This was one of Hitchcock's first films for U.S. studios, and it seems to reflect a transition in his directing style. It's got all the Hitchcockian elements -- a curvy, suspense-filled plot with a MacGuffin in the middle -- but they're not as perfectly structured as usual. Case in point, in the sea of umbrellas scene why does it take several more camera shots before the killer or the hero start moving, even though the entire crowd is already in a panic? This felt slow and more unnatural than your typical Hitchcock scene. The jokes all fall flat, as if he were trying to find a middle ground between American and British humor. The MacGuffin is implausible (a treaty clause never written down, only memorized by the participants?!), and the acting is, frankly, boring. There are some wonderful scenes (the interior of the windmill, the plane crash, the final shot), but the film is pulled in too many directions for it to be coherent. Still, if you like tales about journalists, especially wartime journalists, or if you really enjoy Joel McCrea as a leading actor (umm, oh-kay), you might find enough likable elements to keep you entertained.

year: 1940
length: 120 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032484/combined

The Forsyte Saga

Good thing I work in a library. The internet was a complete waste of time in figuring out what constitutes "The Forsyte Saga" by John Galsworthy. Without this information, how would I know whether they've filmed the entire Saga or not? The answer is complex -- the original Forsyte Saga is done, i.e., the latest two mini-series to come from Granada Television. (I know little about the original 1960s BBC mini-series.) However, Galsworthy continued to write about his fictional Forsytes in two more sets of books. I don't know if there are plans to film these, and I waver between wanting much more of this excellent series, and wanting them to leave well enough alone. The Forsytes are a moneyed British clan coming apart at the seams due to a horrible scandal early in family history. Many hearts are broken before the end of the series; most of the time, I felt I was watching an extremely well-done soap opera. A soap opera with a society critique at the heart of it, a la Jane Austen. But wait, there's more! The final episode of the second series is eye-opening in terms of the growth of the characters. And while you might have seen it coming, it's superbly staged and scripted. I was quite impressed. If you're still in the Jane Austen mindset, rent these discs. Keep an eye out for sharp performances by Rupert Graves, Ioan Gruffudd, Amanda Root, Emma Malin, and above all Damian Lewis as Soames, played as a despicable character with uncomfortably recognizable emotions.

year: 2002 and 2004
length: 2 mini-series, 9 episodes total
rating: 3.5
IMDB links:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0260615/combined (I)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0377125/combined (II)

Fahrenheit 9/11

It's so difficult to write this review. I seem to have a fragmented memory of watching this film. I remember laughing very hard in places, clapping in some, feeling mostly appalled by our government throughout, and at times wondering how Michael Moore gets away with scenes that so clearly manipulate your emotions. (Especially the scenes of pre-war Baghdad in March of last year. OK, we get it.) A reviewer friend of mine figures he'll write two pieces on the film, one a review specific to the craft and the other a rant on what you learn as you watch it. That's not what I'm going to do. Instead, most of what I was thinking during the film was who would be watching it and what they would come away from the film believing. The hoo-hah that preceded the theatrical release (Disney wouldn't release it; it won the Cannes Palme d'Or; Lions Gate decides to release it) nearly guaranteed the huge turnout for the film. One of the best things that can happen to a film's profit margin is controversy (look at The Passion of the Christ). Having looked at some of the votes on IMDB for the film in the first few days, it was clear to me that the publicity was bringing non-liberals to see it. The votes were nearly evenly split between "loved it" and "hated it." (Why there are more "loved it" votes now could be an interesting thesis dissertation.) I think that's all around a good thing; more of the American public that sees the film, the better. Even though I felt annoyed by Moore's attempts to manipulate my feelings at times, and worried that as usual in his films we're seeing his very biased viewpoint, there is no doubt that most of what he shows us is worth getting upset about. I won't talk about the content here -- I think everyone should see it for themselves and judge for themselves. But go and see it. It's a valuable piece of work.

year: 2004
length: 122 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/combined

Field of Dreams

I suspected that when I watched this film on television with my relatives a month ago, all the really good parts had been excised to make it fit the time slot. James Earl Jones' speech about baseball at the end is missing, as well as several of the in-the-Volkswagen-bus discussions (leaving you wondering what the real problem was with Kevin Costner's character and his estranged, now deceased, dad). They left in all of Amy Madigan's scenes, as Costner's hip and spunky wife, which is the only part of the movie I take umbrage at. You'd think I'd be thrilled by a fully-fleshed out female role, but she unfortunately distracts from the best acting Costner's ever achieved. In the (way too long) documentary accompanying the film on DVD, he explains (with the egotism he's so famous for) that people assume he's a natural at what he does, while in fact he works very hard at making everything look natural. Well, whatever he did here, it worked. He's acting the "normal" guy, one who would never hear voices and believe them, and it helps us as viewers believe the story -- a man is told to build a baseball field in the middle of his corn, which leads him everywhere in search of the reasons for having done it. But the film isn't really about baseball or farming, it's about following your dreams (no matter how out there they may be). It's kinda sappy, and the last shot will bring a lump to the throat of the most curmudgeonly, but it works hard for that sappiness and it pulls it off.

year: 1989
length: 107 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097351/combined

Freaky Friday

Like, y'know, like, this is so word, dude. (OK, that's my lame attempt at invoking the flavor of this film.) Since it's a remake of the 1976 film starring Jodie Foster, it involves a mother and daughter switching bodies, but that's about all it has in common with the original. This one is updated for this day and age, and not just because it has Lindsay Lohan in it (new teen sensation!) but because instead of the mom being a homemaker, this mom is a psychiatrist. Instead of braces ruining your life, you wear the wrong style of shirt to school. Instead of the dad, you have the boyfriend (and a cute one at that -- Mark Harmon). So, it's hip with the times, but better than that Lohan and Jamie Lee Curtis rule. Curtis has a blast acting like a teenager, and is brave enough to look old on film. Lohan is a marvel. I'd never seen her in anything before, but, yes, she is very talented. I completely believed her channeling her mom's personality. And that made for a way fun time, so, like, kick back, enjoy, okay?

year: 2003
length: 93 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322330/combined

Falling Down

Having seen Phone Booth and having liked it very much, I wanted to check out this earlier film of Joel Schumacher's, which I gathered had a similar theme. And it does -- a mis-understood man with a secret, in this case pissed off at the world -- but I found it lacking quite a bit of what I liked in Phone Booth. It could be that I like Colin Farrell over Michael Douglas (although he does a nice enough job). It could be that I preferred a film set in New York instead of L.A. (which is just too rambling to connect with). But, I think the crux of it is that I simply empathized with Farrell's character while I didn't at all empathize with Douglas'. Granted, Douglas has to play a character whom we're supposed to see pieces of ourselves in (just as Farrell's character) while at the same time gradually making it clear that he's gone round the bend. That's a lot for one character to handle. And yet, while I recognized the feelings Douglas' character had, I never felt that I would ever act on them as he did. Smashing up a grocery store just because you're peeved at the prices? Threatening a fast food clerk because they won't serve you breakfast 2 minutes after 11:30? Just plain hitting someone because you're mad at them? That's why he's insane and we're not.

year: 1993
length: 113 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106856/combined

Finding Nemo

I find all Pixar animated films delightful. They're utterly Disney-fied (but their contract with Disney expires soon, so that may not be the case in the near future), but I adore them because they're clever. As with the best Bugs Bunny cartoons, the kids love 'em, and so do adults because Pixar films are peppered with jokes intended to tickle only their funny bone. (For instance, watch for when the dentist's niece appears for the first time.) Besides, who cannot marvel at all that fancy animation footwork (handwork)? Apparently, a first pass at creating a coral reef was a failure because it looked too perfect. Which is why you'll see floating specks and other carefully arranged details to de- prettify the seascape. I almost always giggle and smile my way through a Pixar film, but I nearly found it hard to breathe during the sequence in which Dory is trying to communicate with a whale. I'm giggling just thinking about it! I guarantee you'll enjoy your time. But...you may not want to go to a matinee unless you're bringing your own kids or don't mind having your chair back kicked repeatedly by a 4-year old. A different sort of movie experience, actually, once you get into the mood.

year: 2003
length: 101 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266543/combined

Fail-Safe

Oh, wait, an even better film to watch during the war. This one scared the pants off me -- it wasn't as subtle as The Day the Earth Stood Still. Besides being beautifully written, it's also very well acted by Walter Matthau, Henry Fonda and Larry Hagman (that "Dallas" guy). Bombers fly from their fail-safe points (in reach of the enemy but still within their own airspace) into Russia to drop bombs on Moscow because of a computer glitch, while the military back in the U.S. is trying to stop them. A terrifying ending that will leave you cogitating for days. There is one point about the ending that bugs me, but you'll have to email me to find out, because I don't want to give it away here. Suffice it to say, this is a film everyone should see.

year: 1964
length: 112 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058083/combined