A Love Song for Bobby Long

Show offs. This film was made specifically for showcasing talent. Not that it isn't a sweet tale -- girl, having lost her mother, comes home and finds it is a home after all. Filmed in New Orleans, it has a nostalgic feel completely unintended by the filmmakers. Doesn't do quite enough to exude the stickiness of a summer on the bayou (what, is Scarlett Johansson too cool to sweat?) though. Although it does plenty to make obvious the sticky situation of three people -- Johansson, Gabriel Macht, and John Travolta -- not quite sure they all want to be together in the same house. Each character gets his or her showy (see above) speech, and they all do a splendid job at that. Problem is, the film leaves us at the 10 minute-to-go mark with a hastily tacked-on ending. All is suddenly bright and sunshiny which is bad enough, but worst of all we have a dangling plot line. Now, I'm one who loves unresolved endings, but the attraction between two of the principal characters is touched on here and there and finally ignored. If it's clearly a big enough deal to include in the first place, why not give us a hint as to its resolution? Too touchy a subject? Worse, you could interpret the last scene multiple different ways in this regard. I guess I'll have to read the book to know what happened.

year: 2004
length: 119 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369672/combined

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events

Liam Aiken is a kid to be watched. His mannerisms seem wise for someone twice his age. I'd guess that's the mark of someone who finds acting as natural as tying his shoes and brushing his teeth. It's interesting to note that he was on the short list for the Harry Potter role, but was turned down because he wasn't British. I don't know -- if Renée Zellweger can play a Brit seamlessly, so (conceivably) could Aiken. In some ways, I can see him as better than Daniel Radcliffe (gasp! sacrilege!). But he's by no means the only good thing in the film -- the tale of three orphans being shuttled among "relatives" after their parents die in a fire. Jim Carrey plays Count Olaf, the worst of the relatives, and he is predictably hysterical (his prehistoric scene was a belly-laugh). He also gets to enact multiple characters -- a pie-in-the-sky kind of acting job for him, I'm sure. The sets are gorgeously rendered, perfectly odd and filled with so much minutiae that you'd have to see it multiple times to catch everything. The animation used at the beginning and during the credits is Tim-Burton-esque (think Nightmare Before Christmas), and the music is Danny-Elfman-esque. But it doesn't necessarily play as darkly as a Burton film. Sure, Count Olaf' s house is über-creepy, dank and nasty, and bad things keep happening to the orphans, but at least this film has a (semi-)happy ending. Speaking of the ending, I'm getting tired of films that assume they will be franchises and so have these ultra-wimpy endings (e.g ., Spiderman I, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) that allow them to pick up right where they left off. This will only get worse as studios sink the majority of their budgets into those flicks that can be franchised. Urg. Fight this insidious takeover! Go see small films like Northfork or Shaun of the Dead or Super Size Me. Now THAT is one we really don't need franchised.

year: 2004
length: 108 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0339291/combined

Lovely & Amazing

I have this theory that women and men view film differently. This is my theory: men need to have a complete story arc, a story that begins and ends, while women can handle a plot that is simply a series of vignettes. At least I used to have that theory back in my younger, more naive days. It does go some way towards explaining the style of this film, however. Written and directed by Nicole Holofcener, it is a film by and for women. The focus is on three daughters and how they are similar to their mother, even though one is adopted. You learn about their lives and their insecurities. Actually, the entire film seems to be about insecurity. That, and anger. Which are two big parts of women's lives, and for that the film is commendable. It just isn't that interesting, and at times frankly it's implausible. (Really, being arrested for statutory rape due to a call from the boy's mother? Yeah, that's going to happen.) Even the ending is faintly ridiculous -- the insecure daughter who frets about her beauty gets her face damaged, but then won't show it to her new lover. If she'd grown at all in the film, it would be to make it possible for her to finally do this and not worry about it. The irony of the casting in this film is that the most compelling actor on screen is a man. Jake Gyllenhaal is Mr. Charismatic. Is it just because I'm a girl? I doubt it -- charisma speaks to anyone, since it has nothing to do with the words being spoken, but instead with all the non-verbal cues. Wanna see him in something that uses every ounce of that special talent? Watch Donnie Darko.

year: 2001
length: 89 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258273/combined

Last Orders

This film is not just affecting for old(er) people, as much as you may have heard the contrary. The tale of a group of friends who perform the last orders of one of their group who has just died, involving a trek across England, it is populated by every late-middle-aged actor in England who wasn't in Gosford Park (for which they should be thanking their lucky stars). Excepting Helen Mirren, who was in both. My only real complaint with the film is that even with headphones on, it was difficult to understand the Cockney accent, particularly Bob Hoskins'. (Is that really the same guy from Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Amazing.) I like what one amateur reviewer said on Netflix: "I had trouble understanding some of the Cockney...but the mumbling made it even worse. For you who would say 'get over it,' I'd say 'bugger off'." It does make it more difficult to understand what's happening, at least in the beginning, but as time progressed I found I wasn't noticing it as much. Perhaps because the film started to pick up speed, or if not speed, at least it resorted to more flashbacks to fill in the parts you didn't understand in the characters' lives. I guess I just didn't love the ending. It felt too sewn up and too easily reconciled. But other than this semi-Hollywood ending, I think it will appeal to many for its sweetness and slowness.

year: 2001
length: 109 min.
rating: 3.0
review written: March 25, 2004
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253200/combined

The Last Samurai

Sometimes films come along that fall between my ratings categories. In this case, my inkling is to give the film a 3.25. It's certainly slickly produced and very well acted, with scenes that alternate between deeply moving and thrilling. This is usually good enough to merit a 3.5 in my book, however, it falls short of a true 3.5 by not giving us enough to hang the scenes on. There's an interesting story line -- Tom Cruise plays a deadbeat American Army officer hired by the Japanese to train their troops to fight the samurai, but is captured by the samurai and learns their way of life -- and while it's affecting on several levels (the destruction of the samurai, how a foreigner views a radically different culture) it seems to have been made to showcase some brilliant battle scenes. The best way to describe this is that the film has no soul, and for a film about the samurai way of life, with its philosophy of honor, that's a grave error. I was impressed, as many were, by Ken Watanabe who brilliantly understates his role as the samurai leader, and it's possible that this rubbed off on Cruise, not known for understating anything. Here he did a good job of not making his character a passionate convert, which would never have fit with the cynical, bitter man who first came to Japan. So, I give the film the higher mark if only to recommend it to those interested in the subject matter who might otherwise discount it.

year: 2003
length: 154 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0325710/combined

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

I feel so much better now. I think I've been holding my breath for 3 years . I had huge expectations walking into this film and now I can let all that stress go because it was wonderful. The film is paced the same way as the first two, fairly slowly, but with bursts of exciting images that make you want to shout from the rooftops. In particular, I loved the lighting of the signals from mountaintop to mountaintop. The images themselves make a lump grow in your throat, but better than that was the reaction from Aragorn (played much more aptly than in the first two films, although he's still not adept at exposition, by Viggo Mortensen). There are plenty of opportunities to have your funny bone tickled, even so far into the film as the orcs who capture Frodo. There are also opportunities for surprise. The city where the King of the Nazguls resides shocked the heck out of me, and I think others in the audience. Orlando Bloom as Legolas once again gets the best stunt (although I didn't like this one as much as the one in the second film). Each major character learns and grows throughout the film, and the most eye-opening of these was Samwise Gamgee. Jackson should be counting his lucky stars that he cast Sean Astin in that role. And the ending is quite moving. I am not ashamed to say that tears were coursing down my cheeks. You'd think I wouldn't have been so moved knowing what the ending would be but it was so nice to see it enacted well. And, dare I say, correctly. A marathon of all three films back to back was shown in NYC (when they do this in Ann Arbor I'll be one of the first there). One fan, when asked why she was there, put down her book (do you have to ask which book?) and answered that she was there in tribute to Peter Jackson, "a fan who understood." In the final analysis, the films show that he cared about what he was making. And that's what really counts.

year: 2003
length: 201 min. theatrical release / 251 min. extended release
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167260/combined

Love Actually

It's great to have friends with such widely varying opinions of films. One friend of mine told me this film was "excruciating" while another said it was "delightful." You can imagine how interested I was in seeing it. And, oddly enough, it has elements of both, although there aren't actually any excruciating scenes, just ones that ring false. For instance, the supposition that Wisconsin is peopled by gorgeous babes who dig English guys and just want to have sex with them all the time is slightly appalling to this midwesterner. Ditto that a small boy could evade airport security and make his way all the way to the gate without a boarding pass. Come to think of it, that's not just appalling, that's downright scary. But I don't want to give the wrong impression. It's a lovely film about love -- any and all kinds of love (marital, falling-in-, forbidden, sibling, you name it). Each pair has their own story, and yet they interweave throughout the film (albeit a bit complicatedly). My faves were Laura Linney (heartbreaking tale, and who is this incredible Rodrigo Santoro?!), Keira Knightley (and the ever so rightly cast Andrew Lincoln) and Colin Firth (up until the preposterous restaurant proposal and the fact that he's embarrassingly bad at on-screen kissing). And I can't close without mentioning the scene in which Hugh Grant dances his way through 10 Downing Street, well worth the price of admission alone.

year: 2003
length: 135 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314331/combined

Life as a House

Best thing about this film? It has no prolonged, excruciating death scene. Which is very welcome, but in this case faint praise. Kevin Kline plays a man who learns he will be dying from cancer shortly, and decides to build the house he's always dreamed of building. He enlists his drug-addled son to help, and others become part of the project as it progresses, namely his ex-wife, her two sons from another marriage, a cop he went to school with, the girl next door and her mother whom he dated briefly after he divorced his ex-wife...and the list goes on and on. There are way too many characters! In particular, I don't get any of the characterizations of the females in this film. Jena Malone is playing a teenage tramp who actually isn't. Mary Steenburgen is a frustrated housewife which we're unaware of until she's in bed with her daughter's boyfriend. And I have no idea if Kristin Scott Thomas is even thinking about her role or just spacing out. The only reason to see the film is Hayden Christensen, who as one other amateur reviewer put it proves that "Star Wars was not his fault." The rest of the film is empty calories -- watch the dying guy destroy his life's work (gee, could you see that coming?), watch the ex-wife fall in love with her ex-husband again, watch the drug-addled son shower with the girl next door because she needs to wash her hair! At least the house is nice.

year: 2001
length: 125 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0264796/combined

Lost in Translation

Papa Coppola must be very proud. His daughter is all grown up and making movies that are as superb as his, albeit in a very different genre. Plot first: Bill Murray stars as a star in Tokyo doing a liquor commercial who meets a young, bored woman whose husband is there on business, played by Scarlett Johansson. It's definitely a vehicle for Murray, who does his comic schtick throughout the film, but it's much more than that. Every frame of the movie is about the title. Americans stranded in Tokyo, not understanding the language. A man mis-communicating with his wife. A woman mis-communicating with her husband. Jet lag. Pachinko parlors. Steroid-enhanced TV shows. And, ultimately, what the two characters feel for each other but don't know how to express. And yet layered on top of that is the sense of connection we get when we meet a kindred spirit. And how incredibly beautiful Tokyo is while still being completely alien. And the joie de vivre evident at a loud party, whether it's in Japan, America or the West Indies. I don't know if I got the full effect of the film, because at least in the beginning I was laughing so hard that I probably missed a lot of Coppola's subtlety. This one is definitely a keeper, one that needs to be watched again.

year: 2003
length: 105 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335266/combined

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Yay, the DVD arrived! What do you think the first thing I did was? Right, I looked at that amazing stunt I was talking about earlier. (The one in which Legolas leaps from the ground to the back of a galloping horse, starting from directly in front of the horse.) And I still can't tell what they did! If you slow it down it looks disturbingly real, but if you keep it at normal speed it looks like there's CGI involved. I can't imagine CGI is not involved there, but it seems that I'll have to wait for the extended DVD release to find out. On second viewing, this film is decidely better than on first viewing. A lot of folks thought it was quite slow and boring, and it is slower paced than the first one. That's because Tolkein/Jackson has to detail several different story lines. They seem meandering and without much point, but each one comes to a real end before this film finishes. They're giving very little away in the previews for Return of the King, which I think is in their best interest. With such a hotly anticipated film, it's better to provide as little detail as possible so that the audience can be surprised by what it sees. Which is what the Wachowski brothers should have done for The Matrix Reloaded. Too much knowledge about techniques or story ruins the viewing experience.

year: 2002
length: 179 min. theatrical release / 222 min. extended release
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/combine

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

It's about time I reviewed this. As a DVD and film freak (not necessarily in that order), I own both the original August release and the extended 4-disc November release. I've been watching, on and off, the featurettes on the extended version (of which there are dozens) and finally finished watching the film while listening to the cast commentary (which is only one of the 4 commentaries available). I won't give a synopsis of the plot. I mean, who doesn't know what Tolkein's The Lord of the Rings is about, at least in brief? So, I'll just move onwards to raving about how this is another one of those "complete package" films. It is well-written, not exactly ripped straight from Tolkein's pages (and if you want to argue that it isn't Tolkein's book on film, I have a few choice words for that), uses special effects both subtly and extraordinarily, keeps us entertained, sports actors who both know what they are doing and have the gravitas that brings an air of intelligence and wisdom to the film, and is impressive in the quality of its detail, particularly as it's necessary to maintain this detail across three films. We've all heard how Peter Jackson has helped the economy of New Zealand by building his studios there, including his digital arts studio, and including such lovely vistas in his film that everyone wants to take a trip there. But after watching the featurettes, it starts to dawn on you what a massive undertaking this was, from making two copies of each set, both big and small (props were also made in two sizes, so there were two sizes of chairs, candlesticks, books, beer mugs, ...), to the several month-long creation of the scary model of Bilbo that we see for only a few seconds on screen, to the sounds effects guys taking an afternoon to hammer bottle caps into their shoes and walk around on a parking lot, creating that unique sound for the Orcs skittering out of the ceiling in the depths of Moria. I think I've seen the film 4 or 5 times now (and usually I pick the extended version to watch, as it is definitely better) and I become more impressed with both Ian McKellen and Orlando Bloom. There is no better actor for Gandalf than McKellen, but it's hard to go wrong with someone so tried and true. Bloom, on the other hand, was just out of acting school and he does wonders portraying elf-dom mostly through his posture and facial expressions. I'm looking forward to what he does with the character in the third film, but currently I'm looking forward to the DVD for the second film so I can see how they filmed his jaw-dropping horse-mounting scene so that it looked like he was actually doing it.

year: 2001
length: 178 min. theatrical release / 208 min. extended release
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120737/combined

Lonesome Dove

I suspect this is a highly regarded TV series, based on Larry McMurtry's novel of an 1800s cattle drive from Texas to Montana. It makes you feel as if you're watching a real cattle drive, but I didn't find the story that special. It's a classic epic in which there is a long journey, many deaths, many characters coming together and then apart, but in the end I didn't feel that anyone learned anything, so what was the point? If I had to pick a favorite actor out of this star-studded cast it would be Ricky Schroder as the young illegitimate kid. But the rest acted like they were in a Hallmark movie, especially Angelica Huston. And Robert Duvall! I don't get the fascination with his method of acting. Could he stop that silly giggling/smirking at least for some of his films?

year: 1989
length: 384 min. (6-part mini-series)
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096639/combined

Lagaan

All you Bollywood enthusiasts, step right up! Oh, there probably aren't many of you because so few Bollywood films get shown in this country. Bollywood is one of India's film industries, producing musicals or more precisely highly- melodramatic films with musical numbers in them. Your first taste of Bollywood may leave you scratching your head (i.e., why are these so popular?), so I recommend you start with this film. While the film is not perfect, it is the closest thing to a perfect musical epic (perhaps that's unique; I can't think of another example). The film is set during Victorian times when the British still controlled India. The British imposed a tax upon Indian citizens known as lagaan, i.e., a portion of what was produced off the land went to the British "protectors." The film tells the tale of one village's farmers who protest a double lagaan decree, and in so doing are manipulated into playing a game of cricket with the soldiers of their protectorate to determine whether they pay the lagaan or not (depending on whether they win or not). I suppose this may seem like a frivolous way to portray how India stood up to British rule, in a (very!) different way from films like Gandhi. However, the film contains those same elements of perseverance, courage and hope plus a suspenseful, rousing game of cricket to boot. (Yes, that does seem oxymoronic. You'll just have to trust me on this.) There isn't any way NOT to learn the basics of cricket, since much of the second half of this nearly 4 hour film is the game itself. You may also get to the first musical number in the film and want to throw up your hands or at least sneer at the choreography. Beware. Those tunes are extremely catchy. You may find yourself wandering around the house for the next week humming the tunes and wishing you knew enough Hindi to sing along.

year: 2001
length: 224 min.
rating: 4.0
review written: May 7, 2003
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0169102/combined

Lady Eve

Even though Barbara Stanwyck wasn't a great beauty, she sure was a great actress. Henry Fonda does a great job as the naive rich man up against Stanwyck as a con-woman. The plot is twisty and silly, exactly as I expect Preston Sturges meant to write it. But the ending is nonsensical! Fonda falls in love with Stanwyck on a ship, they get peeved at each other, she shows up later to seduce him (to get even with him), in the guise of her twin, he falls in love again, she gives him the shaft, and then she meets up with him "by chance" again, this time as the original woman he fell in love with. As he claps eyes on her, it's true love again. Why would he be so thrilled to see the first woman again? She who pissed him off in the first place! It's very possible I just wasn't watching this film in the right light. It's supposed to be a silly comedy, and that it sure is. Perhaps that brand of silliness doesn't hold up well nowadays...or at least not for me.

year: 1941
length: 97 min.
rating: 3.0
review written: March 2, 2003
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033804/combined