Mr. & Mrs. Smith

Some star recently said what a miracle it is that any film is successful -- at any point in its lifecycle something can go so wrong as to make it fail. I feel for Doug Liman in this particular instance because he created something smart and classy, and the lives of his stars almost derailed it. I imagine he was tearing little chunks of his hair out. Hey, Mr. Liman (and others just like him), a film rests on its own merit. Gossip is fleeting, buzz is fleeting, word-of-mouth sticks. That's my lesson for the day -- I'm sure everyone in Hollywood is hanging onto my every word. If you like even a bit of Brad Pitt's or Angelina Jolie's acting or looks, you'll like the film. If you're particularly keen on films about marriage, it's a must-see. Pitt and Jolie play competing contract killers who also happen to be married to each other. They become aware of each other's professions by contracting the same job. Now, there's nothing nice about killing, but this is smart screenwriting. What could be more incongruous than to juxtapose the day-to-day life of a marriage with an immensely dangerous career? Talk about every banal aspect of marriage thrown into sharp relief. Okay, so it's a stylish, lives-of-the-rich-and-famous look at marriage, but it points out the difficulties in all marriages, e.g., mis-communication, irritation, boredom. With a few extremely weighty secrets thrown into the mix. If nothing else, it'll make you happy your marriage doesn't have this particular problem, and that's the secret of successful filmmaking -- creating entertainment that resonates. Lesson over.

year: 2005
length: 120 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356910/combined

The Man in the Moon

People seem to have a special fondness for this film. As if everyone's grown up on a farm and had a crush on the boy next door but lost that boy to their older sister. Uh-huh, sure, that happened to me and everyone else I know. What I mean is, I'm not sure I see the universality of the thoughts and emotions, particularly in terms of the film's ending. Even without the ending's upheaval in our young protagonist's life, there's a lot in this film that doesn't ring true. When her mother trips and nearly loses her baby, besides its obvious contrivance so that the plot can continue on, it's filmed so over-the-top as to be utterly unbelievable. Without Reese Witherspoon's pluck and verve, I would have rolled my eyes and turned it off. Oh, except that Jason London is pretty hot stuff, so maybe that would have kept me watching. Which is another thing to complain about -- the poor kid is evidently supposed to be beefcake and nothing more. It reminds me of Viggo Mortensen's role in A Walk on the Moon, and I suspect that as a feminist I'm supposed to rejoice that these films are about the women and so the men are relegated to supporting hunk roles. But when they ring false, they're ridiculous. Still, watch it for Witherspoon who showcases the talent that made her what she is today. And then finish off with Freeway or Election so you can wash the stale taste of this film out of your mouth.

year: 1991
length: 99 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102388/combined

Madagascar

First, I saw the last one-third of this film on the ferry from Muskegon to Milwaukee. And I thought, without having seen the first bits, that this was one of the dopiest kids films ever. Here's a zoo-based lion, deprived of food for a week in the wild, ready to eat his pals. What kind of moral message are we sending children when it involves actually eating other beings? I know, I know, it's all a metaphor for learning the value of friendship, but I found it a rather distasteful one. Then, I watched the whole film from start to finish at a drive-in in lower Ontario (at which the drive-in, and only the drive-in, got soaked in a monstrous thunderstorm) and actually laughed at the first two- thirds. Because the first parts in the zoo are quite funny, especially the bits with the mafia-like penguins and the erudite chimps. And once they're shipwrecked on the island of Madagascar (don't ask) the lemurs' funky dancing and silly king (voiced uniquely and hysterically by Sacha Baron Cohen) are even funnier. Then the movie devolves into the part I saw on the ferry and I was as disturbed by it as earlier. But if the ending gets people to eat more fish (I'll say no more) and to hire Cohen for more (more! more!) parts, and not only voice parts, then the movie has done its job.

year: 2005
length: 86 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0351283/combined

The Machinist

How, in God's name, do you lose that much weight? I mean, Christian Bale looks, quite literally, like an Auschwitz prisoner. I can't imagine the film working without his having lost one-third of his flesh, but if there ever was a film that teenage girls should go see to dissuade them from starving themselves for beauty, fashion, what have you, this is the one. According to one report I read, Bale lost 63 pounds by eating one can of tuna and one apple per day. I could harp on about this at length, and you'll understand why when you watch it. Strangely, while the film creeps you out (and not just from having to look at Bale with his shirt off in that state) and has some peek-through-your-fingers moments, it simultaneously tries to put you into a dreamy, sleepy state of mind. It's quite the unique mix. Bale plays Trevor Reznik, a factory worker who hasn't slept in a year, and seems to be hallucinating the existence of a co-worker. Jennifer Jason Leigh plays the heart-of-gold hooker (but she was cast for how well she gets angry, that's clear). The beauty of this film is that you're certain it will move in only one direction, based on some rather gruesome images sprinkled throughout, but it does a 180 at the end and you are treated to one of the most satisfying endings of the last few years. This comes from the mind of a director working in the same vein as Christopher Nolan and Alejandro González Iñárritu, and yet crafting something truly original. And here I thought all the good plots had been done.

year: 2004
length: 102 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361862/combined

Miracle

Usually a Disney film implies sappy, melodramatic, overacted. Consequently , I was pleasantly surprised by this depiction of the U.S. win over the Russian hockey team during the 1980 Lake Placid Olympics. Those who are a certain age will remember the exultancy of that moment. Wrapped up as it was in the politics of the time, beating the Russians in any venue was considered a major victory. The start of the film focuses on the political zeitgeist of the country, and it was interesting to view my childhood through that lens. However, they take pains to include Herb Brooks' point of view on this aspect of his team's win, and that's as it should be. Brooks, as portrayed spectacularly by the under-rated Kurt Russell, was a fascinating character. He's portrayed as driven, so much that you want to hate him for it, but also sentimental. Winnowing the Olympic team was clearly heart-breaking for him. I guess what I liked most about the film (besides Russell's spot-on Minnesota accent) was its build-up. They tell the tale from the hiring of Brooks to the penultimate win over Russia almost unemotionally, with little melodrama. Dramatic tension, now that they have in spades. But it works. The hockey scenes are filmed right out there on the ice (watch the documentary attached) and they're exhilarating. If there's one thing you should walk away from the film with, it's that Jim Craig should have gotten a medal just for himself. Craig slapped away 39 attempts on his goal. If that doesn't seem like a lot, watch the film. They make it seem like a lot.

year: 2004
length: 135 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349825/combined

Mary Poppins

Glenn Kenny (of Premiere Magazine) wasn't kidding when he said that this DVD was one of the best anniversary editions he'd ever seen. I've loved my VHS tape to death, and when I read his review I knew I had to buy the disc. The movie itself is still marvelous after all these years -- great for kids and youth, with enough sparkle, wit and artistic style to keep any adult captivated. And the extras! A delightful deleted song, a musical reunion with Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke and Richard Sherman (the co-composer of the music), world premiere parties (heavens, did things look so very different 40 years ago?), and tons more. There is a lot of Walt Disney lauding, but what do you expect? And a bit of repetition, but it's all engaging. Best of all is watching the young Dame Andrews ham it up. Having built her acting career on being prim and proper it's a shock to the system to see how silly she could be. And this is the second time I'd heard that she would ruin many a take by flying off in a fit of giggles. She's also a wonderful commentator, remembering so much and relating it in such a sensible, no-nonsense Mary Poppins style.

year: 1964
length: 140 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058331/combined

Monster

I understand now why Charlize Theron got the Oscar for this. I thought going in that she would dirty herself up a bit and act a bit more raunchily, but rarely have I seen a transformation like this. Based on some of the original footage of Aileen Wuornos in the featurette, she became this woman in looks and in character. Dubbed the first woman serial killer, she was a big, strong, foul-mouthed, psychologically devastated prostitute. Theron becomes that, and you never get a peek of the glamorous movie star. (She does seem to have a bit of trouble with the fake teeth, but it fits in well with Wuornos' fidgety nature.) The director, Patty Jenkins, adamantly portrays Wuornos as a complete woman, one who loved deeply (her partner played by Christina Ricci), heartbreakingly tried to break away from prostitution, and wholeheartedly believed she was ridding the human race of evil men. Whether all of this is the absolute truth isn't possible to know, although they relied heavily on frequent correspondence between Wuornos and a childhood friend. The truth probably isn't as important as the solidity of Jenkins' case and the power of Theron's transfiguration. Theron says at the end of the featurette that on most films there are a couple-three scenes that you brace yourself for, but that in this film it was every single one. That's the truth.

year: 2003
length: 109 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0340855/combined

Million Dollar Baby

Cate Blanchett and Meryl Streep may be the chameleons of acting, but Hilary Swank is made out of modeling clay. You saw this in Boys Don't Cry (her first and, fingers crossed, not only Oscar) and you'll see the effect again in this film. Working out 4 hours a day, including 1 1/2 hours of boxing, 6 days a week for 4 months helps quite a bit, but you could do that and just be another Ahnuld. Swank morphs before our eyes from a driven, unskilled woman with a dream to a world-class boxer. Because it is a Clint Eastwood film, it is spare and quiet (except when they're pounding the crap out of each other) and forcefully understated. Without giving too much away, a typical Eastwood moral is in store. It is achieved without the usual drama queen atmosphere, making it that much more powerful. Eastwood is creating a better film every time he tries (as opposed to Shyamalan, for instance), although each remains a bit cold. I don't know if that's due to its plainspoken-ness and precision but you, as the audience, are always slightly disengaged from what's happening on screen. It carries an emotional impact, but not as visceral a one as, say, Schindler's List. A minor complaint, however. If Swank doesn't win the Oscar, any respect I may have had for the Academy will vanish.

year: 2004
length: 137 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405159/combined

The Magdalene Sisters

These Magdalene Asylums in Ireland were set up to house and care for women (the Magdalene Sisters) who had borne children out of wedlock, or even women who seemed to be good bets for tempting men. Horrible things, these asylums, and not necessarily only because of the hard slave labor conditions, or the cruel attitudes of the nuns who ran these asylums. The horror of these places was that these women were separated from their babies and sent away by their families, in some cases for the rest of their lives. It is as if these women ceased to exist. That's certainly what the Church wanted, to weed out these women from general society. Problem is, they'd done nothing wrong. They hadn't killed, stolen or maimed anyone. They'd had a child out of wedlock, which is immoral and a mortal sin in the Catholic faith, but doesn't warrant someone being "disappeared" from society. Unfortunately, while the film shows us the cruelty of these places and the desperate measures some girls went to to try and escape, it doesn't tell us what happened to these asylums and why they were finally closed (the last one in 1996). Even the documentary that the film was based on, which is part of the DVD, doesn't address this. So, the film felt incomplete to me -- if this cruelty is the basis for the film, at least do us the favor of telling us why it stopped happening! Did the women who escaped or were released let the world know? Was there public outcry? Did those who ran these institutions finally discover the errors of their ways? Without this, it's just melodrama, and that's a pity.

year: 2002
length: 119 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318411/combined

My Life Without Me

Here's a simple film, not trying to be more than it is, but being less of a film for not being more complex. Sarah Polley plays a young woman who learns that she will die of cancer in the next few months. The film tells the story of what she does to try and ensure that everything in her life will go on as smoothly as it can without her around. This isn't anything new to tales of people with fatal illnesses, but you are put off by her rational, unemotional approach. In the beginning this gives the film a fantastical edge, until we understand that this is the kind of person she is. Lack of emotion about one's impending deat his disturbing, however. I'm tired of films that portray the stoic cancer patient (One True Thing, Forrest Gump, Stepmom). I'd be upset, wouldn't you? Polley is magnificent in her chosen role, though, as usual. Supporting characters are just as wonderful -- Amanda Plummer as Polley's friend, Scott Speedman as her husband, Debbie Harry as her mother and the ever-present Mark Ruffalo as the man she cheats on her husband with. It's never clear why she doesn't consider how a passionate affair that he is unaware will be short-lived might emotionally destroy him. That's a pretty selfish act, even if you're dying and want to experience as much as possible before you go. The feeling of being in a fantasy world is heightened by the final shots, and though you're meant to leave the film feeling better because of them, their unreal character ended up making me feel worse for those left behind.

year: 2003
length: 106 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314412/combined

Mansfield Park

I'm on a Jane Austen flick fest, so you'll see more of them reviewed here in the near future. I've seen all of them before, but decided to watch them again after realizing that all of the films I have in the house from Netflix are dull, dreary, non-summery type films. Not in the mood; at least not this weekend. So, I started with Mansfield Park, maybe because it's the newest of them all (i.e., Emma, Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, Persuasion; I'll be bypassing Northanger Abbey as it's supposed to be terrible; I may include Clueless since it's a blast to watch). I recognize the female touch, as this is the only one of the five to be directed by a woman. But I can't quite pinpoint what that touch is. Is it the overwhelming attention to the sensuality of Austen's novels? This film is almost like watching hands-off porn, in that respect. Is it the sly winks to the audience, in the form of the characters speaking directly to the camera? Patricia Rozema, the director, brought Austen's letters and journals into the scripting process, and some of that material is set apart from the tale. Or is it the director's concentration on the relationships to the exclusion of some important plot points? For instance, why does Fanny Price become so beloved as a poor relation in a rich household? Kind of important, and completely side-stepped. Never mind, though. The film is rich in the feel of Austen, and that's what counts in the long run.

year: 1999
length: 112 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0178737/combined

Mambo Italiano

The only good thing about this film is its sense of style. And I'm not talking about cinematography, I'm talking about production design. Neon green, hot magenta pink, swirls, polka dots, it's definitely hip. And that's fun, but the film doesn't have much else going for it. The story centers around a young Italian-Canadian man coming to terms with his homosexuality. Regretfully, it has fairly poor acting (although he's not so bad, his lover is awful) and a far-too-obvious plot. He's a sappy TV writer but he can't get anyone to pilot his far-fetched ideas, so guess what series he comes up with in the end? He volunteers at the local gay phone bank (which is the funniest scene in the movie) and meets a new "friend," so guess where that leads? Needless to say, I wasn't enamored and I'd recommend it only as something to miss.

year: 2003
length: 88 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330602/combined

Monsieur Hulot's Holiday

I'm afraid I don't understand the appeal. Yes, Jacques Tati has a funny walk and inadvertently gets himself into numerous scrapes while on vacation at the beach, but the rest of the film is simply boring. I know perfectly well that people regard this as a classic of physical comedy, but frankly, there's very little of it in the film. Aside from his car (which is funnier than he is) and a silly set of tennis games, I barely cracked a smile during the entire viewing. Its saving grace is that it's filmed in black and white, and very capably. The beach scenes are the most beautiful, with the contrast between the sand, the ocean, the rocks and the umbrellas. But, really, why waste your time? It'd be more fun to pick up a film that has actual physical comedy in it, such as Big or even Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, for goodness sake.

original title: Les Vacances de M. Hulot
year: 1953
length: 85 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046487/combined

A Mighty Wind

Christopher Guest, the man behind Spinal Tap and Best in Show, and who played the six-fingered man in the now-classic Princess Bride, has brought us yet another improvisational ensemble film. And it's too bad this one doesn't work as well as Best in Show or Waiting for Guffman because...we want more of these types of films! Or, at least I do. The group he brings together -- Catherine O'Hara, Bob Balaban, Parker Posey, Eugene Levy -- know the art of deadpan improvisation. For background, they're all supposed to be old-time folk singers, with the Puritan-like character that goes with the territory, and they're staging a concert to commemorate the death of a beloved producer. But the songs they sing are in broad contrast to their lives, e.g.,"A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow", "Old Joe's Place", "Potato's in the Paddy Wagon." And yet, it doesn't have as many clearly funny moments as previous films (although the scene in which Balaban is worrying about the props, lights and flowers for the show is priceless). A decent rental, but I'd re-rent Best in Show instead, if I were you.

year: 2003
length: 91 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310281/combined

Miller's Crossing

This script is almost too smart. Fifteen minutes in and you don't know who they're talking about anymore. (But that could be because Steve Buscemi can truly talk a mile a minute.) Halfway in, you should be having no problems. Essentially, this is a basic mob plot with Gabriel Byrne as the not-so-perfect guy stuck in the middle -- not quite a gangster, not a cop, just someone very smart who's losing what grip he had on life. As in all Coen Brothers films it is filled with scenes only there to be beautiful and/or funny and/or poignant. Those huge open rooms, which just scream "watch out!" The scene in which Albert Finney's character shoots the gangster from behind while "Danny Boy" is playing (actually, this entire scene rivals those from Scorsese or Coppola films). The hat motif, of course. Heck, the famous forest scene. It's worth it to watch the brothers (and Barry Sonnenfeld, he's no slouch either as DP) if only for how they can create a story we care about with characters we care about and still have time to be poets with the camera. I loved Raising Arizona, I loved Fargo, I really liked Blood Simple and I really liked Barton Fink (forget that I didn't care much for The Man Who Wasn't There or O Brother, Where Art Thou?). This film is on par with the first two. And I'll never forget John Turturro's DVD interview in which he compares acting to plumbing: "What if you go into a house and you can't find the leak? That's the challenge."

year: 1990
length: 115 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100150/combined

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World

Aaahhh. An intelligent and intelligently made action film. I knew that I'd most likely be seeing above-average filmmaking going into the film, as it was directed by Peter Weir (of The Truman Show and Picnic at Hanging Rock), but with such expectations I didn't figure on being as intrigued and entertained as I was. Yes, it's an action-adventure flick with a swashbuckling sea captain (played by Russell Crowe so perfectly you wonder if his ancestors weren't English seafaring folk) whose duty is to destroy a French frigate helmed by a man who fights disturbingly like himself. However, you get to add to the mix some very funny scenes (the cook is a hoot), the tender side of the captain (as when a young lef-tenant loses his arm), and best of all the confrontation between the military duty and other duties (realized ably by Paul Bettany as the doctor and naturalist who would give his right hand to explore any land they encounter). Not to mention some stunning vistas and incredibly realistic gun- and sword-fights. So realistic that unless you know everything about naval architecture and warfare at the turn of two centuries prior, you will constantly be thinking "what did they just say?" I suggest you let it roll over you as ambience. The things you need to hear are clearly stated. If I have one gripe with the film, it's that they're trying hard to interweave several of the stories it is based on and at times you feel a just a little seasick.

year: 2003
length: 138 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0311113/combined

Mystic River

Because Clint Eastwood films his productions with so simple a hand, a film of his might not hit you until well after you leave the theater. There are always hints that what you're seeing is not run-of-the-mill. A regular ending to a suspense drama is when the bad guy gets caught. In this case, no one who should get caught is caught, and the ending is a musing on the nature of community and friendship and love, which seems so at odds with the reality of the film that you wonder why Eastwood did it. Except that it has everything to do with the reality of the film. Kevin Bacon (playing the Eastwood character), Sean Penn, and most impressively, Tim Robbins, are old childhood friends with one horrible secret that comes back to haunt them -- that one of them was sexually abused as a child. But that's not really what the film is about. The film is about love, and the things that are done in the name of it, whether that be protection, deceit, betrayal, jealousy or even a cry for help. Eastwood is a master at realism (what you see is what you get) with the deeper symbolic meanings hidden below this surface. You watch a scene, played "as is," and you don't immediately recognize the thematic layer because what you're seeing is so involving itself. Are any of the rest of you amazed that an actor known for tight-lipped, unemotional roles can put out such complex creations? And he keeps getting better and better.

year: 2003
length: 137 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0327056/combined

The Matrix Revolutions

Really, I don't see what the big hoo-hah is over this film. Yes, it's not that good, but it's also not that bad. I had an enjoyable time. Perhaps a bit more enjoyable than when I watched The Matrix Reloaded because there is (obviously) a resolution of the storyline. In addition, we see fewer instances of irritating Matrix-like tics than in the previous two films (that "come hither" flap of the hand -- man, was I tired of that!). Instead there's a well-crafted long battle sequence in the huge Port-of- Zion dome as the machines come through the roof. I couldn't at first figure out why I liked this so much. After mulling it over, I think it was because it was real "hand-to-hand" fighting and showcased human desperation, pride and perseverance. I guess I was ready for a real fight scene instead of the super-high-gloss mumbo-jumbo of bullet time fighting. The film wraps everything up with a nice neat bow but not without nods to spirituality, the human condition and faith, hearkening back to the first film. I was surprised at the decent acting, in particular Jada Pinkett Smith and the super-talented Hugo Weaving, who gets to deliver the best line of the film towards the end. It's a truism that if you have extremely low expectations of a film and it delivers more bang for your buck, you have a tendency to rate it higher. That might be what happened when I watched this film, and if so, you'll just have to prove me wrong.

year: 2003
length: 129 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0242653/combined

The Man Who Would Be King

You realize this film is comedic about 15 minutes in. Michael Caine and Sean Connery are blackmailing a military official but so obtusely that it takes a moment to realize that you're being kidded with. And yet it's more than a comedy. It's also a serious story about a very close friendship between two British soldiers, bored with their life, who decide to take off to a remote Asian (Middle Eastern? Soviet?) country to try their hand at becoming kings. Perhaps a better description of the film is that it is full of humor, while at the same time delving into the nature of greed, power and fortune. John Huston in all his glory. The DVD has a short documentary released at the time the film came out, and shows the horrifying stunt that Connery had to perform while on a rope ladder across a chasm. He's singing at the time, and if his voice isn't shaking, it should be. Didn't they have stuntmen back then?!

year: 1975
length: 129 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073341/combined

Matchstick Men

I've gotta wonder sometimes why so many modern films are about the characters, and not about the story. I know, it's the common gripe about how story doesn't seem to matter to Hollywood anymore, but hey, they're doing the same thing in Britain and India, too. I'm beginning to think it's universal. Not that this film doesn't have a fun storyline, because it does -- a fun, funny grifter flick that's not ultra-snide or ultra-deep -- it's just that you're meant to focus on the stars. Nicolas Cage, Alison Lohman, the incomparable, but sadly one-note Sam Rockwell (where are roles for him like in Lawn Dogs or Confessions of a Dangerous Mind?). What could be better!? I guess that's what the public wants now, a little bit more royalty to ooh and aah over, but we're giving up substance for flash. The characterizations are great (Lohman, who is 24, plays a 14-year-old with conviction with a capital C), but that ends up being what the film is based on. Pity.

year: 2003
length: 116 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0325805/combined