Red Dwarf

So cheesy! You're laughing as you watch, but inwardly you're groaning. Typical BBC production -- you can hear all the ambient sounds on the stage, and there are virtually no props. (Think Dr. Who.) Small budget, I guess. That they created a two-man stand-up comedy show that ran for more than 8 seasons is a huge feat. What makes it fun to watch? At odd moments, there's brilliance (double-over and giggle madly type brilliance). Or a touching scene that gets you thinking what it would be like to be stranded on a spaceship millions of light years from Earth. Or to have no companions other than a hologram and a mutated cat. Yup. The hologram is uptight and a stickler for the rules, the cat is a James Brown act-alike. And the only remaining human crew member is a total slob, which is where much of the comedic tension comes from. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone who's not a hard-core science-fiction fan, however. It's a bit too spare to be enjoyed by all.

year: 1988-1999
length: seasons 1-6 out on DVD
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094535/combined

Road to Morocco

Bing Crosby and Bob Hope. What more is there to say? That the rose-colored glasses of childhood are showing their age. Hope still tickles your ribs (his hourglass and cannibalism jokes had me in hysterics), and you can say nothing bad about Crosby's singing, but the rest of the film is capital-B-boring. I was giggling madly for the beginning and ending -- not surprisingly, where Crosby and Hope are on their own and the punch lines fly fast and furious -- but nearly nodded off for the rest of it. The twists that are necessary to get them from one place to the next are worse than any sequel-ized piece of trash put out today. The filmmakers are as cognizant of this as we are. Just listen to the title song...sung on the back of a camel, of course. If you love Hope or Crosby, it'll be worth it, but the rest of it you can pass up.

year: 1942
length: 83 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035262/combined

Ray

So much has been said about Jamie Foxx's transformation in this film that to repeat it here seems almost moot. But just in case you haven't heard it already, Foxx puts in a career-defining turn channeling Ray Charles in this biopic of his life, warts and all. Although it might sound trite to say this, Foxx did his homework. His Ray is how Ray looked and sounded in real life -- high-pitched voice, slightly mumbly, but with clipped words, and of course the trademark smile and self-hug. It's not trite, because it matters. After 5 minutes, I forgot completely I was watching anyone other than Charles. There are few biopics for which you can make that claim (including Nixon and Malcolm X). The film is long, but in the long run too short. It focuses on the beginning and middle of his career (arguably his best music years), but flashes back to the tragedies of his boyhood, astoundingly assisted by Sharon Warren who plays his mother. This is the actress' first film role, and she is one to keep an eye on, no doubt. In truth, all the female roles -- his mother, his wife, his mistresses -- are richly played, more so than I expected in a film about the life of a man. Charles' unique, catchy, constantly fresh music is treated as the thread that binds the film together, as background and as distinct scenes, and here again I have to point out my awe at Foxx's work. He went to college on a classical pianist scholarship and armed with that training, learned every one of the over 100 piano cues so that he could play them himself in the film (although they are dubbed over with Charles' own playing). We should all be on tenterhooks waiting to see what this comedian, indisputably turned dramatic actor, will do next.

year: 2004
length: 152 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0350258/combined

Running Out of Time

If this isn't Quentin Tarantino's favorite Hong Kong action flick, I'll eat my shorts. (Or is that a male-specific injunction?) The combination of good writing, great leads and fantastic action makes this one of the best films of its genre that I've seen. It's not the same kind of film Jackie Chan or Jet Li make because it's missing all the jaw-dropping chop-socky stuff, but that doesn't make this less palatable. In fact, I think this film is probably more accessible to the general public than the martial arts films (which cater to a certain folk). One of the two main characters, Andy Lau (a HUGE film and pop star over in Asia), who has only a few days to live conceives of a cat-and-mouse game with a cop he admires (played by the even better actor Ching Wan Lau) centering around stealing a famous diamond. Knowing how I feel about heist flicks, it says a lot I think this film does it quite well. It'll keep you thinking hard, since the filmmakers don't wait around for you to catch up. The editing is also eye-opening in that they use techniques, such as speeding up the film during several connecting-the-dots scenes, that I think weren't being used yet in Hollywood. The pièce de résistance is the scene in the car after the two leads have crashed it and are trying to retrieve their treasure, although the bowling alley sequence comes in a close second. If you don't generally watch foreign films because the sub-titles make it hard to read and watch the action at the same time, try this one as an exception to the rule.

original title: Aau Chin
year: 1999
length: 93 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0216165/combined

The Return

As the poster says, this film is reminiscent of Andrei Tarkovsky's works. It differs in one huge respect, in that the first 3 minutes of the film contain more talking than in a 4 hour Tarkovsky film. Which means that this film is more accessible to the general public than anything Tarkovsky put out. (Brilliant filmmaker that he was, natch, his films are never easy to comprehend, or stay awake during.) This is Andrei Zvyagintsev's first film, and it is surprisingly masterful for a first-time director. The father of two boys returns after many years away and they go on a vacation together to a remote island. He is clearly "of the military" and treats his sons as he would treat soldiers, something that obviously doesn't work after so many years away. Of course there's a tragedy, and of course I'm not going to tell you what it is, because you should see the film. For the acting, for the cinematography and for the Tarkovsky-like enigmatic stillness. The boys are excellent actors, one more of a brown-noser, the other more of a punk. Your affections for either switch constantly throughout the movie, a testament to the quality of their acting. The cinematography is all about long shots, mostly of the landscape, whether that's endless miles of Russian farmland or endless miles of ocean. Most of these sequences (if you can call them sequences when most of them are single shots) are as near silent as possible, reminiscent of Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring. Plot is certainly not as important as the general feeling you get as you watch and interpret, and there are any number of interpretations you can make. As the film unwinds, it becomes more and more mysterious -- Where did the father come from? What is his job? Why is he taking the boys with him on a vacation that isn't a vacation? The silent cinematography is a big part of that mystery. And the ending shots (which are suggestive of The 400 Blows) leave you wondering, which completes the film's ambience.

original title: Vozvrashcheniye
year: 2003
length: 105 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376968/combined

Remember the Titans

What's the difference between a Hallmark TV movie and a Disney real-life triumph-over-adversity feel-good movie? Denzel Washington, baby! OK, so I've had a crush on him since college (and still have his (ALA) pin-up on my wall at work), but he is a fine, fine actor. His effort makes this film rise above others of its ilk. He plays the main character in a story of the forced desegregation of Alexandria, Virginia in 1971. In order to comply with the policy, the school board hires a black coach to head the football team, displacing the former white head coach. Even though the black coach has as good a history of winning as the white coach, well, you can imagine the emotions that run rampant. While I didn't feel strongly about Will Patton as the white coach (too restrained), Washington gives nothing but his best. The scene in the Gettysburg cemetery, although underplayed, is enough to send shivers down your spine. And the kids were quite well cast, believable as high school denizens. Most feel-good movies are not complex, so they don't garner my high scores, but that doesn't mean that this film is not worth watching. If nothing else, just watch it for Washington.

year: 2000
length: 113 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0210945/combined

Rosemary's Baby

So, I ran right out and rented another horror film. Although this one isn't really horror. More of a suspense thriller. There are points where you expect nasty demons to pop out of the woodwork but that's only because you're a product of your times. In 1968, there wasn't a need to film things like that, particularly when you had the young, talented, still tragedy-free Roman Polanski on the project. Mia Farrow plays a young wife in a beautiful new apartment who just can't wait to get pregnant. She does, but she gradually starts to wonder if there's something all wrong about her conception and the cloying neighbors in her apartment building. The film builds gradually, the same way disbelief grows gradually, with no glitz or glamour, until the final scene which truly is horrific. Do you ever root for the main character! When she "escapes" and tries to find another doctor, you start smiling and release long pent-up breath. Farrow is not my favorite actor, but she works hard here, providing an illusion of a loving wife who can't quite figure out what's gone wrong. Major kudos to Ruth Gordon as the nosy neighbor. (Remember her from Harold and Maude?) Without her, the film would have lost a lot of its spark.

year: 1968
length: 136 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063522/combined

Red Dragon

My goodness, Brett Ratner is a little bundle of energy. If you don't think that from watching the film, you will from watching even a small part of the documentary. I knew he was a DVD freak (his collection is renowned), but I didn't know he was Quentin Tarantino-ish. It shows in this film -- you can just see him jumping up and down gleefully when he shoots Ed Norton from below as he's explaining why the eponymous serial killer will never stop. The "from below" shot is traditionally used for suspense, and is used by current film directors for any scene that should give the audience a shock. So, Ratner is at least following in the footsteps of greats. He's also smart enough to use a good screenwriter, who regrettably can't quite shake his original assignment, The Silence of the Lambs, so several ideas and scenes are re-hashed. Still, I think those who weren't fond of The Silence of the Lambs should forego this one. It's just as scary (although not as lyrical). Without the stellar cast, I'm not sure I would have chosen it to watch. Ed Norton (who is a bit flat, to be honest), Harvey Keitel, Mary-Louise Parker, Ph ilip Seymour Hoffman, and best of all Ralph Fiennes and Emily Watson, as the killer and the victim. They seem out of place in a film like this, and they are, but they add those little touches of brilliance that make it worth watching.

year: 2002
length: 124 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289765/combined

Rabbit-Proof Fence

I haven't seen many of Phillip Noyce's films. Only Dead Calm, which I loved, although The Quiet American is on my list of "to see" films. So, I don't have much to compare this film to within his oeuvre. My first thought was that it was going to be a heavy-duty weeper, since he'd chosen a subject that few in this day and age would not find abhorrent. In the 1930s (actually, from the 1910s through the 1970s), Australian officials were legally allowed to remove half-caste (white and aboriginal mix) children from their families and put them in camps to teach them the "ways of the white men." Three girls escape and walk back home -- over 1500 miles -- along Australia's rabbit-proof fence. There are places in the film where you feel like weeping, that's true, but the arc of the story gives you many more opportunities to cheer and smile than to weep. The child actors are phenomenal. They'd never acted before, but the lead is entrancing. And, I wonder whether Noyce was channelling Peter Weir in some of his sequences. The music is based on Australian aboriginal instruments and in many instances it's as haunting as that never-will-forget throbbing from Picnic at Hanging Rock.

year: 2002
length: 94 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0252444/combined

Rivers and Tides

Andy Goldsworthy is one of my two favorite artists (the other being Agnes Denes), so I had to go see this film. Goldsworthy creates art out of natural elements, i.e., things he finds lying around in the countryside. This film focuses on his artwork that reflects water, hence the title. As a friend of mine said, "he's a bit obsessive," and it's true that his work is highly fragile and requires him sometimes to re-create the same work more than once, but I think I'd characterize him more as someone who perseveres, who is driven to create. He mentions in the film that he has, naturally, good days and bad days and on the days when he's creating good art he never notices the cold, the wind, or the rain. As if it warms him from inside. I marvel at the apparent simplicity of such a life, even when I know that it can't really be that simple. The filmmaker has worked hard to weave the finished products with the process of creating them, and juxtaposes this with shots of nature on its own. I found that this gave me a glimpse through the artist's eye -- this is what Goldsworthy sees when he is starting to create a new piece. Goldsworthy does try to explain the "reasons" for his creations, but I confess I remember none of them because the pieces stand on their own -- beautiful creations mimicking and representative of nature, and also wholly manmade. If you want to see what I'm talking about, start here and use the previous and next buttons to view a few of his many artworks.

year: 2001
length: 90 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307385/combined

Rangeela

I'm renting a lot of Bollywood films lately, and while they're fun as cultural exercises, they are lacking in the sophistication department. Like most (but not all) Bollywood films, the plot is your basic love story, made a little more interesting because it's set as a movie within a movie. It stars the great Aamir Khan, who can emote with the best of them, but the film seems more like an extended Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue than anything else. Many, many shots of the female lead dancing seductively on her own. Lots of suggestive poses between the female and male leads, however since it's a Hindi film there is never anything improper, i.e., no kissing (much less anything else). Which is all the more ridiculous when the leads start singing "your body turns me on" and other variations on that theme. (Ridiculous, of course, for Western eyes.) The dancing and singing sequences are fun to watch, and the leading lady truly is gorgeous, but otherwise it's pretty laughable.

year: 1995
length: 142 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114234/combined

Reign of Fire

It's been a while since I've seen a film with this much testosterone in it. Heck, even the lone female lead is overdosing. Earth has been infested with dragons and the remnants of humanity fight to save themselves. The dragons are cool, they look very real, and there's lots of fire for pyromaniacs. There's also a great deal of grunting, especially from Matthew McConaughey, but none of the acting is anywhere near thespian level. The plot is okay, not great. I thought the fact that the Americans were all scientific about how to kill off the dragons, and the British were more willing to keep the status quo was highly amusing. Perhaps the best scene is an homage to the Star Wars trilogy (yeah, the first set, not the recent crap) in which the "I am your father" scene is acted out for kids before their bedtime. Complete with third-rate theater costumes and fake sound effects. A complete hoot, and nearly worth the price of a rental.

year: 2002
length: 101 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253556/combined

The Recruit

Guilty pleasure flick. All this film is is a well-designed passion play and I don't mean being passionate about your job or politics or that great food you had last night. Since it's a spy flick, you never know whom to believe, and that's supposed to be the point. The real point of the film is the overheated glances between Colin Farrell and Bridget Moynahan, who seem to be slumming at times and other times are actually not too bad. Al Pacino is fine in the beginning as the CIA recruiter, but towards the end gives the most over-the-top, embarrassing speech that I've seen on film in a long time. The content is not what's embarrassing, it's the delivery. Some reviewers are likening it to his histrionics in Dog Day Afternoon, but no, that was a stupendous acting job. This was not. Give this one a miss and instead see both of the leads in better films, namely Tigerland (Farrell) and Heat (Pacino). Unless, of course, you just want to watch a "comfort flick" on a rainy, boring, nothing-else-to-do day.

year: 2003
length: 115 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0292506/combined

Rear Window

I was a little worried about watching this film again (I saw it ages ago and remember nothing) because our film class used it as an example of cognitive film theory -- asking constant questions about what we're seeing as we watch -- and psychoanalytic film theory -- how we are all voyeurs when we go to the cinema. I knew the entire plot backwards and forwards, so I figured I wouldn't enjoy watching the film. Nice to be wrong! Hitchcock knew exactly what he was doing. He was a master of providing just enough detail for the viewer to understand plot basics, but giving the viewer plenty of room to hypothesize about its meaning. Jimmy Stewart perfectly plays the guy in the wheelchair who has nothing to do but look at his neighbors through the rear window of his apartment. Has he "seen" a murder take place? Will anyone believe him, not least of which is his girlfriend, Grace Kelly? There's just not enough "wow-ing" I can do about this film, and most people have seen it. So all I can say is see it again, it's worth it! And if you rent the DVD, watch the making-of featurette all the way through. Peter Bogdanovich has a marvelous story about Hitchcock that you won't want to miss.

year: 1954
length: 112 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047396/combined

Reservoir Dogs

Unique concept, unique writing, highly entertaining. This film is a heist that goes wrong and the mix of morals and psychology that moves it towards its inevitable conclusion. That's as much as I can say without giving everything away, but the inevitable conclusion doesn't mean that there aren't twists that will surprise even the most cynical film-watcher. BIG warning...this film is not for the faint of heart. It will make you want to shut it off in places just because it's so squirm-inducing, and although you don't see the absolute worst stuff, there's an awful lot of very bright red blood around. It's important to note, though, that this is not just a shoot-em-up. Quentin Tarantino is known for his naturalistic writing style, and he claims that he writes just as people would speak, but in doing so he creates characters whose motives and personalities are instantly understandable, and surprisingly enough, recognizable. Even through the haze of swear words (Tarantino is quite a potty mouth). The only real failing I saw was that some of the characterizations were a bit stretched, particularly in the case of Tim Roth. He is a Brit doing an American, so perhaps that's where I picked up some inconsistencies, but it may also be due to the short shooting time frame (and clearly small budget) the film had. Actors would have had fewer takes to get it just so.

year: 1992
length: 99 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105236/combined