The Thin Red Line

Terrence Malick did Days of Heaven 20 years ago. Few, except maybe those in studio land, expected him to return. I gather he was waiting for the right kind of script. (I always have to wonder how independent filmmakers survive between flicks -- they're not getting back-end deals!) In his film choices, I'm certain he's less interested in plot than he is in the opportunity for creating cinematographic marvels. The three I've seen (the other is Badlands) are masterpieces of slowly, movingly filmed landscapes and that alone merits 3 stars, if only because it calms you down after a jumpy day. But a war film seems a strange choice. It's not that I don't get the impact of the juxtaposition of bloody war and the peaceful native countryside replete with swaying grasses and soft summer breezes, but in the final analysis that's veneer. The screenplay itself puts us inside the minds of many different soldiers' viewpoints of the WW2 Battle of Guadalcanal, from the contemplative to the rightly scared spitless to the logical military careerist. Of all of these, Dash Mihok's character made the most sense to me. An everyman off the field of war, but terrified and horrified and well-trained when in battle. Second favorite character for me is the "protagonist" of the film, played by Jim Caviezel, who does thoughtful like nobody else. And hey, there's George Clooney at the very end as a platoon captain...and you wonder why Malick couldn't use Clooney and John Cusack and Woody Harrelson and some of the others more often, instead of all those ultra-boring shots of Ben Chaplin and Miranda Otto (although the climax to those scenes is heart-breaking). You are alternately calmed, bored and thrilled throughout the film, but nearly 3 hours of that can put off the most avid filmgoer. I watched it in stages, and if you like Malick, I would recommend that approach.

year: 1998
length: 170 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120863/combined

Touching the Void

The first thing that runs through your mind when seeing a climbing picture is: why? The second thing, and specifically for this film, is why do they climb as a pair? As they stress, you can pull your partner down with the slightest misstep. And if you're climbing in one push, if you make a bad mistake you're bound to die because there's no one at base camp to help you because there is no base camp. So, why tie yourself to another person in the first place? (I'm sure there's a good reason, but the film doesn't let on as to what it is.) A half-hour into the movie, you know how important it was that neither was climbing alone because without Simon, Joe would not have survived. And it's how Joe does survive that makes this climb legendary among mountaineers, and one of the most controversial decisions ever made in the climbing world. Part interview and part re-creation, the film is spellbinding -- similar to Everest in putting the human condition and the human spirit front and center. It is also a testament to the type-A personality, if I do say so. The little voice that keeps Joe moving from tiny goal to tiny goal sounds like a version of my own control freak nature. Erroneous to think that you could ever control your survival in places men were (most likely) never meant to go, but a stunning example of human nature at its indomitable best.

year: 2003
length: 106 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379557/combined

Trainspotting

I really need to learn this lesson. I can't go to the theater to watch Scottish film; I need to rent them on DVD and put my headphones on. I had the problem with The Full Monty and I should have known better when deciding to go to a midnight showing of Trainspotting. Even though I'd seen it before, I still under stood not a word of what Begbie (Robert Carlyle) said, and barely anything else. I don't know why Scots English is a foreign language to my ears (remind me to tell you the story of my brother and I trying to order food in an Edinburgh restaurant in our youth) and it's a pity because the Scots are excellent filmmakers, as a rule. But a re-viewing of this film pointed out a lack of focus. Is it trying to be more than a horror story of heroin use? Is that advisable? Why the added story of lusting over the high school girl? Or the walk in the mountains, if only to give Ewan McGregor's character the opportunity to wax poetic about his homeland? How does the comedy fit in? As relief? Could be construed as flippancy. Sure, the dive into the toilet is hysterical as a description of need, but its juxtaposition with the depressing scenes is a bit off-putting. For a harsher film that shows the actual depth of despair associated with drug use, rent Requiem for a Dream (ick, ick, ick, but perfectly icky). I do like the ending, though -- the sarcasm implicit in the final scene points out that wanting the usual things (a car, a house, a family) isn't for drug addicts, even those interested in reforming their lives.

year: 1996
length: 94 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117951/combined

Tully

Not quite your sweet love story. Young teenager romanticizes his long-dead m other and that affects all his relationships with other women. He comes around, so it could be typecast as your typical coming-of-age film. But it doesn't feel like anything typical. Which is strange, because if you break down the plot, there's really nothing new here. I think its saving grace is in how natural it feels. Even the ending, which is telegraphed with bright red flashing lights (or the cinematic equivalent thereof). There's nothing special done with cinematography -- no close-ups when there perhaps should be, no effects, not enough sweeping vistas to show the beauty of farm country. It's the acting that gives it the über-natural feel. And, no, you won't recognize any of the actors (unless you pay extreme close attention to popular TV series). It's a very simple film with a very small budget, not meant to be clever or exceedingly thought provoking. I was aware of a devotion to Clint Eastwood-directed films, albeit with less complexity in terms of plot. I'd characterize the film as one of those under-the-radar types that tells the truth without gloss or pomp. What a breath of fresh air.

year: 2000
length: 102 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212604/combined

Tombstone

With lines like "Ain't that a daisy?" and "I'm your huckleberry." Val Kilmer steals this show, playing Doc Holiday, the thief with tuberculosis from the Earp brothers OK Corral tale. Spoken with a refined Southern accent the likes of which you've never heard before, he early on becomes the only reason to watch the film. Not ably assisted by Kurt Russell, Sam Elliott (who doesn't have much to say, so you can't blame him) and Bill Paxton the film devolves into the worst kind of maudlin sentiment, complete with hokey flirting scenes (worst among them the horse chasing scene). This is B-movie material and it's a great pity that Kilmer is in it as he shouldn't be relegated to drivel. I would recommend keeping one eye on the TV set and only putting down your knitting when you get to Val. Watch, rewind, re-watch, repeat. You won't be sorry.

year: 1993
length: 130 min.
rating: 1.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108358/combined

Tokyo Godfathers

I was enchanted by this film. It's got everything an animated film should have -- a good story, beautifully rendered "sets", and action that is partially rooted in reality. In this case, the latter does not mean fantastical action (like leaping off tall buildings and surviving), but action in terms of exaggerated facial expressions, slow-mo and a Martin Scorsese-like way of telling the story without showing all of the story. It's slow in parts, and then ramps up such that you almost can't keep up. It's also a film that will have you laughing one second and whimpering the next. Plus, while it's rooted in the Japanese psyche, it's not like Hayao Miyazaki's films and their potential to leave Westerners far behind. You'll "get" it, trust me. This is the tale of three homeless folk in Tokyo (as you guessed, it's in Japanese with subtitles) who find a baby and try and return it to its rightful mother. You may find yourself a little lost in places because the plot twists and turns all the time, so strap on your Mulholland Drive thinking cap and pay close attention. What a reward!

year: 2003
length: 92 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388473/combined

Titus

I approach nearly all Shakespeare film productions with trepidation because, to make no bones about it, oftentimes they are boring with a capital B. There are a handful that I will watch over and over again (most often, Much Ado About Nothing from 1993 and Richard III from 1995). Sadly, this would not be one of them. It's not due to any lack of cinematographic, costuming or mise-en-scene skill of Julie Taymor. How she makes Shakespeare's words work with wholly new scene designs is worth the money you pay to rent it. (In particular, watch the scene in which the father, brother, sister and uncle meet at the crossroads to the hanging.) The problem is more a factor of the lack of enthusiasm on the part of nearly all the actors, Alan Cumming and Harry Lennix excluded. Anthony Hopkins as the war hero Titus Andronicus was so bland I nodded off a few times during his soliloquies. This is a death knell for Shakespeare films; if you can't keep up your own interest, how do you expect the audience to do so? The ending is a real shocker, even for one of Will's tragedies, in its fast and furiousness. So, it's lengthy and sometimes boring or incomprehensible, but if you are a fan of Taymor's, you'll enjoy it well enough.

year: 1999
length: 162 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120866/combined

Twilight Samurai

Okay, now this is weird. As you know, I've been watching a lot of Jane Austen flicks, and I've been cataloging their qualities here for you. I would never have expected to walk into this film and find myself thinking I was watching a Japanese Jane Austen. It's a samurai flick, for heaven's sake! Except that it isn't. It's more aptly labeled a period film. The main character, a masterless samurai of very little note, is widowed with two small children and a senile mother. A divorced childhood friend returns and they renew their friendship, albeit formally. Yes, you see the sword skills of the samurai, but there are only two fight scenes in the entire film. The weight of the film is on the customs and mores of the not-peasant, yet not-wealthy, samurai class. Caring for his children, worrying about making enough money, fighting his feelings for the childhood friend -- you see why I was thinking this was an Austen! Director Yoji Yamada is known for his comedic films (this is his first samurai-style film), and this is obvious in small ways throughout. My favorite is probably the reaction of the great-uncle to his senile sister, even though it is undoubtedly cruel. Acting is impeccable -- Hiroyuki Sanaba as the main character had a small role in The Last Samurai, even though he is one of the more talented, well- known actors in Japan. Cinematography is also interesting. Very darkly lit to mirror the title and mood of the film. I would recommend this as an alternate alternative to your basic samurai film (the other alternate is Zatôichi, also not your basic samurai film but in a completely different way).

original title: Tasogare Seibei
year: 2002
length: 129 min.
rating: 3.
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0351817/combined

Troy

Halfway through this film, a character utters the phrase "Women do have a way of complicating things." They're not talking about Helen (she has already left Menelaus), so it's quite amusing for that line to be thrown in at that juncture. This is a large reason for me liking this film as much as I did. The script is elegant, structured, and the right kind of spare. How often do you find that in an action flick? David Benioff has only one other script to his credit (so far) and that's 25th Hour, a good if not great film but not because of the script. Watch Benioff, he'll go far. And maybe he should collaborate with Wolfgang Petersen more often, because Petersen is just as elegant and structured a director. There are no extraneous scenes (except for the first narrated shot which should have been done over black), and the action and character development keep perfect pace with the script (or the other way around, depending on your view point). Ignore the movie poster which is one of the lamest on record. Yes, Brad Pitt had to get buff for this role, but it's because he's playing Achilles, for heaven's sake! If Achilles isn't buff, you have no story. And speaking of Pitt, this is my favorite role of his since A River Runs Through It in 1992. He never loses sight of the myth of Achilles, while at the same time giving him a sensitivity which is not at odds with that myth. Not easy work. Peter O'Toole as King Priam of Troy is magnificent, but that goes without saying. More intriguing was Eric Bana as Prince Hector, who is a fine actor unfortunate enough to have no zing to his looks or acting to make him a true star. There are missteps in casting, e.g., Saffron Burrows as Hector's wife. Her manner of emoting makes my skin crawl. And the casting of a blonde as Helen, as fine as Diane Kruger is, was simply stupid. At least dye her hair black! (Pitt's too, for that matter.) The impetus for the Trojan war will seem silly to some, but it was merely the trigger releasing existing venom between the Greeks and the Trojans. Petersen has given us a glimpse at the politics and culture of that time, if only so we can compare it our own.

year: 2004
length: 163 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0332452/combined

Throne of Blood

Definitely not one of Akira Kurosawa's better works. I admit I was a bit tired when I was watching it, but if I can stay energized through the 3.5 hour Seven Samurai, then it isn't necessarily me. This is Kurosawa's take on Macbeth, and all the elements are there: the prophecy of the fates, the rivalry among clans, Lady Macbeth's evil whisperings, even the marching trees. But watching Shakespeare, you revel in every turn of phrase and twist of tongue. Either the translation of this film was poor or that wasn't Kurosawa's intent because the script was nothing special. Well, duh, you say, it's what's done with the visuals that makes all the difference. And it's true that the visuals are stunning as in all of Kurosawa's films, but perhaps he was overly excited about them since you see them over and over and over again in some scenes. Case in point, when the two warriors are lost in the forest's fog at the beginning, I definitely zoned out. After two shots of the men wheeling their horses in the mist and heading off in another direction, I got it! I didn't need 20 more. Toshirô Mifune stars and yet all I remember about his performance is a lot of yelling. There is one redeeming feature to the film and that's Isuzu Yamada who plays the Lady Macbeth character. She simply oozes evil intent with every softly spoken sentence. And with her kimono draped over her so that it drags and softly swishes every time she takes a step, she looks like a giant slug. (In fact, at some point in the film I realized that she reminded me of Roz from Monsters, Inc.!) But, hey, why not just watch her in Yojimbo, one of his much better films?

original title: Kumonosu Jô
year: 1957
length: 105 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050613/combined

To Live

I think it's silly to call Gong Li the greatest actress in China. She's the greatest actor in China, to use the "generic" term. Close collaboration with Zhang Yimou hasn't hurt at all. He provides the scenery to chew on, and she does so. In this film, a family is ripped to shreds every several years. Everyone soldiers on, because that's how life works, but Zhang is not just creating a story of heartbreak, forgiveness and perseverance. He blends in the times, in this case starting with the Chinese revolution and continuing on through the Mao years, and everything that came with them. Even with the family's travails, they never blame anything on the government, only on what they didn't do correctly. But each new tragedy brings with it a hint that with a different governing force, none of it ever would have happened. Those (particular) times are past in China, but his films continue to be banned nationally, while being lauded critically outside his own country. (This particular film has never been legally shown in China.) No big surprise to anyone who's seen just a couple of his films. I, for one, will be lining up to see Hero, his newest film, if only because I'm bemused that he's finally taking on the martial-arts-with-wires genre. Where's the political commentary in that?

original title: Huozhe
year: 1994
length: 125 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110081/combined

The Triplets of Belleville

Sheesh, I suppose Finding Nemo should have won for Best Animated Film, but only because while this film stuns with its images, it doesn't have a normal run-of-the-mill narrative (essentially the story of a biker stolen from the Tour de France and the grandmother who tries to find him). The same could be said about Hayao Miyazaki's work, though, and his films are beyond amazing. This minor quibble shouldn't keep you away from the film because how often will you see art-deco-ish cruise ships, a slow-mo of a dog barking at a train and its occupants, and the pièce de résistance, how one of the triplets catches frogs. Besides, the film relies nearly solely on its images. There are a few spoken words (French? English? I actually couldn't tell), but other than that everything is telegraphed by action, expressions, Stomp-like music, and whistle-blowing (yes, you'll have to see it to believe it). It is a bit violent, which might mean that you don't let your kids see it...yet. But I guarantee you will laugh out loud at least a few times, if not constantly.

original title: Les Triplettes de Belleville
year: 2003
length: 80 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286244/combined

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three

Hey, this one's pretty good! For a 70s action flick, that is. I wasn't expecting much because of its age, even though I'd heard good things about it. It's an interesting mix of action, suspense, racial politics and funky Shaft-like music. Walter Matthau is the good guy, Robert Shaw is the bad guy, and they battle it out over the stealing of a NYC subway train. Actually, there's little action to speak of, but the tone of the film makes up for it. Action films nowadays are almost always over-the-top, guaranteed to make your blood pressure rise and increase your level of stress. I almost felt relaxed watching this film. Especially interesting is how they handle racial issues. I laughed hard at Matthau's scripted reaction to discovering the police chief is black. Important to note: several directors and actors have used elements of this film in their own creations. One, the mayor's reaction to the price tag set by the kidnappers makes you smile, and I'll bet it made Mike Myers smile as well. And, the naming of the criminals was lifted wholesale from this film for Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs. Are there other elements of the film that you see being used as references nowadays?

year: 1974
length: 104 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072251/combined

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines

For all you Terminator fans, you'll want to see this film, if only to see where they're taking the story. It won't surprise you that there isn't much in terms of actual story. After the first film, this was never more than an action franchise. (Although the second one wasn't bad either since James Cameron seems to be able to meld story and action better than most.) However, I believe it's safe to say that I've never seen a film with more TV-news mayhem in it. A wide-load monster truck with crane attached barreling through the streets of LA destroying (read: upending) literally every car in its path using a hook on the end of the crane? I actually started laughing because it was so believable and over the top at the same time. As to the actors, I don't get why Nick Stahl doesn't get more parts. Besides being able to glower seductively from underneath bushy eyebrows, he can emote with the best of them. Granted, he's not given a whole lot of pithy dialogue to work with here and occasionally over-does things. Schwarzenegger himself is, well, as ever, but this time it's clear they're making fun of the Terminator franchise itself. Silly sunglasses, psychology jokes, weight issues -- all based on his character. The DVD contains a gag reel, worth it if only to watch Schwarzenegger create a gag over handling multiple weapons at the same time.

year: 2003
length: 109 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181852/combined

Trouble in Paradise

Gosh, this is a great film! Everyone should see it. Review over. Okay, okay, I'll be a bit more explicit. I think I've whined about how screwball comedies don't always work for me. Too boisterous and silly (although Arsenic and Old Lace is an exception to this rule). Trouble in Paradise might be billed as one of those comedies, but there's something about it that makes it much more enjoyable. I won't try and fully characterize it since it seems no one else in Hollywood was able to define "The Lubitsch Touch." If I had to guess, it would boil down to one word: sophistication. His movies, while extremely funny, never cause the actors to make fools of themselves. Case in point, two high-class jewel thieves set out to rob a rich widow, but their plans go astray when one falls in love with the widow. When you rent the DVD, watch the Peter Bogdanovich introduction, particularly for his laugh-out-loud description of Ernst Lubitsch acting out his own scenes. Oh, and the film is pre-code, so enjoy all the double entendres you never saw after 1934.

year: 1932
length: 83 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023622/combined

To Kill a Mockingbird

This is probably the best book I've ever read. I can't believe I was never made to read it in school, although in retrospect this is probably a good thing as I can appreciate it more now. It was recently recommended to me by three girlfriends in a row, so it shot to the top of the list. This book, after the Bible, is apparently the one Americans say means the most to them. The film is different, since nothing literary can translate as-is to the screen, but it is as great. For those of you like me who've never read or seen it (are there any of you out there?), it's the tale of a young girl and her brother in a small Southern town in the 1930s learning about the complications of race and ethics, and learning how to be humanists. Gregory Peck is phenomenal as their father, especially during the courtroom scene. It's almost as if the character of Atticus Finch was written for him, and in fact Harper Lee was unique among authors by loving the adaptation of the book. The black-and-white film has been beautifully transferred to DVD. There is a documentary but it can be missed; I'd stick with the film. It is plainly shot, without fancy camera angles or movements, so the story is what you see. Keep your eyes open for Robert Duvall. In this particular film, he's very, very good.

year: 1962
length: 129 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056592/combined

Touch of Evil

This film has quite a famous story behind it. Orson Welles directed and starred as a broken-down, corrupt cop along the Mexican border who comes up against a murder that he can't turn in his favor. Presumably because of Welles's history in Hollywood -- his transparent portrayal of Howard Hughes in Citizen Kane caused him to essentially be blacklisted in that town -- the studio took this film and significantly edited it, resulting in a final product with little of Welles's vision left intact. Welles wrote a 40+ page memo to the studio asking for certain edits to be re-considered. Nothing doing. It wasn't until a few years ago that someone in the film industry unearthed this letter and used it to create the film that Welles always meant to make. Example: the opening shot, which is one continuous 4 minute 15 second shot (where do you think Brian de Palma got that trick from?) tracking Charlton Heston (the Mexican cop) and Janet Leigh, newlyweds, as they walk across the border. The bar music drifts in and out of the score, the shot rolls on, the characters develop, you tangibly feel what a border town is like. It's incredible, and the studio hacked it to pieces for the original release. Welles was also a master of suspense (you think Hitchcock had it sewn up?). As Welles's character gets out of a car at the beginning of the film, the camera is positioned below the running board of the car shooting upwards. This is typical for showing suspense and danger, but he uses it in places (like this one) where you wouldn't expect it. The very best thing about the film is how everything comes together. The plot is seamless (heck, even Welles's cane plays a part!) and the ending truly is a stroke of genius. Down to the last conversation.

year: 1958
length: 112 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052311/combined

Taxi Driver

This film surprised me. I wasn't sure if I was going to like it or not because although I was quite impressed by Gangs of New York I didn't have much love for Mean Streets (reviews to come). Most of you have probably already seen this film, so you know that it's a tale of loneliness, of a man slowly losing his marbles, of the psychopath showing through. He's a cab driver, obsessed with cleaning up NYC, in a most inappropriate way. The reason the movie surprised me was its ending, which is designed to worry you and then in the very last frame of the film scare the patooties off you (no, I don't know what patooties are, but I do like that saying). I won't give the ending away, except to say that Martin Scorsese, Robert DeNiro and Paul Schrader (the screenwriter) are a brilliant team who went on to collaborate on other films. If you rent the DVD, watch the excellent documentary. It's over an hour long, and provides insights into making film in the 70s and why Scorsese's work is considered seminal. And try to remember, which I had difficulty doing, that the violent special effects towards the end are bad because they didn't have digital effects to lean on.

year: 1976
length: 113 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075314/combined

Talk to Her

Yes, talk! Talking is what relationships are all about! (Well, mostly.) A highly unique concept -- two men with girlfriends in comas, each with very different attitudes about how to treat their now vegetable lovers, i.e., how they talk with them. And it isn't like this film is divisional one way or the other -- men vs. women -- because although Pedro Almodóvar makes it seem as if that is the premise in the beginning of the film, he gradually makes it clear that the need for communication is universal, by having the two main male characters learn to talk to each other. This film is one of those rarities that nearly entirely visually portrays its themes -- heck, it doesn't even need talking to show how important talking is! My favorite scene was set in a prison -- one of the male characters is talking to a (female) prison clerk behind bulletproof glass, and they're having trouble hearing each other, and we have trouble seeing each of them through the glass. What more perfect way to illustrate the necessity of clear communication? I think there may be a lot more to this film than I saw in it, because I focused so heavily on the title and saw everything in the light of talk and nothing else, so this is a film I will need to see more than once.

original title: Hable con Ella
year: 2002
length: 112 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0287467/combined