Painted Fire

I don't have a good way to describe this type of film. While it is considered an art film, or an independent film depending on your outlook, and therefore has a unique style of storytelling and cinematography, the deeper meaning it purports to have never strikes a chord in the viewer, namely me. I suppose you could call films like this "smart art with no heart," or something like that. It's not true that this film has no heart -- the tale of a famous Korean painter from the late 1800s, who learned from the masters, but never fit into their world -- because you empathize with the painter as he struggles to gain an understanding of art and produce something unique, but you're not sure you believe in him all the time. He was, apparently, something of a boor, needing (essentially) wine, women and song to create his art. This is told unflinchingly, and it's an important part of the difference between the painter and his masters, and yet we remain confused because we see him alternately meek and subservient in front of his masters or famous people, and rowdy and obnoxious in front of the very same. If nothing else, we understand how tormented his life was, and we are educated in the creation of Korean (and Asian in general) painting from that period.

original title: Chihwaseon
year: 2002
length: 117 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317234/combined

Iris

Some folks I asked about this film were either unaware that it dealt with Alzheimer's or thought that if it was primarily about Alzheimer's they should have used a non-famous person in the title role. I have to respectfully disagree. This film is incredibly moving precisely because a famous author, renowned for her ability with words, declines due to the disease. And I'd also have to disagree that the film is primarily about Alzheimer's. Not true -- the film is really about love. While the main characters, Iris Murdoch and her husband John Bayley, love each other it doesn't seem like the same kind of love. Iris' is secretive; John's is full-on devotion. And that makes a world of difference when the disease captures her. While the film is based on his memoirs, so events and feelings are filtered through his eyes, not hers, it seems like an accurate portrayal of Iris and the disease. We see all the saddest characteristics of the disease (the one that sticks out in my mind is when she decides the living room is the bathroom), yet it's told with great tenderness and, well, love. Both Judi Dench and Kate Winslet bring Iris alive for us, but the award definitely goes to (and did go to) Jim Broadbent for his portrayal of the husband. What a chameleon this actor is -- he's great at playing a sad sack (e.g., Bridget Jones' Diary), but then he explodes on the scene as in Moulin Rouge! and we have to modify our opinion one more time.

year: 2001
length: 91 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280778/combined

Bruce Almighty

The trailer for this film was hysterically funny. I must have made more than a few people watch it with me. But I worried. Were those all the funny bits? Was it one of those trailers that gives too much away, so that when you finally watch the film, it's a major letdown? I suppose I shouldn't have watched the trailer over and over again, because well, uh, yeah, it was. I like Jim Carrey even though sometimes he makes me want to bite my fingernails to the quick. And I admire that he's been quite successful in not-necessarily-comedic roles. But this poor film is trying too hard to blend slapstick comedy and philosophy. It most definitely doesn't succeed. Meeting God, disbelieving in God, getting excited about being God, learning that those powers aren't what he wants, that he just wants to be happy and have the people around him be happy, ho hum. I could have written this myself. Still, it's amusing for the parts in which he's trying out God's powers. Jennifer Aniston surprised me as well (though she moved down a notch from The Good Girl), not for her role, which was your typical boring girlfriend role, but for a scene in which she cries over losing Carrey. She really isn't a bad dramatic actress, and I hope she stops hesitating and jumps into those roles again.

year: 2003
length: 101 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315327/combined

Blue Car

Others might consider this a slight film, in that everything seems to happen inside the characters' heads and there isn't a "large" plot or even a great deal of action. Kinda like Pieces of April and films like that. But what the film ends up saying, or actually shouting out loud, is worth the rental. It may be that I was so moved by the film because it's about a girl in high school, and hey, I've been there before. In her case, though, her family has been torn apart. Her sister won't eat and her mother is too busy to take care of them, so she takes out her frustrations in poetry. Her English teacher sees her talent and encourages her to enter a poetry contest. This all sounds benign, but feelings run very close to the surface, and those erupt during the course of the film. The under-rated David Strathairn plays the teacher and the perfectly cast Agnes Bruckner plays the girl. Strathairn is a veteran of John Sayles films, so he's familiar with subtle acting. He helps create an atmosphere in which although you know what's going to happen, and you can see it coming a mile away, it doesn't make it less abhorrent when it does. When Bruckner finally reads her poetry at the contest, you can't help but be moved by this lost child who attempts to hold her life together while everyone in her life is failing her, and not only holds her head above water but triumphs. Every young girl should watch this film (although I imagine many parents might be wary of that advice), if only because it's a wonderful example of overcoming adversity.

year: 2002
length: 96 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290145/combined

Something's Gotta Give

Somebody in the movie theater was tsk-ing through all the scenes of Diane Keaton sobbing over her broken heart, but in fact that's mostly what I liked about this film. Keaton's brilliance as an actor is in giving us something that looks very real; something we could do or could have done at some point in our lives. Unbelievably, I used to avoid films she was in because she irritated or annoyed me, but now I realize that she acts directly from the heart, and that's a gift. Nancy Meyers, though, must be kicking herself for not titling this film what she titled her previous film, What Women Want, since that's really what this film is about. Or at least, it's about what older women want...from men. Which makes this ultimately a date movie -- boys and girls of various ages falling into and out of love. Jack Nicholson, as the main man, is very good as is, believe it or not, Keanu Reeves (as the younger man who immediately sees Keaton's charms). The writing has its high points, but we unfortunately are tossed a typical Hollywood ending with babies and smiles, as if that's what life is all about. So, in the long run, even with Keaton's talents, the film leaves you wondering what you just saw and whether it actually meant anything.

year: 2003
length: 128 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337741/combined

28 Days Later...

I was kinda afraid to watch this film. I mean, it's ostensibly billed as a horror film, and I only just realized I can watch horror films without having nightmares three nights running (probably an effect of that horrible Space:1999 episode from when I was a child). But my favorite critic was using phrases like "this is a punk rock zombie movie" and trying to prove that it really was a horror film, as opposed to what other critics might be saying, so I knew I had to give it a go. It is definitely a punk- rock flick. A bicycle messenger wakes up from a coma in London and discovers, well, no one. Everyone seems to be gone (and how they filmed London with no people in it proves that those in charge in London are cooler than, say, those in New York). And then the mad zombies start to attack. It's got its funny and poignant bits, no doubt, but I was yelping in some scenes. I was also too interested in the final outcome to look away for too long. Acted well by a cast of what I considered unknowns, it doesn't make me want to rent Dawn of the Dead or, for goodness sake, Friday the 13th, but it gave me an appreciation of horror films and it was entertaining, in the end.

year: 2002
length: 113 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/combined

Duplex

Another film watched on the transatlantic flight back from Copenhagen. See, it's difficult for someone who watches so much film to have this cool little video unit in your seat, and have watched 98% of the films listed. You end up watching dopey ones you would never pay money for, in the theater or on DVD. I really like Ben Stiller; I think he's one of our best comedic actors (I have a special fondness for Keeping the Faith, albeit for more reasons than that), but he gets involved in some fairly silly projects (Starsky and Hutch, anyone?). Alongside Drew Barrymore the potential for a quality project sinks even lower. You can guess what it's about -- two young yuppie types buy a home in NYC but are terrorized by the sweet old lady upstairs. In the process, they nearly destroy the house. There are funny scenes, e.g., installing the clapper, the raisin / mouse turd (yup, you betcha), but it's just, well, dumb. I would recommend skipping this film and renting the much funnier Tom Hanks / Shelley Long film The Money Pit (or The 'burbs, for that matter).

year: 2003
length: 97 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266489/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

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

Intolerable Cruelty

In the interest of full disclosure, I watched this film on the plane to Geneva, Switzerland last month. (Yes, yes, this is how far behind I've gotten. It's actually worse than that. I have films back to *gasp* December that I haven't reviewed yet.) I'm sure this film was cut for the plane ride, but I have doubts that more of what I saw would have made it a better experience for me. Although my viewing of the film was almost definitely also colored by the woman next to me upchucking not once but three times (count 'em, three times) during the flight. So! While the impossibly handsome George Clooney and the scrumptiously voluptuous Catherine Zeta-Jones are, naturally, fun to watch there's little in the plot of this film that's appealing. Hard to believe it's a Coen brothers flick. Meant to be a comedy it follows the "travails" of Zeta-Jones and her lawyer, Clooney, in extricating her from the bonds of holy matrimony. Clooney, of course, is against marriage, while Zeta-Jones is all for it, but for the wrong reasons. In the long run, the film gives us no one to root for, and the conclusion is ridiculous, to put it mildly. The best part of the film is the beginning in which Geoffrey Rush, of all people, gets to show flamboyant acting chops while getting cuckolded.

year: 2003
length: 100 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0138524/combined