A Bug's Life

I keep thinking I've reviewed this, but that's because Pixar films all sit in the same memory space in my head. As much as I love all Pixar films, this one is a cut above. It seems to have more moral heft (persevering in the face of daunting odds, chasing your dreams, learning confidence) than the others do. That could be gaggy, but it's placed in such a whimsical setting that we don't notice the educational overtones. Besides, you giggle through the entire thing. A caterpillar with a twisted German accent? A droll walking stick? A bumbling inventor ant? The characters are brilliant creations, but I think what sets Pixar films above other animated films is their storylines. Granted, this is fantasy, so you have a lot of leeway, but I never notice plot holes, continuity problems or dangling sub- plots when I watch these films. I don't know much about screenwriting (okay, I don't know anything about screenwriting) and the differences between writing for animation and for live- action, but they must be doing something better at Pixar or else I'd be as much in awe of Disney's animated works. OK, sure, the animation is like photorealism. It's mind-boggling. Still, I think without their genius at telling a good story, Pixar would never be where it is today. Beloved by 3-year olds, in body and in spirit, everywhere!

year: 1998
length: 96 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120623/combined

Samurai II: Duel at Ichijoji Temple

I wasn't sure this second part of the trilogy would be better than the first part. It is mostly because Toshirô Mifune was the actor he was. In the first part, he's a silly, mistaken young man who thinks that war is cool and life's going to be easy. He'll make a hero of himself in the war and become a samurai. That film has him learning that becoming a samurai involves sacrifice and a lot of very hard work. This film opens with him proving that he has become a good warrior but still not yet a samurai. Not a silly boy anymore, though, and that's Mifune's strength as an actor. He shows us the path of this man's life, his foibles and his triumphs, and we have no trouble believing it. And empathizing as well. The second part is in color, but lit very darkly. It's rare that a scene takes place in the daytime. Sword fights take place at dusk and creeping around happens at night. The cinematography is even more incredible this time around, e.g., early silent (except for warrior yells and screams) battles through rice paddies and forests in the moonlight. There are more villainous characters in this part and it gets a little tough to keep everyone straight. In particular because there are two women in love with him from the first part and they continue to follow him and try to win his love in this part. I found the hand-wringing of the females quite irritating the further into the film I got. The women continually moan that they can't do anything else in life but follow him around. Yet he can't be with a woman because of his samurai code. His is a life of denial and heartbreak. I understand the oath he cannot break, but I find it difficult to accept the women's point of view. They supposedly love him because he's so honorable and better than all the other guys, but in fact he consistently ignores them. Are these women who only want what they can't have? I guess I'll have to wait for the third film to find out.

original title: Zoku Miyamoto Musashi: Ichijôji no Kettô
year: 1955
length: 104 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048579/combined

Winged Migration

I'm a former birder, so I'm bound to love this film. But I think that there will be few people who won't thoroughly enjoy it. You'd think you'd be bored watching birds flying for 98 minutes with very little commentary to accompany them. You'll be surprised! These birds fly incredibly long distances twice a year in order to feed (e.g., the Arctic Tern flies pole to pole twice a year, that's 12,500 miles each way). It seems incredible to me that they'd store energy for half a year just so they can expend all of that to get somewhere and start over. Wouldn't it be easier just to hibernate for a few months?! Anyway, it doesn't matter why they do it, it's incredible to watch the process. The filmmakers spent 4 years making this film (so, yes, that is the WTC in the background as the birds fly past NYC) using ultralight aircraft and, apparently, some specially trained birds. Most of the film is from the viewpoint of a bird in the flock looking at the bird next to him. You can even hear the birds breathing and the feathers ruffling. Perhaps this feels so special because it seems as if you're flying with the birds, and who hasn't dreamed of being able to fly? I hope there's a meta-documentary on how they made this film because I think they should be given a medal just for developing a method of filming birds in flight that's so breathtaking.

original title: Le Peuple Migrateur
year: 2001
length: 98 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0301727/combined

Whale Rider

The emotions ride very close to the surface in this film, so you can expect to get very weepy watching it. It's nearly like watching melodrama (which usually is too sticky for me), except that it is saved by being rooted in legend. A young girl, born of a line of chiefs of the Maori people of New Zealand, is passed up for training to become the next chief because of her gender. It becomes apparent that she is "the one" (much more clearly than Neo in The Matrix) as she develops what can only be called powers that only she possesses. While the film's overt theme is discrimination, this is not its only feature. In the end, the film is as much about gender as it is about the nearly- forgotten mysticism of the Maori, and their hopes and dreams. Quite a difficult balance to achieve, and it's done beautifully. The girl chosen to play the main character is a marvel. She is able to play stubborn but not petulant, sad but not weepy (except in one very well-done scene), a tomboy but also plainly a girl. Weirdly, she looks like a very young Jennifer Beals (which is distracting for those who remember Flashdance). The scenery is not as extra-special gorgeous as in The Lord of the Rings series. You see how the Maori people live, and it's quite similar to the reservations here in America.

year: 2002
length: 105 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298228/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

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

All I remembered about this film was the last 10 minutes. Yeah, a darn amazing last 10 minutes, true! But I couldn't remember one word of the rest of the film so I knew it was time to see it again. As my ancient movie reviews book at home states (the one I go to when I'm too lazy to boot up the computer), this film works on so many levels. While I think I'd have to start a dissertation to find them all, what I was most impressed by was how Jack Nicholson and, in particular, Louise Fletcher developed their characters. Nicholson plays a man who has compassion for his fellow human beings, no matter whether they're supposedly insane or not, while Fletcher as the nurse has no compassion whatsoever for her patients. Nicholson is the only person who could have played R. P. McMurphy. He makes him completely real and believable. Fletcher's role is much more subtle. You see her character modulate her voice and be consistently polite (although not nice) by using her patient's last names. By creating a character that we can easily imagine meeting, she makes us detest that character more than if it were a black "Darth Vader" caricature. On the other hand, I'm sure that when I watched it before, I sided completely with Nicholson's character. This time I viewed it from more angles, and it made the film that much more complex. Who really is to blame for what happens to Billy? That's a tough question, one which will be part of that dissertation I write. Last word, though: Kirk Douglas, who starred in the play, championed this film for years, and from the beginning thought Milos Forman was the perfect director for it. He eventually passed it off to his son, Michael, to find a producer who would be willing to make it. From start to finish, it took 13 years to make. Definitely better late than never.

year: 1975
length: 133 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073486/combined

Paths of Glory

You've probably figured out that I'm viewing a lot of classics and auteur films in my quest to see anything that's worthwhile watching. (According to whom? Well, that's another discussion.) It seems that half the time I rent one of these films it lives up to its hype. The other half of the time I'm usually perplexed. I'm getting the feeling that some of the time this can be chalked up to the subject matter, e.g., war films aren't usually my favorite. And sometimes I feel that the film is dated, e.g., 1930s brand of silliness can be very un-funny now. The remainder of this other half I pigeonhole into a category I'm going to call "doesn't have that zsa zsa zsu to it." In the case of this film, I'm placing it in the latter category. I've been known to really like war films (e.g., Patton) and potentially dated films (e.g., It Happened One Night). But if a film doesn't have anything to make me sit up and pay attention then it lands in the last category. This film has a rather pedestrian script -- three soldiers who are accused of being cowards are sentenced to death, and the only one who can save them is their commander, played by Kirk Douglas. The entire film is about the politics of war. It has what is considered an incredible ending, but which missed the boat in my opinion because it yanks the viewer away from musing about bureaucracy and politics into the broader context of "war is bad." Which is completely true, but that's not what the film is about. This is one of Stanley Kubrick's first films and I'm not sure he'd found his sea legs yet. It's better than average, but not anywhere near as masterful as A Clockwork Orange or Eyes Wide Shut. I'm guessing I'll get another round of hate mail about this, so if you'd like to disagree with me, I'd appreciate someone telling me what all the hype is about.

year: 1957
length: 87 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050825/combined

Minority Report

It's surprising to me that the film industry doesn't do more to honor Steven Spielberg. Isn't he due for at least four lifetime achievement awards? His two films last year, this one and Catch Me If You Can, are both masterful, entertaining and thoughtful. In this film, he creates a believable future 50 years from now (I can definitely see personalized advertising on a walk through the mall in my lifetime) showcasing a police force that can capture you just as you are about to commit a murder. His long-time collaborater, Janusz Kaminski, uses overexposure to create harshly bright images with unfocused edges, perfect for a futuristic film. And it stars two of my favorite actors -- Tom Cruise and Colin Farrell (the latter one of my three favorite actors under 35; I'll let you guess the other two). As well as Samantha Morton, who ranks up there with Emily Watson in terms of heartfelt, passionate acting. Naturally, since it's Spielberg, the themes of family are very close to the surface, and that works very nicely until the second to last scene, which was so like the last scene of Bend It Like Beckham that I had to roll my eyes. Despite a few missteps, the film is one of the few fantastic sci-fi flicks around, hence the rating.

year: 2002
length: 145 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/combined

Swing Time

The thing about this film is that no matter how swell the dancing is (and it is mouth-gapingly swell), or how great the costumes are, or how many old classic songs are included, it's still kinda boring. I mean, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers weren't exactly honed actors or singers. The film is sweet, but so tame. And the jokes aren't particularly funny. Except for Astaire's right-hand man, Victor Moore, who is funny because of his schtick of having trouble enunciating. Anyway, cross your fingers that Astaire films come out on DVD someday so that you can employ the ever-so-useful chapter stops. And then watch Easter Parade first, which is a first-rate Astaire flick, and not least of all because it also stars Judy Garland.

year: 1936
length: 103 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028333/combined

The Night of the Hunter

I'm hesitant to give this film any kind of rating. I feel compelled to give it a higher rating because of its honest depiction of child abuse, but I had some trouble following the tale or enjoying the overly theatrical acting. I did like the fact that it was a quirky set piece (the river the children escape on flows in five different directions, kind of like they're boating in a Jacuzzi) and I thought Lillian Gish was the tops as the compassionate foster mother at the end, but it was simply way too weird for me to really enjoy. Robert Mitchum plays a fake preacher who marries rich widows, but he's picked the wrong woman this time because she doesn't know where her husband hid the money. He tries to force it out of the kids, who do know, but they prove stronger than him. In fact, the scene I thought was best occurs when the authorities finally take him away and the boy he has abused goes into a tantrum and desperately wants to give him the money he's held back for so long. And won't accuse his stepfather in court. Which is the evidence of child abuse -- the controller is hated by the abused but also embodies the one person that the abused needs to receive love and acceptance from. The cycle of control is something that's very hard to stop. (And if you want a heartbreaking and particularly well-written book on the subject, I heartily recommend A Hole in the World by Richard Rhodes, the autobiography of his childhood.)

year: 1955
length: 93 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048424/combined