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

Open Range

Since I don't much like Westerns, I'm not sure why I was inclined to rent this film. Like everyone else, I probably want to give Kevin Costner just one more chance to prove he can act AND can bring in the money. It seems as if he (or his producers) are catching on, since he doesn't headline this film, Robert Duvall does. And yet there's another actor I don't always enjoy (mostly for the giggling-while-talking affectation). But I liked this film just fine. Maybe because it's talking about an issue that really occurred out West (as opposed to the West as a fantasy world, which is mostly why I don't like the genre) -- the point in time when free range cattlemen started to butt heads with ranchers and their barbed wire. Maybe because it also stars Annette Bening, who is one of the few brave women over 45 who will act without gobs and gobs of makeup. Maybe because it's not macho, and while full of cliches, manages to say some pithy things about human relationships. Maybe because Costner is not so bad. At acting or at directing. I like his take-it-slow approach very much. So, I'm willing yet again to give him that one more chance. But I do wish he would choose a comedy next -- he has a fine comedic range (see Dances With Wolves again) that's barely been tapped.

year: 2003
length: 139 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316356/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

Last Orders

This film is not just affecting for old(er) people, as much as you may have heard the contrary. The tale of a group of friends who perform the last orders of one of their group who has just died, involving a trek across England, it is populated by every late-middle-aged actor in England who wasn't in Gosford Park (for which they should be thanking their lucky stars). Excepting Helen Mirren, who was in both. My only real complaint with the film is that even with headphones on, it was difficult to understand the Cockney accent, particularly Bob Hoskins'. (Is that really the same guy from Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Amazing.) I like what one amateur reviewer said on Netflix: "I had trouble understanding some of the Cockney...but the mumbling made it even worse. For you who would say 'get over it,' I'd say 'bugger off'." It does make it more difficult to understand what's happening, at least in the beginning, but as time progressed I found I wasn't noticing it as much. Perhaps because the film started to pick up speed, or if not speed, at least it resorted to more flashbacks to fill in the parts you didn't understand in the characters' lives. I guess I just didn't love the ending. It felt too sewn up and too easily reconciled. But other than this semi-Hollywood ending, I think it will appeal to many for its sweetness and slowness.

year: 2001
length: 109 min.
rating: 3.0
review written: March 25, 2004
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253200/combined

The Way Things Go

Here's a film I can't be erudite about. It's just too much fun to watch! (And you'll probably want to watch it over and over and over...) I know that it was made by performance and video artists, and that should make it worthy of analysis. Instead, I just like to enjoy what they created. OK, enough suspense! The plot...there is no plot. Swiss artists Peter Fischli and David Weiss took the contents of their studio and created a Rube Goldberg device out of them. Y'know, this thing knocks over that thing, which causes this thing to boil over, which makes this thing ring a bell. (See the beginning of Back to the Future for a simplistic Goldberg apparatus.) If you listen with headphones, you can tell their studio is situated near an airport and that there's a drippy faucet in the background, but it doesn't take away from the sheer amazement of their creation And, if you want to see what they're doing now, view the new Honda commercial. Sleeker, slicker and made only of Honda parts.

original title: Der Lauf der Dinge
year: 1987
length: 30 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094300/combined

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

With the arguable failure of the second film in the trilogy, the filmmakers felt they had to fall back onto tried-and-true methods. And, the first 15 minutes falls along exactly the same plot lines as the first film -- thrilling chase, back at the university, Marcus Brody and he at a house, flying to their destination, more exciting chases. But, hey, tried-and-true can be comforting sometimes. And, in this case, things get a kick in the pants when Sean Connery shows up. I've always been somewhat iffy on both leading men (they seem fairly stuck up), but in this film at least Connery gets to show his chops. Not that Harrison Ford is any slouch, but we're used to him from the other two films, so he's nothing new. A distant, equally driven, foreboding father -- now that's something interesting. And Connery plays it straight, which makes the character much funnier than the filmmakers perhaps intended him to be. The plot follows the usual Terry and the Pirates type plot of the other two -- high adventure in exotic places, in this case fighting Nazis (again) to recover The Holy Grail (instead of the Ark of the Covenant). Unfortunately, the DVDs come as a trilogy set, but the second one isn't so bad on later viewing. Now I just have to get around to writing those reviews...

year: 1989
length: 127 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097576/combined

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

I can't believe it. Charlie Kaufman actually made a date film. After the fiasco that was Adaptation (yes, my own opinion, not necessarily others), I was wary of watching another of his scripts. Well, this one is, um, spotless. The film has impeccable acting, direction, special effects and editing. I'll start with the latter. The film jumps around quite a bit in its timeline (a la Memento or 21 Grams), but it has some of the tightest editing I've seen. Not at all difficult to figure out when you are, which is also a testament to the direction (amusing as both Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet have stated that they never understood a word the director was telling them). Carrey and Winslet do some of their best, if not absolutely their best, acting ever. And unbelievably, Winslet gets to do the crazy stuff while Carrey plays it serious. I'm not going to say anything about the special effects, because it would give far too much away. In fact, I'm not sure I want to say anything about the plot for the same reason. You should go into the film knowing almost nothing about it (that's probably a good idea with all Kaufman scripts), but you definitely, absolutely should see it. With a loved one, if at all possible.

year: 2004
length: 108 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338013/combined

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