Before Sunrise

Yet another film I'd think was sent from heaven if I was in my mid-twenties! (i.e ., angsty Garden State-like film). The tale of two twenty-somethings who meet on a train, one an American (Ethan Hawke) moping his way through Europe towards Vienna where he has a last night before heading home, the other a French woman (Julie Delpy) on her way home to Paris for school. I'd heard so much good stuff about this flick, that it was this big thought piece with lots of insight into the human condition. On some level it is, being a conversation between a woman and a man about most of the things that we find interesting. But, actually it's simply a bunch of stories strung together, the same stories you'll talk about with your friends, except maybe not all in one night. But what makes these stories special? We all spend time thinking about the questions in these stories in the course of our lives, which is of course why this film would work better for the younger crowd. Positive things about the film include the gradual revealing of differences between Hawke's character and Delpy's (e. g., Hawke's skepticism vs. Delpy's optimism) and an excellent scene in a restaurant where they make fake phone calls to friends. I found Hawke a bit irritating because he was trying too hard, not making it natural-looking enough. Still, there was definitely chemistry between the two stars, without which it would have been like watching fingernails on a chalkboard. I remain, even with reservations, interested in watching the follow-up, Before Sunset, which takes place ten years later, if for no other reason than to see if they've learned anything in those ten years. After all, what good is listening to people talk about life that they haven't lived yet?

year: 1995
length: 105 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112471/combined

The Magdalene Sisters

These Magdalene Asylums in Ireland were set up to house and care for women (the Magdalene Sisters) who had borne children out of wedlock, or even women who seemed to be good bets for tempting men. Horrible things, these asylums, and not necessarily only because of the hard slave labor conditions, or the cruel attitudes of the nuns who ran these asylums. The horror of these places was that these women were separated from their babies and sent away by their families, in some cases for the rest of their lives. It is as if these women ceased to exist. That's certainly what the Church wanted, to weed out these women from general society. Problem is, they'd done nothing wrong. They hadn't killed, stolen or maimed anyone. They'd had a child out of wedlock, which is immoral and a mortal sin in the Catholic faith, but doesn't warrant someone being "disappeared" from society. Unfortunately, while the film shows us the cruelty of these places and the desperate measures some girls went to to try and escape, it doesn't tell us what happened to these asylums and why they were finally closed (the last one in 1996). Even the documentary that the film was based on, which is part of the DVD, doesn't address this. So, the film felt incomplete to me -- if this cruelty is the basis for the film, at least do us the favor of telling us why it stopped happening! Did the women who escaped or were released let the world know? Was there public outcry? Did those who ran these institutions finally discover the errors of their ways? Without this, it's just melodrama, and that's a pity.

year: 2002
length: 119 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318411/combined

I Heart Huckabees

It's taken me some time to get to this review. I just don't know how to describe this film. In one sense, it's a straight drama. In another, it's a thought piece sorta like Eternal Sunshine. In yet another, it's a mystery, although in a dramatic, thought-provoking manner. OK, I give up -- it's a film on many levels. David O. Russell gets the prize as the most scattered (and antagonistic) director, and it's hard to believe he can put together so coherent a film. It revolves around a number of very different characters -- the poet turned environmental activist, the perfect company man, the existential detectives themselves (Lily Tomlin and Dustin Hoffman), a competing existential analyst, a tormented firefighter, a beautiful model. You wouldn't think these people have anything in common but that's where Russell's style worked for me. They discuss their life issues with each other (and I mean "why are we here" type issues) until you understand that everyone has the same life issues, in the long run. Some of the scenes are painful to watch, such as when the parents of the poet/activist are confronted by the existential analyst. Some of the childhood anaylsis that ensues hit me hard in the solar plexus. But most of it is funny. Mark Wahlberg getting hit repeatedly in the face with a big rubber ball can only be funny. If there's a false note, it's Jude Law's American accent, which sounds too contrived. Otherwise, he, and the rest of the actors, are marvelous. It's not possible to offer more of a storyline, suffice it to say that there is one and you will be rewarded for paying close attention.

year: 2004
length: 106 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356721/combined

Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason

Ugh. The worst kind of sequel is one that doesn't do anything different from its predecessor. One that uses the same gags, in the same order, with exactly the same cast of characters. (Sub- supporting characters notwithstanding.) This film has all those things, and if you like your films with no surprises, go see this one. It's got all the original stuff: the jealousy, Hugh Grant messing up the works, the enormous panties, the fist fight, etc., etc. Of course, this one does have the Thai prison in it, but it's treated so differently from its presence in the book (where it was clear that it actually was a hardship) as to be faintly embarrassing to those of us who've read it. The filmmakers seem to be trying to stuff Renée Zellweger's derriere into tighter and tighter dresses, all merely for the giggle effect, which is simply boring. Zellweger's character also seems to wobble more than in the original between being a woman with a firm grasp of what she wants and a gibbering idiot. I just would have preferred a different cinematic approach (if you can use the word cinematic in this review without getting thrown out of the Amateur Reviewers Club). I would recommend reading the book instead -- it's funny, fresh, and weirder than the first in parts, in other words much more fun that this snorer.

year: 2004
length: 108 min.
rating: 1.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317198/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

Igby Goes Down

A film with no soul. Every line in this movie sounds like it was uttered by haughty, sophisticated, extremely well-bred morons. It's prep taken far too far. In other words, I didn't like it because I don't want to believe these people exist any more than I want to believe religious fundamentalists exist. Kieran Culkin reminds me of a cuter, younger Tobey Maguire. Same mannerisms, same baby face. The film is loaded with top actors, some of them even playing against type (although Claire Danes does indulge in one of her trademark chin-quivering scenes). But who cares? It's all ridiculous -- son hates mother, with fewer reasons we can discern as the film progresses, while getting kicked out of all the schools she labors to put him in, seemingly only as an act of rebellion. This is a great example of a youth angst film that's the complete opposite of Garden State. The latter was sweet and charming because you felt empathy for the main characters. In this film, you feel nothing but contempt for these poor little rich kids.

year: 2002
length: 97 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280760/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

24 Hour Party People

Is it a documentary? Is it a mockumentary? Is it a biography? Yes. The story of Tony Wilson's efforts to bring punk rock to the world, beginning in Manchester, England, with all the obvious roadblocks included (e.g., punk? ew!, packed rave hall but no funds, insane musician-producer contracts). Could have been interesting as a straight-up documentary, but instead is played as a comedy with Wilson's role filled by comedian Steve Coogan. And mostly it is funny, with all the missteps and faux- violent attitudes of punk rockers, except when it's deadly serious (as when the lead singer of a seminal band dies). It's also got some unique hallucinogenic film "enhancements," such as a UFO segment that needs to be seen to be believed. The filmmakers are doing their best to mimic the feel of the punk rock movement and if nothing else it is interesting. But if punk wasn't or isn't your life, the impact of the film is less than intended. I would recommend it as slice-of-culture entertainment, and to see Coogan in a role perfect for his cynical talents.

year: 2002
length: 117 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0274309/combined

The Village

I certainly liked this film better than Signs. Those dorky-looking aliens stretched the limits of plausibility and ruined the whole film for me. This film has nothing so tangibly out of sync, however, it is a Shyamalan film, so you can assume the surprise ending. If you listen very closely, there will be no surprise (hint: listen for what's not being said), but even if you figure it out (for me it came during the wedding party, as the issue of sister bonding is being discussed) it's clever enough and revealed slowly enough to be recognized as a decent plot device. What matters is that the surprise is not what the film is about, and it separates this film from the rest of the Shyamalan pack. One has to wonder if he wrote it during the mass despair following 9/11. To me, it channeled the zeitgeist of America then (as it is now), i.e., our culture of fear. The "village" of the title is a community living in a valley surrounded by woods populated by fearsome beasts, keeping the villagers content in the life they've built but constantly scared of what could take it all away. Sound familiar? Populated by able actors including William Hurt, Joaquin Phoenix and especially the marvelous Bryce Dallas Howard as a young brave blind woman. There are further themes in the film, but they are obvious only after the surprise is revealed, so I'll leave them for you to discover.

year: 2004
length: 107 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368447/combined

Duel

I've been noticing lately a clear division between excellent films and everything else. That sounds obvious written down, but let me explain. A handful (maybe a few dozen) of films I feel I can recommend to anyone and be certain that 99% of those people will recognize their greatness. Everything else is opinion -- people can either love or hate a film depending on whether they like the actors, the theme, or the mood of the film (or what mood they're in when they go to see it). This film is one of those handful and its description is bound to increase your skepticism of my theory. A guy driving to a meeting is terrorized by a large truck. That's it. Based on a short story originally published in Playboy, it was picked up by Steven Spielberg's assistant at the start of his career, as he was shooting 1960s TV episodes. And as boring as it sounds, I place this first film at the same level as Spielberg's most serious (and masterful) effort, Schindler's List. Go right ahead and be skeptical -- the more you are, the more pleased you will be by the end result. If you rent the DVD, watch the featurette interviewing Spielberg about the making of the film. If he isn't teaching potential filmmakers, he should be. He's one of the few visionary directors who can also excels at discussing technical and compositional issues of film directing. And he's passionate and intelligent which only improves his appeal. My favorite point of his from the featurette is how important it is for a film director to believe in the film he is making -- whether it's Jurassic Park or Amistad -- because if you don't believe in it, why will the audience?

year: 1971
length: 90 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067023/combined