Proof of Life

Way too much has been written about this film -- affair between its stars, difficulty of shooting in the Andes, freak accident killing a stand-in for one of the principal characters. Now I understand why everyone focused on these points. There wasn't much else to write about. It's a noble effort -- Taylor Hackford (of the unbeatable biopic Ray) used a magazine article as inspiration for a tale of the kidnapping of a (supposed) influential U.S. citizen at work building a dam in South America. The article described how insurance companies (so, in this case, the company that insures the corporation building the dam) use negotiators to buy back these citizens. You have the citizen, David Morse, a less well-known actor whom I've always enjoyed (particularly in Lars von Trier's Dancer in the Dark). You have the citizen's wife, Meg Ryan, doing her best not to fall into her standard comedic personality. Unfortunately, it shows. And you have Russell Crowe, without whom the film would have stunk unbearably. Oh, and don't forget David Caruso, who enters the picture normally enough but exits in one of the strangest turns I've ever seen an actor make. It left me wincing. No wonder he's done nothing of note since leaving NYPD Blue. For the plot itself, you know what's going to happen, so the film is simply biding its time getting to "the good bit." And that bit is decent, but not enough for a recommendation. You're better off renting Speed again.

year: 2000
length: 135 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0228750/combined

Proof

If I were a filmmaker, I would have approached telling this story with trepidation. A blind man whose life's endeavor is taking photographs, who has been surrounded by less than trustworthy people all his life, who has searched in vain for someone he can believe in, while lacking the proof needed to cement that trust. Already you can see the intricacies of telling such a tale simply and clearly. The only way it can be done is to hire actors who can put as much into expressions and movement as they do into the words they say. Jocelyn Moorhouse picked well. Hugo Weaving as the blind photographer, Geneviève Picot (an actress whose talents haven't reached Hollywood yet) as the bitter, scheming housekeeper, and Russell Crowe as the photographer's new friend. Each of these actors has fleshed out a tangible character that fits inside Moorhouse's story with no visible gaps. Each series of scenes took my breath away -- in particular, the drive-in theater and consequent crazed driving sequence, and the arguable climax of the film as Picot invites Crowe to her house for the first time. If there is a fault to the film it is that it's somewhat chilly, but that choice was necessary if only for that scene to work. It's been a long time since I've been moved so much by the ending (in this case, the dénouement) of a film. We get the proof of what we've been hoping is true, but do we, the viewer, see the proof? The essence of the film -- that proof is unattainable -- is gracefully summarized in those last few scenes. I can't recommend this film highly enough.

year: 1991
length: 86 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102721/combined

The Parent Trap

Hayley Mills is simply marvelous (and I understand she was never this marvelous again) in the role of twins who want to get their parents back together again so one won't have to live with one parent and the other with the other. This concept is, obviously, ridiculous in this day and age -- without a clue as to why they separated in the first place, the girls figure together must be better than apart, because surely a miserable family together is better than a miserable family apart. Sure, whatever. What they didn't know in 1961! Some of the other things they didn't know back then include how to match the speed of a fake background with the actual speed the actors are walking. Did they just not care about stuff like that? (It's Disney, perhaps it's supposed to look artificial.) Or did they just not have the technical know-how to do it right? Heck, the actors look like they're on roller skates! And, one of the songs is quite fun -- "Let's Get Together" -- but the Maureen O'Hara tune is cringe-worthy. O'Hara may be many things, but a lip-syncher she ain't. Probably the most egregious example of how clueless they were is the flippant use of violence, in this case O'Hara punching her husband, Brian Keith. It's worked in as part of the story, not at all horror-inducing. Eep. So, what makes this film worth watching? Mills, working both sides. She flawlessly plays the sisters as separate personalities (except when the story wants them to be alike), and is the perfect mixture of rebel and sweet. Just what any parent would want in a child.

year: 1961
length: 129 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055277/combined

Persuasion

This is the most non-Hollywood, plain-BBC version of a Jane Austen novel. Everything is as gray as you imagine while reading. Which gives the film that added veracity that is lacking in Emma and to a lesser extent in Sense and Sensibility. In this Austen rendition, a woman who has rejected a marriage proposal earlier in her life (see, they DO have slightly different themes) is confronted by the marriage proposee a decade later. What to do? She is a woman not unlike Emma Thompson's character in Sense and Sensibility -- she keeps her cards close to her chest, yet she feels strongly and deeply. Her fam ily is simply put quite stupid and she suffers heroically until her vindication. It's a well-acted film (except for Amanda Root's huge eyes which get in the way of the story as much as they are a part of the story), and it does its job but it's not as special as Sense and Sensibility. There's nothing wrong with it being the novel on screen, but the inevitable comparison leaves it lacking. So, here's what you've been waiting for -- the order you should see the films in from "worst" to best. Mansfield Park, Emma, Persuasion (these two are really a tie), Pride and Prejudice (reviewed earlier), and Sense and Sensibility. There. Now get to it.

year: 1995
length: 107 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114117/combined

Peter Pan

While I applaud the decision to cast a young boy as Peter Pan instead of a girl or young woman (as is traditional), I question the choice of actor. Jeremy Sumpter is a seductive actor. Perhaps a bit too seductive for a children's film. Maybe this is something children won't notice, but a 13-year old actor with bedroom eyes sort of threw me for a loop. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the original tale was designed as a love story between two pre-teen children. This would all be gloss except that the screenplay focuses nearly exclusively on the potential love between the two. It actually got pretty uncomfortable to watch in parts. Other than this, their sets were fun to look at, and two actors in particular stole the show: Jason Isaacs as Captain Hook (and also the dastardly Lucius Malfoy in the Potter movies) and Ludivine Sagnier as a speech-deficient Tinkerbell. It's a mindless fun video rental for adults, if you can get past the romantic love theme, but I'm not sure I'd let kids see it. It twists the boundaries in ways that tread on the forbidden.

year: 2003
length: 113 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316396/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

Pieces of April

I would have given this film my highest rating but for the digital medium in which it was filmed. You could argue that this type of film is perfect for a hand-held digital camera -- the character's edges are prickly and blurry just as the images are. And for most of the film, you don't notice it all that much. Except for the shots where the camera pans and all the colors bleed out the trailing edge. Or the shots outside which are horribly overexposed (although I'll concede that point if the filmmaker meant it to happen). It's clear it was made on the cheap, but the story itself isn't. An estranged daughter invites her family to NYC for a Thanksgiving dinner she and her boyfriend make. As the film progresses we see her undeniably sad cooking skills juxtaposed with the tensions that build in the family car. It's a sweet and tender film with some fantastic character actors, in particular Patricia Clarkson (from Far From Heaven fame) and Derek Luke (new it-boy from Antwone Fisher) and the ever-fresh Katie Holmes (from, believe it or not, Dawson's Creek). You can expect a true-meaning-of-Thanksgiving ending, with an extra added fillip to bring the story full circle.

year: 2003
length: 81 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0311648/combined

Paper Moon

You all know I think the world of Peter Bogdanovich, so I was thrilled when this finally came out on DVD, plus that it had three documentary shorts included. Before he started directing, he was an actor, and it shows in how good an interviewee he is for these documentaries. (His description of Orson Welles telling him what to do about the title of the film is a hoot.) It's not a hugely deep film or anything -- an orphaned girl travels with a friend of her mother's to Missouri and teaches him a thing or two about how to perfect his cons. Besides being sparklingly filmed in black and white, and using lots of lengthy shots and unique stunt scenes, it's a joy to watch the two O'Neal's acting together. Tatum got the Oscar because she's the perfect grouchy smart-as-a-whip tomboy who under that tough exterior is yearning to be loved. The ending should leave you smiling for a few hours.

year: 1973
length: 102 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070510/combined

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

I never expected to go see this flick. Action-adventure, tent-pole blockbuster, middle-of-summer trash is what I assumed. Then I heard inklings that it was a pile of fun so I succumbed. And it really is. It's all about pirates (duh), there's a complex plot plus love story, and a lot of money was spent on special effects. That's all you need to know going in, except maybe to get into the right mood first. What I mean is, it's rare that I've seen a film that relies so heavily on cliches. I'm sure that if I'd been in a sour mood this would have made my mood sourer, but if you're feelin' happy, this film will make you feel even more so. You have all the "Arrrrs!" you need, parrots on shoulders, gangplanks being walked, and more swordplay than you can shake a sword at. It's over the top, and it's supposed to be. The major drawback is its length. I love watching swordplay, but after 4 major fight scenes I was starting to wonder when they were going to wrap things up. Far and away the best thing about the film is Johnny Depp (although Orlando Bloom puts in a very nice performance). I think he's missed his calling. He should have been another Charlie Chaplin. He takes all those cliches and twists them around by creating a mad, fey character who will have you in stitches for nearly all of his scenes. Let's all keep our fingers crossed that he is chosen by Tim Burton for the title role in the new Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory film...

year: 2003
length: 143 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0325980/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

Phone Booth

I saw this film at a second-run theater because I didn't think it would be good enough for me to plunk down $8 to see. I guess I should have known better, based on the combination of Joel Schumacher and Colin Farrell. (Then again, I thought the combination of Jodie Foster and David Fincher would prove that Panic Room would be excellent, and I was unfortunately quite wrong.) Farrell proves he is an excellent actor, as well as a bonafide movie star since he can carry a film without any problem. You'd never know he's Irish (his character is from the Bronx), and you'd never know he'd done some iffy acting recently. This is a command performance. (Doesn't hurt at all that he's extremely easy on the eyes.) Schumacher creates an environment in which we forget that we are watching a guy in a phone booth for an hour and a half. The impact of the film is somewhat complex, which is probably why I like it so much. Who do we empathize with? The sniper who has Farrell's character in his sights? Farrell's character himself? Poor, downtrodden, pre-Giuliani NYC? And which of these is actually evil? Schumacher deliberately shows all sides, so that we leave the theater with conflicting emotions about the situation we've witnessed.

year: 2003
length: 81 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0183649/combined

Planet of the Apes

Unfortunately I'd never seen this before but did know about the famous ending, which I won't ruin for those few who haven't seen it. Although my guess is that it would not be hard to figure out where the film is heading. Charlton Heston as an astronaut explorer crash-lands on a planet several thousand years after heading out from Earth. The film is rife with 60s social commentary. I particularly liked the remarks about "never trusting anyone over 30" and Heston's opening monologue in which he wonders if humans "still fight our brothers." Do we hear sentiments like this anymore? (Pity. Well, at least for the latter.) The pacing was good (never boring), the special effects really didn't seem that bad (even when compared to the excruciating 2001 re-make), and the overarching ideology (that we are not as superior as we think we are) was never force-fed. Filming in Utah at Glen Canyon underscored that ideology. These insignificant little humans traipsing across this never-ending landscape...what better way to visually prove your point?

year: 1968
length: 112 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063442/combined

Pride and Prejudice

This is the first and the best Colin Firth film. Based, of course, on the Jane Austen novel, it's your basic romance novel but with lovely Brit accents and sentences that are deliciously complex. Plot: girl meets boy, girl hates boy, boy proposes marriage to girl, girl utterly rejects boy, girl discovers the errors of her ways. The film isn't really based on the novel; it IS the novel. I had no trouble watching the film after reading the book. They do add some lines that make the proposal scene all that more yummy. All the characters from the novel are acted pitch-perfectly in the film, especially the mother (who will tend to grate on your nerves), but Colin Firth takes the cake. Is there another actor around who simply by staring at the screen can evoke longing, desire, willpower, ache and sadness? He needs a new agent. What a Girl Wants? Ack. He's so much better than the fluff he's been choosing, Bridget Jones's Diary notwithstanding.

year: 1995
length: 327 min. (6-part mini-series)
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112130/combined

Picnic at Hanging Rock

This film will haunt you. It's slow-paced, so for those of you who like action or animated discourse...this one isn't for you. A group of Victorian college girls picnic at an Australian landmark, Hanging Rock, one Valentine's Day and several of the party go missing. The dominoes keeping the college functioning start to topple from the weight of the mystery of the disappearances. All the elements of the film serve the same purpose -- the music (this low thrumming that causes your hackles to rise immediately), the repeated-image cinematography (okay, we've seen that rocky outcropping half a dozen times now and it gets creepier each time!), and the story itself (the mystery's never been solved). One scene (actually multiple scenes) in particular was designed to frighten. Many times the film takes us towards a passage in the rocks where whatever happened happened, and each time we get a little closer to seeing what's beyond those rocks, but never quite get there. And that's the beauty of the film -- Peter Weir took an unsolved mystery and filmed it so we feel that mystery the entire time we're watching its story.

year: 1975
length: 115 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073540/combined

The Pianist

Really, it's a horror film, the horror of the Warsaw ghetto during the Holocaust. While there may be people out there who would characterize it as "Schindler's List meets Shine," that's just not giving enough due to how beautifully this film depicts Wladyslaw Szpilmann's life for these several years. There are scenes that will make you want to crawl under your chair because you're not sure you can bear watching them -- at least the scenes ought to make you want to do that, or else I'd be concerned. The best part is the last 1/4 of the film, in which hope and honor and heroism are portrayed so lovingly, and without melodrama, that it breaks your heart all over again.

year: 2002
length: 148 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253474/combined