City of God

Is this as good as the Godfather trilogy? They're both about love, loyalty and betrayal, but the strong element of (nuclear) family history is missing in this film. In its place you have the history of a city, or at least the divisiveness inherent in any city. The city in question: Rio de Janeiro, considered one of the most beautiful cities in the world (and seeing glimpses of the downtown areas and surrounding mountains, sea and clear blue sky, you can see why). Class struggle exists here, as nearly everywhere, and a large portion of the city is slum (the Cidade de Deus of the title, originally a housing project gone out of control). With the poor struggling to survive, it's not surprising that drug and gun smuggling is rampant. To protect this turf and its citizens, "soldiers" are recruited from the citizenry, effectively replacing governmental authority and clashing constantly with the police. Layered on top of this history is the story of one boy growing up amidst all the chaos, struggling to remain honest and fulfill his ambition of becoming a photographer. What makes this tale one of the greatest ever told is its epic quality told with great restraint, with nary an extraneous scene, but still full and lush and in love with its setting, regardless of the squalor it portrays. Not once was I bored, not once was I tempted to take an intermission, I was just desperate to find out how it ended. And the ending is what gives it the extra .5 stars that raises it to rarified ranks. For some, it may seem inevitable, or too tidy, but I recognized it as the filmmakers' solution to the seemingly hopeless state of affairs. I understand the filmmakers chose actors from those in the favella (slum), and they are hands-down marvelous choices. I have to wonder how difficult it was to shoot even part of this film in the slums and/or how hard it was to line up actors, whether or not they were associated with the insurgency. I recommend the documentary attached to the DVD only half-heartedly. While its images will stick in your head, watching it distills somewhat the impact of the film.

original title: Cidade de Deus
year: 2002
length: 130 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317248/combined

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

I would never recommend this film for everyone. Some will find it boring, others perplexing (to say the least), still others very stupid. Now me, I've never read the book and what I know of Hunter S. Thompson is from Duke, the Doonesbury character (heavily) based on Thompson. So I can't claim to fully understand the differences between the book and the film. But based on some beautiful lines towards the end of the film, clearly taken verbatim from the book, I would venture to say that the film fails in its inability to do justice to Thompson's writing. Others may say it fails because it's an incoherent mess. What is perceived as incoherent, however, is merely one way of describing the sheer wackiness and paranoia of Thompson's and Dr. Gonzo's drug trips. And most of it is downright funny. (Also downright gross, so be warned.) There are those who were unaware of Johnny Depp's comedic talents before Pirates of the Caribbean. (How could anyone forget Ed Wood and Edward Scissorhands?) Depp apparently hung out with the journalist for some time to learn his mannerisms, including his walk and his fashion sense. What you see on screen is a very close approximation of the man himself, disturbingly enough. I would say that the film grew on me after repeat viewings (no, I didn't really watch it repeatedly, just to show some favorite scenes to my husband) and the parts I really liked before were twice as funny the second time. If there could have been a way to make it more prosaic, it would have been brilliant.

year: 1998
length: 118 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120669/combined

Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story

As Steve Zahn says in That Thing You Do, "[that] was...terrible." (It's not the phrase, actually, it's the way he says it that makes it so funny, 'cause he kinda drags the pause out and...oh, never mind.) This film has one saving grace and that's Vince Vaughn, who plays the most believable straight man, possibly ever. This is completely necessary as nearly every scene contains Ben Stiller as laugh track. Now, I have nothing against Stiller. (Loved Meet the Parents and Keeping the Faith.) But his incarnation as an overly manic gym owner only points out which features you never liked about the actor in the first place. Vaughn plays a competing gym owner whose gym is about to be taken over by Stiller's mega-corporation. The only way to prevent it is to enter into a dodgeball championship. Yeah. Well, I'm still unsure whether dodgeball is a real adult sport or not, but it's treated as such by the filmmakers. Seriously. At least I think it's seriously. Watch the first extra feature and see for yourself. On second thought, skip that one and just watch the alternate ending to the film. Now that's funny.

year: 2004
length: 92 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364725/combined

Wonderfalls

This is the kind of television that should be made. And may I go so far as to say that only this kind of television should be made. Take a Parker Posey doppelgänger, a popular tourist attraction, a gimmick to keep things interesting (oh, and don't forget the lesbian sibling), smush all that together with witty repartees and you have Wonderfalls. I've only watched 1.3 episodes so far, but I started adoring it after the first 15 minutes. Which means that once again, you'll get my diatribe on why the hell networks can't recognize good shows and give them a decent time to be discovered so they're not cancelled without being given a chance. Or (all together now) why is the viewing public such a bunch of dolts? Enough of that, it's so pointless. This sitcom's mostly about how people handle relationships, which when it comes down to it, is probably what all sitcoms are about. Still, is has a quirky misanthropic viewpoint that makes you feel uncomfortable and not alone at the same time. Might not be everyone's cup of tea (might appeal to twenty-somethings most), but I guarantee you'll see something of yourself in each episode.

year: 2004
length: 13 45-min. episodes
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361256/combined

The Incredibles

In some ways, it's boring to review Pixar films. They never fail to charm the pants off me, so they always get the highest marks. This one is somewhat different from the rest, however. I found it just as kid-friendly, but there's a maturity about this film that tones down the slickness we're so familiar with by now. There's more thought given to building the story, so by the time we get to the big explosions at the end we are completely ready for them. When I watched this in a theater full of kids, I got a little worried that during the slower, more character-driven sequences they would lose interest and start chatting. Didn't actually happen, so maybe I was just being super-sensitive. For those of you who've been living on Pluto for the last 6 months, the Incredibles are a family of superheroes living in obscurity, forbidden to use their superpowers to help others after some questionable rescues. Naturally, they mourn their previous life, or at least Bob does (aka Mr. Incredible), and things get put in motion to pull them back to that life. On first viewing, I didn't notice the more subtle stuff because my mouth was hanging open as in all Pixar films. With the DVD in hand, I found references to Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, all the Bond films, and even Tarzan. And since Pixar films EVERYTHING they do, the special features give you an inside look at the Pixar "plant" and the process behind making the movie. Which gives you a chance to appreciate the people behind the story, the lighting, the music, you name it. If there's something missing (and perhaps I haven't found it yet), it's the lack of footage of the voice actors. Where's Holly Hunter saying how totally swell it was to voice Elastigirl? Oh well, I guess they can't be completely perfect. Still, for me the capper was the original drawings of Elastigirl -- that lithe, huge-boobed supergirl style -- that morphed into a normal looking person with a big butt, just like us regular women.

year: 2004
length: 121 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317705/combined

Mary Poppins

Glenn Kenny (of Premiere Magazine) wasn't kidding when he said that this DVD was one of the best anniversary editions he'd ever seen. I've loved my VHS tape to death, and when I read his review I knew I had to buy the disc. The movie itself is still marvelous after all these years -- great for kids and youth, with enough sparkle, wit and artistic style to keep any adult captivated. And the extras! A delightful deleted song, a musical reunion with Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke and Richard Sherman (the co-composer of the music), world premiere parties (heavens, did things look so very different 40 years ago?), and tons more. There is a lot of Walt Disney lauding, but what do you expect? And a bit of repetition, but it's all engaging. Best of all is watching the young Dame Andrews ham it up. Having built her acting career on being prim and proper it's a shock to the system to see how silly she could be. And this is the second time I'd heard that she would ruin many a take by flying off in a fit of giggles. She's also a wonderful commentator, remembering so much and relating it in such a sensible, no-nonsense Mary Poppins style.

year: 1964
length: 140 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058331/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

Red Dwarf

So cheesy! You're laughing as you watch, but inwardly you're groaning. Typical BBC production -- you can hear all the ambient sounds on the stage, and there are virtually no props. (Think Dr. Who.) Small budget, I guess. That they created a two-man stand-up comedy show that ran for more than 8 seasons is a huge feat. What makes it fun to watch? At odd moments, there's brilliance (double-over and giggle madly type brilliance). Or a touching scene that gets you thinking what it would be like to be stranded on a spaceship millions of light years from Earth. Or to have no companions other than a hologram and a mutated cat. Yup. The hologram is uptight and a stickler for the rules, the cat is a James Brown act-alike. And the only remaining human crew member is a total slob, which is where much of the comedic tension comes from. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone who's not a hard-core science-fiction fan, however. It's a bit too spare to be enjoyed by all.

year: 1988-1999
length: seasons 1-6 out on DVD
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094535/combined

Dinner Rush

If you haven't read Anthony Bourdain's book Kitchen Confidential and don't think you'll be getting to it anytime soon, try this movie instead. It has all the elements of Bourdain's ultra-hip, ultra-honest take on the behind-the-scenes restaurant world: what it takes to be a line cook, who should own restaurants and who should just work in them, and the vaudeville show that nouvelle cuisine has become. It's not Big Night, but it's certainly taking its cue from that film. Complete with mouth-watering masterpiece. What I'm unsure of is whether it's insufferably smart or right on the money. Upon reflection of a few days I've decided that it's scattered -- too many stories, and only a few of them resolve in the "surprise" ending. Edoardo Ballerini, who plays the chef, usually plays guys called Vincent and Victor, so a chance to play a guy named Udo must have been a career capper. Seriously, the guy looks like an assassin, which is why he's cast as a bad guy most of the time. This must have been a big break for him, I imagine. And you can't make a small-budget Italian-flavor film nowadays without Danny Aiello (actually, when wasn't that true?) so of course he plays the restaurant owner with the shady past. Exception being Big Night, and if you're torn between renting that one or this one, definitely go with that one.

year: 2000
length: 99 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0229340/combined

Touching the Void

The first thing that runs through your mind when seeing a climbing picture is: why? The second thing, and specifically for this film, is why do they climb as a pair? As they stress, you can pull your partner down with the slightest misstep. And if you're climbing in one push, if you make a bad mistake you're bound to die because there's no one at base camp to help you because there is no base camp. So, why tie yourself to another person in the first place? (I'm sure there's a good reason, but the film doesn't let on as to what it is.) A half-hour into the movie, you know how important it was that neither was climbing alone because without Simon, Joe would not have survived. And it's how Joe does survive that makes this climb legendary among mountaineers, and one of the most controversial decisions ever made in the climbing world. Part interview and part re-creation, the film is spellbinding -- similar to Everest in putting the human condition and the human spirit front and center. It is also a testament to the type-A personality, if I do say so. The little voice that keeps Joe moving from tiny goal to tiny goal sounds like a version of my own control freak nature. Erroneous to think that you could ever control your survival in places men were (most likely) never meant to go, but a stunning example of human nature at its indomitable best.

year: 2003
length: 106 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379557/combined