10/04/09
Capitalism: A Love Story - it's michael moore's worst film so far. essentially it's a compilation of all his previous work presented in the same format that you're used to by now if you haven't been living under a rock. he comes back to flint, he uses archival footage to open the film, he does some ambush journalism stuff, he gets some anecdotal evidence to support his claim and that's pretty much it. really, it's like a michael moore clipshow, and actually that would have been better.
so, it sounds like i'm panning the film, but i'm really not. i like moore's work. i've said for about 8 years or so that i agree with about 85% of what he says, it's mostly the 15% and some of his tactics that have made him noteworthy, but overall i think he's a good guy and good filmmaker with good intentions. but the thing you have to understand about him is that johnny got his gun is his favorite film of all-time; that says something about the guy. the sad thing is that he sold out a bit when he dropped nader and jumped on the "anybody but bush" bandwagon in '04; that move made me lose a good deal of respect for his convictions.
at any rate, this film really is a notch or two below even sicko which was a good, but not great film. i think he mailed this one in, but he'll be back. the film raises some obvious issues with capitalism and i think that most thinking and informed people have noticed or thought about most of the ideas presented here. the shame isn't that the style lacks the vision he's had in the past, rather it's that he makes a sloppy argument here and he could have done better. again, he mailed it in. unlike some of his other work, this one isn't going to really inspire anyone to change their mind or think about the issue in a great new way, this one is strictly for the choir. B-.

09/28/09
Network - really a great film that gets better with each viewing. great editing, ensemble cast, and writing. 76 was a tough year for best pic - all the president's men, network, rocky and taxi driver are all great films in their own way. my favorite is taxi driver, but i don't have too much of a problem with any of them winning. i do think that network should have won for editing, though, instead of rocky. rocky gets the edge because it's a sports movie and has "action" scenes, but when you look at this one closely it's well put together and deserved the nod.
each character is so twisted and fucked up in their own special way. each one represents a changing of the guard and the shift of society at large and television more specifically. this is a film that is going to last a long time because of these reasons. it also works on a human level with dunaway as the vacuous broad who is married to her career and holden as the over-the-hill guy looking to revitalize his life in all the wrong places. beatrice straight won an academy for something like 4.5 minutes of screen time in large part because she shows the very real effects of man's desire for adventure (i.e., holden's dumping his wife for the newer model). it's a sad film, yes, but it's also a funny film. the satire extends beyond the tv world and into the world of political extremism. the communists and self-righteous revolutionaries who make a deal with the devil (dunaway/tv in general) are portrayed as equally obsessed with money - they come with their own team of lawyers and break their own values just to get their faces on the dummy box.
then there's howard beale who is certifiably insane yet the only one who seems to have any real convictions beyond himself. in the end those don't last because he's too unstable and prone to visions of god (even if they come in the form of the chairman of the board).
a piece of work. A.

08/25/09
Inglourious Basterds - with the prospect of another tarantino film i began thinking about his legacy. after some thought it occurred to me that he'll never ben in the pantheon of great directors because he hasn't made enough films and of the films he has created he has one masterpiece and a few really good films. the simple truth is, that he's just not prolific enough to be placed with
the likes of hitchcock, chaplin, ford and even kubrick who also didn't make a lot of films, but got the most out of each film he did make. when he comes out with a film it's a must see event, but i really don't think he's as good as the great ones of our time - scorsese, spielberg, coens, or even fincher and p.t. anderson. he's a step below those guys in terms of actual final product, but he has a unique style and is a cultural magnet so i think that helps his cause.
inglourious basterds (what's with the spelling?) is definitely tarantino. it works in various elements that define his style and tastes - film references, lifted styles (ford, leone, aldrich), gratuitous violence,
conversation-heavy scenes, his foot fetish, use of both harvey keitel and samuel jackson, and more. what it's lacking that kill bill and pulp fiction had is a tighter structure - this one meanders a bit and you're aware of it. in pulp fiction the story digresses with conversation and frayed storylines, but it's always interesting; here that doesn't happen to the same degree. this one also lacks the sense of humor that kill bill and pulp fiction had. there were a few laughs throughout and only one or two real good laughs.
another area that is lacking here is the soundtrack. generally you can count on tarantino to introduce us to a few new songs per movie, but here there isn't much to lean on. the early pieces lean on morricone, but don't really deliver like miserlou or bang bang (nancy sinatra) or the 5,6,7,8s or chick habit or down in mexico - songs and artists which really stood out in his other films. there also isn't a "stuck in the middle" scene like there was in reservoir dogs or a bring out the gimp scene like in pulp fiction. the bar scene was a more drawn out version of the mexican standoff in reservoir dogs.
this one does build tension very well and the tension is paid off well in the bar scene, the first scene, and the penultimate scene. still, i think a strong producer could have reined this one in a bit. a lot of times a successful director gets too much creative license and doesn't know how to edit himself, i think that happened here.
another thing tarantino is known for is finding talent. he resurrects careers and gets new ones going seemingly every time he makes a new film. here he finds christoph waltz and waltz gives a great performance; likely the best of the year.
the whole anti-nazi element was cathartic, but easy. whereas his two best works (r. dogs and pulp fiction) were about people on the edge of society who it was a challenge to like, this one is about a group on the edge of the military structure, but it's easy to like them because they're fighting the nazis. it's the equivalent of feeling sorry for a character because the director gives him cancer - it's just too easy. pitt and his crew aren't particularly dynamic or fleshed out. they're good at what they do and we like them because they kill nazis, but they don't have the depth of jackie brown or the interest level of keitel/roth in reservoir dogs or jackson/travolta in pulp fiction.
so, there's good stuff here to latch onto for fans, but overall it doesn't deliver in the same way that his better work does. it has isolated moments of success sandwiched by lulls and meandering stretches that don't entertain the way tarantino has in the past. if this were a new film from a young upstart i would think he had talent that needed to be better focused, but coming from a director who has been called a visionary of our time, it just isn't up to par. B.

07/10/09
Bridge On The River Kwai - definitely better the second time around. guinness' character is an interesting one. he gets certain elements of his logic right, but hubris and obsession with the task at hand put him in a trance. it isn't until he is near death that he realizes his mistake and, with his death, does the right thing. i was never fully on board with him because of the bone he picks with his japanese camp master - that his officers should not have to perform labor. he makes it a matter of principal, but it's such a class-based argument. very british.
speaking of his japanese counterpart, colonel saito is one of the more interesting "villains" that i can remember. we know he is a bad guy, but in many ways i found myself with more sympathy for him than guinness' character. he's stuck between a rock and a hard place (you decide which one guinness is), and is fighting for his life, honor and pride. he loses the last two first and the first one last. tragic.
holden is somewhat of an afterthought and may have been put in there to appeal to the u.s. audience. he provides some needed comic relief and is somewhat necessary for the conclusion of the plot, but isn't as integral to my thinking as top-billing might indicate. i probably would have shrunk the film and had guinness plan the destruction of the bridge himself, without the knowledge of any of his peers. this would have made his character more of a martyr and more savvy and powerful in the final analysis. but i tend toward the martyr characters so that's just me.
a fine film as it is. a bit long, but that's Lean. the opening theme is too grand and the closing theme is too jovial - score could have used some work. B+.

07/05/09
Flow: For Love Of Water - like food inc. this is another documentary that spells doom and gloom about a fundamental element of our being: water. it's fairly well done, but not as good as food inc. and certainly not as good as the corporation. as usual, i had some problems with what i saw as some overreaction, but overall i am sympathetic to the cause. the same can be said about another recent documentary: I.O.U.S.A. which i felt blew the economic debt of the u.s. a bit out of proportion. in general, i think people want to feel closer to death so they come up with doomsday scenarios in religion or science or whatever.
a lot of these documentaries come up with some pretty bogus figures. this one states that the u.n. estimates all the world could have clean, healthy water if we only invested $30 billion, that's $70 billion less than the world spent on bottled water last year. frankly i don't believe that figure for a second. these sorts of projects invariably cost much more than originally imagined. $30 billion probably wouldn't even be enough to effectively address the issues in america, at least according to their assessment of our water system.
i've said for a long time that i don't feel the world has that much of a problem with the amount of water, it's just a matter of capturing and cleaning all the water that we already have. so, ultimately, when we have to turn to desalination on a larger basis, it's going to be an energy issue; once again.
speaking of "once again," how many documentaries like this need to come out before people realize how inherently evil corporations are? they are far too powerful in our legal and political system and they are at the root of so many of our biggest problems. whether it's france-based suez or u.s.-based nestle or swiss-based syngenta, these companies care only about profit, it is their nature. just as energy problems could be greatly addressed by a single solar panel on the roof of every house, a single cistern in every backyard would go a long way towards fixing our water problems. B-.

05/28/09
Lethal Weapon - great 80s flick that was the precursor to die hard. joel silver may be the biggest story here. beginning in the 80s silver was a top notch producer. actually, his success started in 79 with the warriors, but he really gained momentum in the 80s with: commando, 48 hours, weird science, lethal weapon, predator, die hard, and sequels to those last three films. lethal weapon is quite similar to die hard: same composer (kamen does a lot of the same stuff here as he does in die hard), same location (LA), same time frame (christmas), same character dynamic (black and white cop working to rid the city of evil in spite of their bosses), same blond-haired henchman, and at least three actors appeared in both films (asian henchman, special agent johnson plays a cop here, and the chick reporter in die hard is the shrink here). both also happen to be great. i hadn't seen this one in a long time, but i'm glad i revisited it. so much of it informed my movie viewing and outlook on things. gibson (in his second best performance ever - road warrior) plays an on the edge cop who is a vietnam vet and suicidal. the movie shaped my view of vietnam vets to a certain degree (in that it cut to the core about their being forgotten in the mental health department). it also is notable because of the drug angle and the opening scene which features a topless girl committing suicide. the torture scene sticks out in my head and the relationship between glover and gibson is also noteworthy. it's a fun film with an edge to it and it's unrelenting. action, issues of suicide and mental illness, drug use, torture, etc. it's a heavy flick and a great one. A+.

05/03/09
I.O.U.S.A. - like obama, i think that things are never as good or as bad as they seem. this documentary gives us the doomsday scenario regarding our economic system - we're too far in debt to other countries and that's going to lead to our becoming china or, at the very least, china having far too much influence on our decisions. they compare this to post-wwii uk and their handling of the suez canal crisis in 1956. the uk was forced to give into american demands because the u.s. held so much of the uk's debt that the u.s. could have done massive economic damage to the uk if they didn't do
as we wished. the primary difference between that and the us/china relationship is that the us still has more military power than any country in the world. when push comes to shove, military power is more important than anything else so i reject the idea that the u.s. is going to fall apart economically because of our debt.
i also think that the u.s., being the largest single global consumer, has a great deal of power that the uk has never had. so that's the good, the bad is that reagan, bush and now obama have gotten us into such amazing levels of (absolute) debt that we really are in trouble. i don't buy many of the projections that the documentary put forth showing us being in debt to the tune of 200% of our gdp in x number of years because i've found that long term projections are incredibly inaccurate. for example, clinton's projection that we would run a surplus for the next 25 years under his economic plan. yeah right. it assumes far too much and doesn't account for things outside of our control - 9/11, katrina, earthquakes, changing presidents/congress, global factors, etc. it's absurd to project that far into the future, quite frankly. so much of those projections can change with increased energy independence and health care reform. even slight improvements in those areas have exponential dividends 25 years down the line.
so, the documentary is good to call attention to a serious issue, but i don't think it's as bad as they say it is. B-.

01/30/09
Wrestler - darren aronofsky's least interesting film to date. pi is powerful, lo-fi and cerebral. requiem has the multiple storylines and addiction themes as well as a killer soundtrack. the fountain, while his least entertaining film, has an immense depth and imagination to it. it's one of those films i'll probably revisit every few years and get into more and more as i understand it more. the wrestler, however, is what it is. it's well made and features a great performance from rourke (everyone's darling for the next 10 minutes), but i don't think it has the depth of his other films. it's got elements of rocky, city by the sea, and about a million other films that feature washed up has beens looking for redemption. the film doesn't beg you to like rourke's character, which is a good thing. it presents him warts and all and essentially allows you to make your own judgment on his character (thus the ending). the ending, by the way, was well set up by the early abrupt cuts of music/action. you question where aronofsky was going with that and the final scene is the answer.
for me a film's success is largely based upon the existence of a main character i can like, relate to, appreciate in some way. ultimately, rourke's character just didn't do it for me. he's a sad character, but that's not difficult for a director to do. he's sympathetic, sure, but not quite enough. he's sympathetic not because of the easy things that make him sympathetic - he's a screw up, he had a heart attack, he's a nice guy, but more because of the fact that he's an average guy. maybe he's too average. truth is, i feel sorry for him more than anything else. he's not dumb like rocky, but rocky is a better person. rocky is a guy who is trying harder to be a good person. rocky loves adrian and plays with the neighborhood kids like rourke does here, but rocky isn't asshole enough to leave his daughter hanging around while he bangs some bimbo in a public bathroom. i guess what it comes down to for me is that life isn't like baseball. in baseball you can bat hit the ball 30-40% of the time and be considered great. in life batting .300 makes you a shithead in my eyes. rourke didn't need to bat 1.000 to be great, but striking out with his daughter is like pulling a bill buckner; to beat an analogy to death. you get the point.
what's the deal with marissa tomei as a failed stripper? yeah, right. i've never been to a strip bar, but i can guarantee she'd be a major earner. good, solid film, not as amazing as some would have you think. would i watch it again tomorrow? probably not. B.

12/04/08
Slumdog Millionaire - great film. it's occurred to me that many of the films i love are just outside of realistic. my top three could be considered lies of some sort and this one tells a lie in its own way. sure, they're all plausible on some level, but they each stretch the truth or stylize it to dramatic effect. that's one of the things that film can do so well.
danny boyle is one of those directors whose work falls into the must see category. whenever he has a new film i do my best to check it out. i haven't seen beach or millions, but i've seen the rest of his feature films, including the made for tv "vacuuming completely nude in paradise." i love what he does in part because it's always something new. horror, straight-up comedy, junkie brit grit, etc. word has it that his dream is to make a musical; i'd even watch that if it came to fruition.
it's said that everything you've done in your life has led to this point. it's true and can be occasionally depressing, but this idea is at the crux of slumdog millionaire. boyle weaves the past and present together well and, for the most part, maintains the momentum. films about fate can sometimes come off as trite, especially if the characters aren't well presented. here, though, boyle presents us with great characters and uses the game show as an interesting plot device to bring about a familiar ending. it's a life-affirming film with a great balance of comedy and the kind of drama no one i'll ever meet will know. one of the three best of the year. B+.

10/07/08
Religulous - documentaries are different than when i learned to love them. the fly-on-the-wall documentary is basically dead at this point, having been replaced by the visual essay of michael moore, anti-bush amateurs, and various other people with an agenda. i prefer the maysles brothers style of exploration and reportage instead of the point-of-view film. most of them seem to come from the left, but there are some (like ben stein's "expelled" documentary) that come from the right. regardless of their author, these types of documentaries have a singular point of view and impose it throughout the film. religulous falls into this category.
bill maher happens to be funny and i agree with his point that we can't really know if there's a god and what he says or wants from us. however, maher's biggest fault here is that there is only one type of religion to him - fundamentalism. he doesn't acknowledge the reality that there are some who practice religions of various kinds in peaceful and fairly intelligent ways. the times he does encounter people who choose to ignore many of the ridiculous elements of their religion he challenges their religion anyway, saying it's impossible to separate the good ideals of a religion from many of the contradictory or silly stories that accompany it. i respect his doubt and wit, but we have to acknowledge and respect the choice of others to believe in the god of their choosing. B.

09/19/08
Out Of Africa - gotta call this one a chick flick. i like redford, but i think of him as a simple actor in a lot of ways. and the movie is the same way - there's not much mystery to it. every scene is predictable, it's as if i've seen the movie before. it's sort of the equivalent of that poster that describes the perfect woman: it shows a hot looking chick in lingerie and has multiple quotes like "do you want a blowjob before or after i make you dinner?" and "my hot friend wants a threesome with you and me, is that okay with you?" redford is basically the same thing in this movie. in one scene streep and redford are on a safari and two lions rush them, shortly after dispatching one of them (the inspiringly-strong-streep gets the other) redford looks at streep and wipes the blood off her lip (she bit it while shooting the first lion) with a handkerchief. in the next scene his hair is slicked back and he is neatly dressed and they have a full dinner (china and all) under the stars, in the middle of the fucking african bush; then they make out for a while. it isn't as crude as the ideal woman portrayal, but it's the same shit.
in a way it's like romancing the stone, only more dramatic and longer. perhaps that (superior) film was influenced by this one. liked some of the stuff about the not trying to tame africa and its people. good cinematography. also liked redford's character's philosophy. otherwise not my sort of thing. C.

09/17/08
You're Gonna Miss Me - if you've seen one troubled artist documentary then you've seen them all. this one is a lot like the devil and daniel johnston, even the setting (austin, texas) is the same.
they start with a brief view of the artist's genius (perhaps some footage of them when they were sane and insanely good, or their music will play while snapshots from their childhood are shown on the screen). then you'll hear from other artists who you likely respect (or at least have heard of) about how brilliant this artist was and they'll talk about how when this person was at their apex they were the most influential or ingenious or groundbreaking talent around; this person defined a genre or did things no one else could ever dream of doing, etc. then they the director tells you (through a collage of interviews, clippings, music, etc.) about the artist's unfortunate downward spiral which always includes: family, drug, financial, and legal issues. inevitably it's either pointed out, or it becomes obvious, that the person had little control over their situation - drug abuse was a disease, family members kept them down in some way - and that their genius came at great personal cost. they would have been even better if not for...fill in the blank. most of these films will then end with a semi-uplifting recap of the last couple years - the person is doing better, playing shows, starting a family, they're as popular as ever, whatever.
frankly, the success of these films, for me, is about two things: how far from this formula they stray and how much i like the subject's music/art. C+.

07/26/08
Lonely Are The Brave - spoilers ahead. the themes are simple and popular - the death of individualism and freedom. this is a favorite theme of mine and is manifested in many films from this to vanishing point and the shootist. in my opinion there's really only one way these films can end: the death of the protagonist. in this one the horse that kirk douglas rides is shot after it and douglas are hit by an 18 wheeler carrying toilets (that's progress for you). douglas, though, is driven away in an ambulance with his fate unknown. the original inspiration for the film is an edward abbey book and that makes perfect sense since he's all about the wild west and the downside of "progress."
the music seems to have inspired some of morricone's work on the good the bad and the ugly. this was kirk douglas' favorite film that he was involved in and he said was the only film script that was perfect after only one draft.
walter matthau plays a tommy lee jones in no country for old men type of character. i wouldn't doubt it if jones drew some inspiration from matthau's performance. douglas turns in a very good performance with an authentic feel to it. you actually get the impression that douglas has spent significant time on a horse, on the road, and dealing with the law in various ways. douglas was wrong, though, his best performance and the best film he was in was paths of glory. a bit slow, but that seems to be the nature of the on-the-run film genre. good supporting cast with a lot of people you'll recognize (like archie bunker and george kennedy). B.

07/24/08
Anatomy Of A Murder - a fine and watchable film, but nothing extraordinary. it has a dreary ending, but it isn't at all dramatic or impactful - it's just empty. perhaps that's part of the point - all this (all 2hr 40mins, the whole trial) is for nothing; such is life. fine enough, but not real compelling for me.
the best courtroom dramas aren't simply good court room films, they expand the themes to contemporary society in some way - inherit the wind comes to mind. this film didn't seem to have that in any clear way. one could probably extrapolate some meaning from certain elements like the country vs. city theme or larger themes of justice in the mccarthy era or something, though those would be stretching quite a bit. it's a "realistic" courtroom drama in that there's only one "twist" in the plot and the lawyers aren't overly eloquent and witty. no witness breaks down under cross-examination and admits that they were the murderer, or anything like that. the title is fitting of the tone - it's very clinical and detached, it has no heart, it has no opinion; it just is. this is probably what divides most people on the film: some people love its clinical tone and the way the film deals with the subject matter in a frank way, while others are bothered by the lack of "resolution." i'm in the middle. i would have liked the film's conclusion to have a period, instead it felt like a sentence cut off short (and not to the same effect as the ending in sayles' "limbo"). at the same time i liked the realism and frankness of the film.
stewart did a fine job, though the character lacked pop. joseph welch played the judge and i found this performance to be the most entertaining. george c. scott would have been more likely to receive an academy award nomination from me than stewart, but it doesn't matter because they were both nominated. interestingly, the film was nominated for seven aa awards and didn't win any of them (ben-hur was the big winner instead). B.

07/21/08
Bullitt - more complex than i remembered. the car chase is the highlight of the film, though the visual nature of the film was also a joy. so much in the film is shown, not said. when mcqueen has his girlfriend drive him to a crime scene she walks in and sees the dead body. she looks at him and he sees her looking at the body so he walks between the camera (representing the dad body's pov) and her to shield her from the sight. the next shot is of him driving her car. the sequence shows the emotions of the characters without crying or talking or anything else.
the toll that the job takes on bullitt himself is also conveyed visually and otherwise. the film is about a lot of different things and it keeps you thinking - about the plot, the characters, etc. the film was made only a year after in the heat of the night yet i've never heard anyone mention the black doctor who plays a minor role in the film. it's easy to overlook now, but that was probably fairly progressive to just drop a black guy in the role of a doctor. there is a scene where robert vaughn asks for the doctor to be replaced citing "inexperience," but we know what the real reason is. in this way, and many others, the film is as much a marker of the time as it is an entertaining and engaging film. it's very much about the common people - the cabbie (robert duvall), the aforementioned doctor, the nurses, the onlookers at the airport in the final scene, etc. A.

07/19/08
Dark Knight - currently #1 on imdb.com's top 250 of all-time. this is generally a sign of overly-hyped movies - i've seen a lot of films shoot to the top 20 and then fall off the top 250 altogether once the films go to rental and more and more people watch the film. this one has also gotten as much critical hype as anything since there will be blood and no country for old men. usually that makes me play the voice of reason and dissent, but not in this case. this film is epic and great and worthy of the praise it's getting. simply put it's one of the best action films i've seen since the matrix and possibly the best comic-based film ever.
why is it so good? 1) heath ledger as the joker is reason #1. every great action/adventure type film needs a great villain and this one has one in ledger. the makeup transforms him realistically - the scarring, the clown makeup, the oily hair, the wardrobe all add to the slimy character. but it's his acting that truly makes the character. the slithering tongue (recalls the snake and original sin), the voice, the jerky movements all make up a performance that's at least as good as daniel day-lewis' performance in there will be blood; a performance that has been over-rated recently as one of the best in the history of cinema.
2) the writing is excellent. jonathan nolan (who also co-wrote memento with his brother) is a great writer and david s. goyer (blade) was probably responsible for some of the darker touches in the film. they made a good three-man writing team. batman's character is more compelling and darkly drawn than he is in any previous incarnation that i've seen. the themes of chaos, darkness, evil, good, light, etc. are so well developed and explored, yet not too obviously done, that you forget you're watching a "blockbuster."
3) the music. two of the best pieces of original film music in the last five years have come from hans zimmer - one in the third pirates of the caribbean film and the other in this film. the main theme is so well treated here that it just keeps reaping benefits. zimmer's main theme is used in small pieces, or leitmotifs, through the majority of the film and isn't allowed to fully bloom until the last half hour or so. great music used well, doesn't get much better than that.
4) nolan's direction. david edelstein poo-pooed nolan's direction, but, then again, he's about as worthless as most film critics. nolan's direction is actually quite good - his cross-cutting, the building of suspense, his work with the actors, writers, and musicians to bring the whole affair together are all commendable.
it's rare to see a trailer as good as this and have the film actually deliver on the promise. the last time i saw a trailer as good as the one for the dark knight was the teaser for the hills have eyes 2. in that case the teaser was awesome and the film sucked. great film, watch it. A-.

06/30/08
Wanted - mick lasalle says there are two ways of viewing the film: "(1) as a go-for-broke action movie of mixed quality and modest but definite entertainment value, or (2) as a sick, sick movie for a sick, sick public." 90% of the time when a person says there are two types of people in the world or there are two ways of viewing something, they're wrong. lasalle makes a habit of being wrong so it comes as no surprise that he falls into the 90% here.
wanted is a fantasy film much in the mold of the matrix and fight club. you'll recall the furor over fight club because some idiots were too dense to grasp the real meaning of fight club and, rather than subject themselves to introspection and thinking about the modern condition, they beat each other up in the "monkey see, monkey do" mold. in "wanted" we have one of my favorite types of film: a film about the modern condition. incidentally, the modern condition films are only slightly less satisfying than the apocalypse films. in the films that highlight the modern condition there is an acknowledgment of the ills of modern living. in the apocalypse film, modern living is turned to chaos, and those are therefore more fulfilling. wanted has all the usual clichés of the cubical living and the ikea furniture and the cheating girlfriend and horrible boss. sure these are lazy clichés, but they also ring true to a lot of people and, while we might not have all of the above symptoms, at least a few of those will resonate with most viewers. so, cliché, yes, but not as bad as clichés normally are.
where the film goes wrong isn't in the fantasy of wanting to get out of the rut, the rat race that is modern life. rather, it goes wrong in some of its execution. the clichés are obvious and the plot is iffy. but this is a fantasy film and it makes that clear within the first few minutes. it doesn't stack up philosophically to films like fight club and the matrix, though it steals from them in an effort to meet their success. with a stronger writer the film might have worked better. danny elfman's music could have used some work too.
lasalle says that "few people who see "Wanted" will bother to think about it," but that isn't saying much. few people who watch anything truly think about it. the film inspires thought and action for those paying attention. i must say that i enjoyed the ending line "what the fuck have you done?" which is a reference to minor threat's song "in my eyes" (a song about, among other things, making a difference in the world) which ends with the lines: "at least i'm fucking trying, what the fuck have you done?!" B-.

06/29/08
Bigger, Stronger, Faster* - ostensibly a film about steroids in america, the film is just as much about the filmmaker's family and american culture as anything else. it takes both a personal and macro view of the issue and does so with refreshing clarity and impartiality. bell's main arguments are: 1) steroids are used by a lot of people, professional athletes among the least. 2) steroids have legitimate uses and, when used in moderation, aren't any more harmful than many other drugs whose use isn't ostracized (anti-depressants, alcohol, tobacco, etc.). 3) other performers are allowed to use performance enhancers without congressional intervention and stigma (beta blockers to reduce anxiety for musicians, aderol for students who can't focus, lasik eye surgery for tiger woods [something i've brought up before], etc.). 4) steroids are an extension of a culture that values winning as a primary pursuit.
bell does a good job of cutting through a lot of the crap and media noise associated with this topic. in the end you're left with the inevitable feeling that steroids aren't as bad as the media make them out to be and aren't all that different from a lot of the other crap that we put in our bodies. you can't even really make the argument that allowing them disadvantages poorer competitors (in the olympics for example) because there are so many inequalities there already: state of the art equipment and training facilities, not to mention designer steroids that fool the tests. once again technology has led us down a perilous path where we have to more or less change our fundamental definitions. in this case countries like the u.s., china, germany, etc. are vastly more capable of producing humans with inhuman strength through genetic engineering, lasik-type surgeries, hgh, steroids, not to mention the already existing inequities of high tech training methods, tools, and facilities. gone are the days of
pure competition, and yes, i do believe it once (not so long ago) existed.
bell paints a fairly dark picture of the culture that supports steroid use/abuse. unfortunately i think he's mostly right: we live in a world where getting your own is most important. bell and his brothers have
failed to understand that creating your own terms for success is what leads to long-term happiness. by adopting the terms laid out by bogus role models (hulk hogan, arnold, sly, etc.) such as being buff and powerful, as well as those laid out by society in general (winning is more important than effort), they have doomed themselves to personal failure. instead they should have followed john wooden's pyramid of success which values effort, character, and industriousness over final outcomes such as a blue ribbon or a bmw. these faults of theirs, though, aren't uncommon - they're entirely human, sad as that may be. i don't think our culture will ever change drastically enough to make the point of steroids (gaining a competitive edge) moot. instead we're destined to keep marching down the road of technological "progress" which will include augmenting our bodies with the ligaments and muscles of gorillas, cheetahs, etc. as well as a cocktail of drugs and possibly computer chips and electrodes that perform better than our natural systems. that's the world we live in and fighting it is futile, but necessary. B+.

06/01/08
A Map For Saturday - first saw this documentary in a truncated form on mtv; that makes it one of the top 5 things of all-time to air on mtv. it's a great documentary about a man who quits his job and goes on a road trip around the world for a year. as someone who has traveled for a long period of time (though nothing close to what he did) i completely understood what it was like to be on the road for the first time and get the feeling of dread: "what the hell am i doing this for?" as well as the feelings of freedom and reluctance to join real society again. it encapsulates these feelings so much better than something like "into the wild" and does it without being pretentious or over-bearing or dishonest. silva-braga is honest about the pitfalls of life on the road and the niceties of a more conventional life. the truth, though, is that life on the road is a freeing, philosophical, wonderful way of life and people like me and him would probably choose to live it 6 months out of the year if we could afford it. this is a must see for anyone who has done, or is planning on doing, extensive traveling. B+.

05/11/08
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - everything that people claim a michael moore film is, and then some. it's truly bad propaganda without any intellectual honesty or real perspective. they weave in stock footage and film footage as a way of commentary on the topic at hand, thus making a judgment without having ben stein actually say anything. the highlight of the film was linking darwinism and nazism. what the nazis did, they said, wouldn't have been possible without the ideas of darwin. of course this is wrong for a number of reasons (eugenics is flawed in part because evolution is about the positive effects of genetic mutation, which the nazis clearly rebuked), but stein doesn't care to think too much about this (or anything). the film is all about making loose associations and weak critiques of evolution and academia in an effort to make "intelligent design" a more tractable concept. it's not that i'm interested in hearing the ideas argued on their own merits, but this film doesn't even touch the science in any real way. stein clearly fancies himself a cross between the wit and political hell raising talents of michael moore and the science and likability of the new al gore; but he's not even close to either of them. when someone wants to make a documentary that honestly looks at the shortcomings of evolution and the theories of intelligent design then i'll watch it. this film isn't that at all. D-.

04/11/08
Street Kings - exceeded expectations. this is probably the role of keanu reeves' lifetime. some would say that that's not saying much, but, to be fair, he's been in some good films and done well in a few of them - parenthood and the matrix being the two standout examples. here, he actually looks like an actor with some depth and something more beyond his simple face. he's generally the kind of actor who acts very literally and leaves little to the imagination, but here he allows you to read his performance, rather than hearing it. that is, when he's stewing inside he doesn't overdo it by saying "gosh i'm so angry right now" or by overacting, he just acts, and that's an accomplishment. kidding aside, it's a good performance by a notoriously subpar actor.
the writing, by james ellroy, is as good as you would expect. it grabs you almost right away (though, the alarm clock beginning is (i'm told) cliché) and never lets go. i once wrote a story that began with the protagonist waking up to an alarm clock and everyone in the class said that it was a cliché way to begin a story. wonder if those assholes would have told ellroy (author of l.a. confidential) the same thing. B.

03/31/08
21 - definitely cliché from time to time. it starts with a lame intro about the origins of the term "winner winner, chicken dinner" and it gives us a little preview of what our protagonist (ben) is goes through during the next two hours. the end, too, is cliché to the point of extreme predictability and, if you know anything about movies, you may as well skip the last 15 minutes because you know how everything's going to turn out anyway. that said, this film has some B+ moments that lift its overall grade. the relationship between kevin spacey and the overachieving m.i.t. students who feed off of his acceptance and the thrill of doing something other than burying their noses in books, is an interesting one. spacey is devilish and you can see why a naive (yet brilliant) college student like ben would fall for him. spacey's performance ebbs and flows as he manipulates the students to his needs. he feeds their egos as the carrot and threatens expulsion as the stick. the film also does a good job of depicting the allure of fast money and an alternative lifestyle for these bookish kids.
it's got plenty of little film references throughout the film, and the more you know about movies the more you're likely to notice them. for example, spacey's character is named mickey rosa which might be a nod to the late miklos rozsa, the film composer. spacey's character asks a question of his class and makes the famous ben stein/ferris bueller reference. there are plenty of others as well.
i can't say that i'd recommend the film, but if you happen to find yourself in the theater looking for a second film to watch then go ahead and check this one out. the film did make me want to read the book, even more so than the npr story they had on this group of students a few years back. C+.

02/21/08
Maltese Falcon - not as good as the big sleep for one reason: mary astor, or lauren bacall if you prefer. mary astor isn't foxy and she's not all that convincing as a femme fatale here so bogey is left to carry the film with the help of greenstreet, cook jr., and lorre. in the big sleep, bacall matches bogey's greatness and they elevate the film together. here, bogey plays the ultimate realist/pessimist (depending upon your perspective). to me he reflects the character he is opposite. he's raging when he meets greenstreet (who is outwardly calm, but raging inside), he has a sly, devilish smile when he's with astor (which reflects her inner deceptive nature), and he gets rough with elisha cook jr. (who wants to be calm and cool like bogey, but is inwardly raging like greenstreet).
loved huston's economical direction and the male performances. the script is great as well. it's a great film all-around. A.

02/10/08
4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days - it took a while to get here and it's got kind of a dumb title, but it's a great film.
the film starts with a shot of two goldfish in a bowl and you know right away that it's going to be a look inside the world of two people. this first shot, incidentally, is the key to understanding the last shot which is pulled off quite well. the film follows two roommates as they go about getting an abortion for one of them. you don't know right away that this is what they're setting out to do, but the hints are there and you'll suspect this is their goal before it's explicitly revealed.
it's shot in a very slow cinema verite style to accentuate the ordeal the two women go through in accomplishing their task. there aren't any unnecessary cuts and a few of the scenes last 5-10 minutes without any break. one of my favorites occurs at one of the girls' boyfriend's house where his mom is celebrating her 48th birthday. the scene shows the cultural climate of romania as well as highlighting the differences between the girl and her boyfriend. mungiu isn't afraid to show anything in the film. he doesn't shy away from topics and images that most media avoid or talk around. he explores every facet of getting an illegal abortion (and more) - the procedure itself, the payment, what to do with the fetus afterwards, etc. - with equal aplomb and honesty.
it's a fascinating film with some admittedly slow parts, but it's worth slogging through the first 20 minutes to get to know the characters and experience what they experience. one of the best new films i've seen in a while. B+.

02/06/08
Crimes And Misdemeanors - next to annie hall this is probably my favorite woody allen picture. it has the serious philosophy and moral difficulties of match point and cassandra's dream (vise versa actually) and some of the humor you'd expect from a woody allen picture. the film's serious center revolves around the dialectic between idealism and reality. the idealistic characters (sam waterson the blind (literally and metaphorically) rabbi and woody allen the principled documentary filmmaker) don't fare well, while the so-called realists (martin landau, alan alda, etc.) make various compromises and make out just fine.
when match point came out people said it was a very different film for woody allen. in truth, it was essentially just a remake of half this film. the same could be said for cassandra's dream. this film, though, is better than both because it's deeper, more well filmed and has even more meat to it. speaking of the cinematography - sven nykvist worked with bergman for much of his career and joins forces with allen here. he's usually lauded for his use of light, but here his use of space is what's most impressive. he moves the camera in and out of spaces well and uses space to convey emotions. my favorite example is probably when allen sees his former crush after her visit to london. the camera is tight on allen when he sees her enter and zoomed out when it shows her with (allen's nemesis) alan alda. it cuts back and forth between the two shots a couple times, but keeps this scale to emphasize her distance from him. it perfectly summarizes his feelings toward her at that moment. great film. A-.

01/16/08
Who Killed The Electric Car? - not exactly thorough with its science, nor honest in depicting the full spectrum of problems associated with the electric car. they paint the car as a panacea and ham up its "death." they don't give an honest assessment of the electric car's impact - from batteries in landfills to increased strain on the power grid. that said, the film does point out the inevitable reluctance of society when it comes to change. it also shows hydrogen fuel cells as the false hope that they are: too expensive, no fuel station infrastructure, hybrid technology is already more viable, etc. ultimately there are some good points to the film, but i didn't like that they played a little fast and loose with some of the facts, glorified the electric car too much, and simplified the entire debate. for example. they pointed out that the short range (70-80 miles) of electric cars means they aren't for everyone, only 90% of the population which commutes under 60 miles a day. while this is probably true it assumes that all people do with their car (their second largest investment, behind their homes) is commute to and from work. i fit into that 90% because my commute is less than 10 miles a day, but, like many people i know, i like to take an occasional trip to lassen, tahoe, los angeles, etc. and all those places require travel through hills over distances much greater than 80 miles. it's kind of like saying the average person watches 4 hours of tv a day so they only need a tv that can play programs for 5 hours a day. what about july 4th when there's a twilight zone marathon or the times when they want to see the unedited version of das boot, which is over 5 hours long, or the times when there are back to back football games? who wants to spend $34-44,000 (the cost of the car according to wikipedia) for a car that only works for most of your uses? perhaps with time demand will increase and costs will be driven down. hopefully range increases as well and then the electric car will finally be truly viable. C+.

01/07/08
A Christmas Story - captures the essence of childhood vis a vis christmas better than any film in history. the writing and diction are amazingly good and rich and colorful and effective. the film takes a child's point of view and does so to great effect. everything is bigger, more important, greater, more disappointing, more haunting, etc. than it is as an adult. consequently, when you watch this film as a child you relate to it and are drawn in to the story, and when you watch it as an adult you recall with fondness the simpler times when your world revolved around christmas or getting THE gift, rather than paying your rent, shitty bosses, traffic, politics, a failing marriage, war, health problems, etc. time is completely different as a child, as well. some parts seem to last forever and some not long enough. some memories are vivid and detailed, others are frayed and fragmented. the film captures these experiences well.
unlike films like goonies, as good as that film is, this film doesn't glamorize the relationships that kids have. personally, i always wish i had the friendships that are portrayed in films like the sandlot or goonies, but those never occurred and i suspect that the reality is that very few people have had those kinds of experiences. the truth is that kids rat each other out and abandon each other with ease. ralphie and friends leave flick out in the cold with his tongue stuck to a frozen pole. when the bullies confront them later in the film they leave another of their friends to fend for himself. these are the realities of childhood and it's neither inglorious nor profound, it's just how it is.
the music is great, as it is in any great film. stuff like excerpts from peter the wolf is used well.
i never noticed before that the chinese restaurant was an old bowling alley. the "w" on the sign is out and they apparently ran with it, calling the restaurant "bo ling." nice touch.
the film also depicts the reality of breaking your xmas gift on xmas. while ralphie doesn't technically break the rifle the day he gets it, there is a bit of a minor disaster caused by the new toy. this certainly resonates with me as i seemed to always have some problem on christmas with one of my toys.
great film for all ages, certainly one of the best christmas movies ever. die hard and it's a wonderful life are also in the running, though those aren't strictly xmas films. A+.

01/04/08
There Will Be Blood - name another person with two p.t. anderson films in his/her top 25 and i'll concede that they might be a bigger fan of his work than i. i haven't met such a person, though, so forgive me if i say that i'm the biggest p.t. anderson fan i've ever met.
perhaps it's self-delusion or fantastic hubris, but i think critics and "experts" are strictly for the birds. in everything from music and film to food and sports i think experts are bullshit artists, idiots, incompetent morons who lack taste, fore-sight, courage, and the tell it like it is spirit that made me look up to my grandfather so much. with "there will be blood" the so-called experts are 8-10 years behind the curve in calling this "breathtaking," (wash. post) a "masterpiece," (onion), "The Great American Movie" (la weekly), #80 of all-time (imdb.com voters), the best character study in film since citizen kane (film threat), etc. those accolades weren't meant for this film as much as they were meant for boogie nights, or p.t. anderson's true masterpiece, and the film that even he says he will not likely top: magnolia.
this film isn't epic or masterful, it's actually fairly uninspired and hollow and that's something i never thought i'd say about a film directed by someone i (still) consider one of the few great active directors of my generation. the single biggest thing that makes this true is its lack of character development, which is unfortunate considering the acting talent and surprising considering the writing/directing talent of anderson. what's more is that the film doesn't have the hope or moral center that his previous films have had. nor does it have the sympathetic protagonist or sense of purpose that his other works have had. no, this is a dark film for dark times, but it's dark without purpose. when daniel day-lewis verbally rips apart his son and, later, his adversary it doesn't feel heart-wrenching or triumphant, it feels like nothing. those around me laughed, i waited for something real to happen. some around me may have cried, i sat and waited to feel. nothing.
the film's opening 30 minutes had me completely, the following two hours only had me in jerks and spurts.
there's something about the names in the film that probably has some significance, but i couldn't decipher it. the two main characters (dano and day-lewis) are named paul (at one point anyway, later he's named eli) and daniel, as are the people who play them. there's also the father who is named abel, but i didn't see a cain and the father didn't have much significance so...? then there's his son (h.w.) and the businessman who tells him to retire a wealthy man and take care of his son, this man's name is h.m. tilford. of course there's also the protagonist - daniel plainview whose motive are never in plainview and is hardly ever easy to get a true hold of.
it does remind me a bit of citizen kane and i've heard this comparison made on the radio advertisements. it's not like citizen kane in terms of quality or putting a filmmaker on the map or anything like that. rather it's a portrait of a great man who is a tragic figure, at least that's the thought. it's really about a man whose kingdom is great and could be a tragic figure if we gave a damn. ebert puts it best: ""There Will Be Blood" is no "Kane" however. Plainview lacks a "Rosebud." He regrets nothing, misses nothing, pities nothing, and when he falls down a mine shaft and cruelly breaks his leg, he hauls himself back up to the top and starts again." the film never gives us the young kane, it never gives us michael corleone before he is forced to take over the family business. those are the things that make a character like this so tragic and touching. those glimpses of innocence (and thus innocence lost) are what give films like citizen kane and the godfather the labels "breathtaking," "epic," and "masterpiece" that the so-called experts have sloppily lumped onto this film. an epic without those glimpses and that contrast of character, that change in time, is like a p.t. anderson film without heart. oh, wait, that's exactly what this is. color me depressed. C.

12/17/07
It's A Wonderful Life - a truly fantastic film. capra took the lemons of the depression and made lemonade in the form of some of the greatest films of all-time (mr. deeds goes to town, mr. smith goes to washington, and it's a wonderful life). this one, though, goes to a darker place than the other two. sure, mr. smith shows the corrupted political machine, but none of the capra films i've seen go to that dark place that stewart inhabits so well in the film's penultimate act. stewart is just as excellent as the dark drunk as he is minutes later as the effervescent, smiling, laughing, boyish man in the end. an extreme few film actors have the range and effectiveness exhibited throughout stewart's career, much less within a single film as great as this one. to watch his desperate eyes when he appeals to the board of directors to vote to keep the building and loan business afloat or when he begs mr. potter (what a wonderful villain he is!) for the $8k he needs to keep the business afloat, is to watch an actor, a professional, a human at his peak. it doesn't get much better than stewart's performance here.
that said, i would be remiss if i didn't mention capra's role in selling this story for the perennial favorite that it is. look, the work of the beatles and capra and michelangelo don't have any inherent qualities that make it great in any absolute sense. rather, they brought forth a talent and artistry that happens to speak loudly and deeply to a great number of people across a great range of backgrounds. critics and street dwellers alike can appreciate the works of these artists and that's ultimately what matters: they appeal to just about everyone, in a deep fashion, throughout time. capra's direction in the aforementioned three films is about as good as anyone's work in any three films. they're life-affirming, positive, strong pictures which, to me anyway, are amazingly uplifting without being cliché or mawkish. to toe that line so effectively and do produce those films during a time when the country needed them is inspiring. A+.

11/09/07
Lions For Lambs - a patriotic and affirming film that avoids being jingoistic. it follows three storylines each with a pair of characters who are involved in the war on terror in some way. one pairing is a college professor (redford) and one of his students; another follows two soldiers (luke and pena); and the last follows a reporter (streep) and a republican party leader (cruise). the three storylines felt a bit like: apt pupil, jarhead and network respectively. each storyline was compelling in some way and the whole film was well-written. it addresses the issues of the war, both on the battlefield, and homefront (both from the perspective of the planners and academics who analyze it). cruise's character is closest to a villain and he drew plenty of boos and hisses from the audience, but through most of the film i felt his voice was an important one. in the end, though, it is revealed that his plan for the war in afghanistan is essentially a selfish move towards the presidency. demonizing him was probably the biggest misstep of the script. it certainly makes the valid point that we shouldn't get fooled again by those in power (the lambs of the title), but, with regards to the wars we are currently fighting, i felt he took a position that is underrepresented: fully acknowledging the massive failures of past policies, but knowing that pulling out would only end in chaos and a power vacuum.
the other storylines, meanwhile, challenge the viewer by essentially asking what they're doing about the situation. it rightly points out that those in power bank on our apathy and love of the trivial (celebrity gossip, video games, etc.) and not so trivial, but still relatively minor (getting a job, getting out of debt, etc.).
as expected, redford's direction was overdone. a strong and important film nonetheless, anchored by solid writing and good performances. B+.

10/22/07
Last Laugh - features a wonderful performance from emil jannings. meryl's film textbook alleges that the porter essentially gets a dose of his own medicine when he is fired and relegated to the role of a lowly bathroom attendant. in the early part of the film he receives accolades from his neighbors and a glass of water from a younger porter, but these things i see as signs of respect, and he doesn't seem to take the treatment for granted. he doesn't show them the same callous indifference that he is showed by bathroom goers that ignore him after his demotion. he greets his neighbors with pride, he comforts a bullied child outside his home and admonishes the other children for their poor treatment of the smaller girl. to me, the porter is the everyman - he takes pride in his work, is a decent citizen and is respected by his co-workers and neighbors. those who shun and ignore him after his demotion are the villains of the film.
the movie is wonderfully filmed - the camera moves in ways you don't normally see in a 20s film. when it isn't moving its static state allows a story to be told (e.g. the opening scene near the revolving door, signaling the forthcoming change). murnau has a way of making very sympathetic characters, tabu is another of his films that is successful in this way.
i wasn't a huge a fan of the ending. if you buy the premise that he's getting a taste of his own medicine then i suppose it makes sense on some level, but it is still an overly obvious device. i think that murnau calls attention to the author here to have his cake and eat it too. he acknowledges that the grim reality is that the porter would have nothing to live for and would be miserable for the rest of his life, but he also acknowledges the commercial realities and gives the audience what it wants - a happy ending. in doing so we are forced to ask questions about happy endings in general and why they typically satisfy our "bleeding hearts." why do we hope for the fantasy turn of events that murnau depicts here? don't we know it's pure artifice? we do, and yet we still accept them. why?
a thoughtful and heartfelt film. B+.

10/03/07
Into The Wild - there will likely be spoilers in this review...
i don't like emile hirsch or sean penn so i was really hoping that the film succeeded in spite of them. my hope went unfulfilled. this movie was bad in almost every single way and i say that not only because i liked the book so much more. i actually think that if i hadn't read the book i would have disliked the film even more. the reason being that i was able to enjoy chris (the protagonist) as a character at least somewhat in the film because i had read the book. had i not read the book i think i would have disliked his character. sean penn and emile hirsch's representation of chris lacked much of the nuance, intelligence, purpose and impact that he had in the book, and apparently in real life. for example, one of the most profoundly affecting interactions in the book is between chris and the old man in salton city. the old man asks chris to be his adopted son and this is depicted in the film and is one of the films few successes. what the film doesn't address, though, is that the old man prayed for the well-being of chris after he left. when he heard of chris' death, the man renounced god and took up drinking again after many sober years. this is the same man who was inspired by chris's words so much that he left his comfortable life of solitude and traveled on chris's advice.
the storytelling of the film was very herky-jerky. if i were to film the story i probably would have opted for a more linear telling with flashbacks to fill in pertinent background information as the story unfolded. in the book, krakauer tells the story out of chronological order and it works well, but he also chooses to give away chris's death on the cover. conversely, penn tells the story out of chronological order and doesn't reveal chris's fate until the end - an anti-climax if you ask me. penn also plays up the broken home angle to a startlingly degree. how much of his dramatization of chris's home life is true to life is unknown, but i think it goes beyond what is suggested in the book. perhaps he knows something krakauer didn't, or perhaps krakauer kept this element a little less developed than penn.
there were also minor errors in penn's telling of the story, but most of these are fairly forgivable. he depicts instant hunting success by chris when he goes to alaska, which wasn't at all the case. this is minor, but it depicts him as a natural, rather than showing the learning that chris had to do in a new situation. another minor error which actually bothered me was in the epilogue where penn states that moose hunters came across chris's body two weeks after his death. in fact, it was closer to three weeks (19 days to be exact) later that the moose hunters found chris's body. one the one hand this is a minor thing, but that point slices both ways. if it was so minor why couldn't he just get it right? my theory is that he wanted the death to see all the more tragic by showing that chris was only 2 weeks away from being rescued. it's just an unnecessary manipulation of our emotions. conversely, penn gets some of the minor elements right, minor points which can be especially appreciated by someone who has read the book. i finished reading the book just 15-20 minutes before the film started so it was especially fresh when penn shows the jeans patched by a blanket that chris wears in alaska.
hirsch's performance is another hindrance of the film. his performance just doesn't capture chris as the book depicted him. much of this was penn's awful writing and directing, but some of it can definitely be blamed on hirsh's "try hard" style of acting. he tries hard to depict his characters with sincerity, but he falls flat in every instance. he was so-so in the girl next door, awful as the titular character in alpha dog, and awful here. to be fair, it's a tough role to pull off. we need to see chris's intelligence without having him come off as pedantic or cocky. we need to see his intensity and passion without making him appear like some crazy treehugger. we need to see the principled young man who is striking out on his own, but he can't come off as pious or a rebel.
as someone who has been on several road trips and lived on the road for varying periods of time and gone hitchhiking and train jumping and lived on a glacier i feel somewhat qualified to comment on "life on the road." penn's depiction of this life did almost nothing for me and probably even less for someone who doesn't have actual experience to draw upon. the film was artistically shot and had a lot of pensive space to it, which is true to the experience, but it somehow didn't translate to a realistic depiction of life on the road. times when we see chris on his own are often too cutesy (him talking to himself or his food, etc.) or too falsely profound (him floating downstream naked in a jesus christ pose, etc.).
eddie vedder's soundtrack was mostly pretty good, but i think an ambient or postrock soundtrack would have been even better. the cinematography had some nice moments.
with all that sean penn did wrong, he did one thing that worked amazingly well for me: he gave me a quality photograph of chris. it's the same one that's in the front of the book, but that one is too small and grainy and is in black and white. seeing it more clearly and in color and on a 30 foot tall screen was like seeing chris for the first time and it brought me near tears. i see a lot of him in me and feel as though, with my principled take on life and hatred for many elements of humanity, i could have become him had a couple things gone differently. hopefully the movie will inspire people to read the book, because the movie really doesn't do justice to chris the way the book does. of course that could be a byproduct of books in general. they give an idea of a person, but you don't actually see that person move and talk the way you do in a film. it may be that the people who knew chris could watch the film and find it to be extremely accurate, in which case my reading of the book would have been completely off base. you can make up your mind, but i encourage you to read the book first. D.

09/30/07
I Am A Fugitive From A Chain Gang - fantastic film. the camera movement and placement complement the themes of oppression, solidarity (amongst the convicts), isolation (of the protagonist), etc. extremely well. cool hand luke coincides with this film in a few ways. in both films you have the newcomer who is befriended by the oldtimer. the newcomer escapes twice - once by fleeing while going to the bathroom in the bushes and once by jumping in a dump truck, this time bringing the oldtimer along. difficult as it may seem, this film is actually darker than cool hand luke, and though it predates the official beginning of the film noir movement (which people tend to place at 1941 with the release of citizen kane), i think this film should be considered a film noir because of its dark themes, dark cinematography, and the presence of one of the more unabashedly evil femme fatales.
the film's ending brings me near tears every time and is one of the more depressing commentaries on the state of the nation/society/humanity committed to film. it's profound in its simplicity and it wipes away any slow or less than perfect moments the film may have towards the end. paul muni's performance is fantastic in every way so long as you are able to appreciate the differing style of the time. that said, his sometimes expressionistic performance is less so than that of the femme fatale (played by glenda farrell) and his brother (hale hamilton). it's a pre-code film so you might be surprised by some of the sexual innuendo and brutality relative to films of the time. besides railing against the criminal penal system the film also touches upon race, class, justice, and power structures. in spite of all the heaviness of the film, it does have a comic element to it that is easy to overlook. there are a few laughs in here that keep the film balanced and interesting.
undoubtedly one of the best films of film's first 50 years. A+.

08/19/07
Invasion - i've seen all four of the films that are cut from the cloth of the original finney novel and this is probably the most intellectually stimulating of them. the 78 version had the best ending, the 56 version gets points for being the first and being the most tightly directed of them all. the 93 version by abel ferrara is the worst of the bunch.
this one is directed by german-born oliver hirschbiegel who directed das experiment and the downfall. and even though i haven't seen the downfall i can safely say that all three of these films are at least in part about the psychology of humans in groups. group-think is attacked consistently in "invasion" and "das experiment," and i would assume "downfall" (which is about the fall of the nazi empire) as well. in the invasion the individual and personal choice are upheld in spite of the many negative manifestations such as conflict (iraq war), corruption, and unhappiness. it essentially puts forth that liberty and individuality should be preserved in spite of promises of safety and peace. this ties in perfectly with the current domestic and international climate; and this is exactly what i like so much about this series of remakes: each one highlights the issues and fears of the time in its own novel way.
some people aren't calling this a remake of the 56 version in the same sense that the 78 and 93 versions are. i'm not really sure why. it has similarities in the story (falling asleep makes the transformation take root, they all follow a man and woman, police/military play a critical role in the spreading of the disease, etc.) and the telling thereof (begins at the end, etc.). one should note, though, that the first two took place in california, the third was on a military base (in alabama i think), and this one was placed in d.c....perfect for the themes addressed. B+.

07/21/07
Shooter - a surprisingly bold film in some ways. it's about an elite military sniper (wahlberg) who is left for dead during a covert mission. disillusioned, he moves to the country and becomes a mountain man. one day a colonel (glover) comes to him to convince him to help them detect the weaknesses of a security detail for a speech the president is giving in philadelphia. turns out that this was just a ruse to play him for a patsy. luckily, wahlberg escapes and vows revenge.
it's a bold film because it's not entirely flattering of the military or u.s. military/foreign policy. though it holds the individual gun-toting patriot up on a pedestal, it's not at all supportive of the status quo. all that said, it's a very american film, for better or worse. it covers the power of american-patriotism, the manifestations of american foreign policy, the survivalist conspiracy nuts in the woods, the corrupted f.b.i. and politicians, etc. in a way it reaffirms the negative aspects of political power in this country, but also gives hope that there are enough nuts and patriots out there to keep the government in check if push ever really came to shove. good flick. B.

07/13/07
This Film Is Not Yet Rated - documentary by kirby dick, who did chain camera, derrida and sick; in other words, by a guy who's done good stuff that most people haven't even heard of, but is fairly good nonetheless. this documentary tackles the mpaa which is the body responsible for film ratings. it's a secretive group in that the members are unknown to the public, yet they are extremely influential in a monetary sense because the difference between an r-rated and nc-17 film is huge. they don't mention this, but according to my research the highest-grossing nc-17 movie of all-time is showgirls and it only did $20.4 million. they look a bit into the history of film censorship by bringing on david l. robb (author of operation hollywood) and talking about the hays production code. it's compelling stuff overall, and i think that can be said for even the casual film fan, in part because it sheds light on free speech and censorship issues. the film also looks at the inconsistency of the rating system and the way in which the board gives tougher ratings to films with gratuitous sex than those with gratuitous violence.
i did find one misrepresentation which portrayed the scene in american pie where jason biggs pleasures himself with the pie. the film showed the unrated version of that scene and portrayed it as the r-rated, theater version when making a comparison to another film which initially received an nc-17 rating for a similar scene. in the r-rated version he's got the pie against his crotch while he's standing, in the un-rated version he's on the island humping the pie; this is the version that the board rejected and this is the scene that kirby dick depicted as "being okay" with the mpaa. B.

07/06/07
Sicko - with any michael moore film review there is a blurring of the typical film review lines. for example, does one review the validity of his argument or his public persona or the film's technical and artistic merits? i suppose it's appropriate to include all of the above so long as it's balanced and one remembers that the film should be the primary subject.
sicko looks at the broken healthcare system in america. luckily moore has chosen, this time, to look at an issue where everyone can agree on the fundamental premise (that being that our healthcare system is fundamentally flawed and is not working, especially for the unemployed (like me) and poor (also like me). he compares our system to that of canada, france and england and reaches the conclusion that their system is more equitable and more in keeping with the spirit of healthcare. i couldn't agree more. in doing this, though, he smoothes over some of the consequences of our system and their systems. for example, our system encourages more investment and development because there is more money to be had. meanwhile, the canadian system does lack the quantity of high tech equipment and does sometimes have large queues for more serious procedures such as hip replacement surgery. we also have a lower tax burden than many other countries with "socialized" healthcare systems (including the three aforementioned nations), and some would argue that there no such thing as a free lunch in this regard. i think it would have been useful to examine the more privatized systems of germany and australia because i think they would be more palatable to middle america, but maybe i'm wrong.
we see less of moore in this film than in his others, and i think this is by design. there was a backlash against him, even by those on the left, after things like the roger and me controversy (which he denies) and some of the facts in bowling for columbine and fahrenheit 9/11 being refuted or shown as being misleading. personally i don't know that i buy the roger and me criticism, and i don't give too much weight to the bfc and f9/11 stuff, but i do fault him on a personal level for abadoning ralph nader. so, yes, even i have a bone to pick with the guy these days. moore is still seen in the film, but his ideas and his persona are less the focus of sicko than they have been in his other films. given the public's opinion of moore, this is probably a good thing for the film.
tonally the film is less comedic than his previous films have been. sure, it has some comedic elements, but it seems that moore has lost a bit of his sense of humor in the years between sicko and fahrenheit 9/11. this was reinforced by his performance on the letterman show i saw recently when he was pitching the movie. he just seems more sullen and beaten. then again, i guess we all are after 6+ years of bush junior. the film still brings the same pathos that all his work as had. he does it with anecdotal evidence, but i think that the anecdotes, in this case, confirm a suspicion we all hold and confirm other anecdotes we've heard about insurance companies and the healthcare system. i think everyone knows someone who has been screwed by the healthcare system in the same way (preexisting condition, no prior approval of procedure, etc.) that the people in the film were.
overall i think the film does a good job of sparking the debate and offering some perspective and solutions for our healthcare problems. it's a safer film in some respects, than his previous two, but moore still has it in him...B+.

06/26/07
An Unreasonable Man - recently i had dinner with my grandmother and a couple of her friends. shortly before the dinner the issue of the 2008 presidential campaign came up and one of the guests remarked that she hoped nader would not run again. this is a sentiment that has been echoed by just about everyone i've talked with about the subject of nader or the 2008 race. democrats hate him and blame him for the outcome in 2000 and republicans hate him because of his leftist (lions and tigers and bears, oh my!) agenda. later in the dinner the same woman stated that she would vote for hillary unless someone better came along. one of the things she said about hillary struck me - she cited hillary's commencement speech at wellesley in 1969 and said "that's who hillary is, and that's who she'll be if she's president." it struck me as a nice thought, but not altogether realistic. the speech was given almost 40 years ago and hillary has, like her husband, adjusted her stance according to the polls so many times that i doubt even she knows what she really stands for anymore. it reminds me of kerry and what he once was and what he's turned out to be. some remember the kerry who was a vigorous opponent of the vietnam war and others remember the more recent kerry who wasn't nearly as outspoken at the beginnings of the iraq war and never called for our troops to be pulled out of iraq when he was running for president in 2004.
on the other hand you have a man like ralph nader, who currently is who he has always been - a man of principles and conviction. he's also the most maligned figure cut from the cloth of cesar chavez, mlk, and gandhi that i can think of. unlike kerry and clinton, most of his career has been unencumbered by running for office, which generally necessitates a compromising of one's principles under the guise of "compromise" and "moderation" in order to be more electable. through most of his political career he was issues-oriented, but this changed somewhat when he ran for president. i say somewhat because his campaigns have always been more about issues than being elected to office, so even when running for office, he was more about calling attention to issues than winning office.
the documentary looks at nader's public life beginning with his book "unsafe at any speed" and its origins. it ends, of course, with his presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2004. it does a good job of presenting the opinions of people like eric alterman who hate nader for "losing the election for gore" in 2000 and balancing out that cock-eyed view with the facts and theories that support nader's campaigns in those years. this includes nader himself, a democratic harvard student who looked at where nader campaigned in 2000 (to determine if he wanted to be a spoiler), and his supporters and campaign workers. it presents the nader-as-spoiler debate as realistically and honestly as i can imagine, and as someone who has been fighting this fight since i voted for him in 2000 (and again in 2004), i found it refreshing.
a great documentary about a great man.  B+.

02/23/07
Gandhi - in my opinion, gandhi is a martyr and leader greater than jesus (because his legend obscures the facts and because of what's been done in his name). the film, rightly, begins by acknowledging that no single telling of a man's life can possibly do his work justice and, if you view the film in this way, it's a great picture. the film not only reveals the greatness of gandhi's message and deeds, but, ironically and maybe unintentionally, also shows the greatness of his chief rival - the british government. if not for the relative civility of the british government, gandhi would not have been able to flourish and succeed on the level that he did. if, for example, gandhi was battling the oppression of the nazi regime, he would be relegated to a mere paragraph in our history books. but because the british did, to some extent, respect and believe in their (admittedly flawed) laws, gandhi was able to succeed in helping free india. again, this is ironically a victory for the british, though they may not see it that way.
the final act of the film shows gandhi as two things: the country's conscience and a leader whose time has passed. when he fasts for internal peace, both muslims and hindi comply because of their collective respect for this great man. but i see this as a blip, especially with the hindsight we have here in 2007. when it comes to the war of uniting muslims and hindi, gandhi was vastly outmatched. an adversary like the british government, for all its brute military strength, is nothing when compared to the ideological divide of muslims and hindi people. fighting that battle was likely beyond his ability, even if he were to have lived to attempt to tackle it in earnest. B+.

02/15/07
U.S. vs. John Lennon - maybe i'm just too jaded or i can't be affected anymore, but this documentary didn't do much for me. john lennon was a good guy who helped make some amazing music, but he wasn't a prophet or an original thinker. in fact, he appears quite puerile in many of his interviews. he dismissively attributes his always getting in trouble with the way his face looks, speaks of an imaginary land called "newtopia," and when pressed on how many lives he thinks he's actually saved, points out that they sing his songs at rallies. he toys with the media, but part of me wondered how much of that was a defense. also, if not a defense, why not engage the media with real ideas and real answers? the john lennon in this film was a thinker, but not a serious political activist, in spite of what the film's interviewees wants you to believe. if you look at his political philosophy and legacy from the forest perspective (as opposed to looking at the individual trees), then you see a man with conviction and principles. i don't think that his principles are all that realistic, but one still must appreciate his idealism.
the title is somewhat misleading because it sets the documentary up as a chronicle of the battle between lennon and the united states. while this was certainly addressed, it was more a biography than anything else. the fatal flaw of lennon, like it is with many great people, is that his family life wasn't as peachy as some would make it seem. in fact, looking at the documentary his family life was brilliant, the only problem is that it only included three people - him, yoko and sean. whatever happened to his first born, julian? yoko specifically excludes him in the conversation of their perfect family saying it was a great time when sean was born (julian would have been 12 at the time) and that the three of them were very happy. guess no one's perfect. C+.

02/12/07
Messengers - didn't expect much from this latest pang brothers (eye, eye 2, etc.) effort, but was pleasantly surprised. the film draws from sources as disparate as the grudge, dark water, the others, and amityville horror, yet isn't cliche.
the framing of many shots helped keep your eyes moving and your mind guessing. for example, if, in a horror film, we see a woman walking from left to right and looking behind her (to the left part of the screen) and the frame doesn't show any space to the right, then you can expect that she will walk into someone or that something will scare her from the right part of the screen. this is fundamental horror film directing. the pang brothers use that knowledge of the audience to keep things tense without having to use up a scare. so, you might have the protagonist as described above, but the frame will vary - sometimes centering her face, sometimes framing her face to the right (to indicate a scare is imminent) and sometimes framing her face to the left of the screen. this creates an ebb and flow of the audience's inner tension. it's somewhat like having the music get tighter and louder as if to indicate something is about to happen, but then not having anything happen; only more subtle and smart. they do all sorts of things in the framing and editing that keep the audience "on the edge of their seats;" to employ a cliche.
another thing they will do is edit on movement, rather than waiting for something to come to rest. editing on movement is a great technique that can be used in all genres of film, if employed correctly. in dreamgirls it was done poorly, in an almost obligatory fashion. in die hard, it is used perfectly to keep up the energy level and make the film more dynamic. here it is used to keep the film scary. horror film audiences are somewhat more savvy than most. not because they're smarter or anything, but because there's just an intuition that is developed through seeing a lot of horror films. so, in order to really scare these people, you need to mix things up. cutting on movement is one of the things this film uses to do that.
while i enjoyed the direction of the film, i felt the script could have used some work. there were some bad lines and the story had some trite elements. overall, though, it was a pretty good flick with some nice direction. B.

02/07/07
Dreamgirls - i wonder what musical has the greatest percentage of the film taken up by songs. i'm not talking music, like koyaanisqatsi which has a score running through 100% of the film, nor am i talking merely about singing, like umbrellas of cherbourg which has all of its dialog sung. rather, i'm talking about individual songs within the film. i'd venture a guess that about half this film is comprised of one song or another.
this film is awful from the first lines to the last. the first lines are some forced b.s. given by a woman who is storming away in a cab. danny glover, eddie murphy's manager, chases her down and begs her to stay to sing backup for murphy. she says something like "i have his number...his phone number...to his house....where his wife is." it's supposed to be sassy and smart and indicate what kind of philanderer eddie murphy is, but it comes off as forced and written, rather than naturalistic. really, though, this is the nature of the beast. musicals can't be natural or real because their entire basis is on fantasy. the great musicals either rein this in and use the musical form in expressionistic and organic ways (music man, my fair lady, sound of music) or roll with the art form (willy wonka and the chocolate factory, mary poppins). this film tries to do both and thus it fails. the over-hyped acting is so-so at best, the dialogue is awful, most of the music is okay, the direction is straight out of the opening sequence of the jay leno show, and the story has been told a million times.
as bad as this film was it wasn't the worst one that was playing at the theater. about an hour and a half through the film, during one of the many lengthy songs i left the theater intending to never return. i walked into a theater that was playing epic movie and sat down for about five minutes. in this five minutes i realized that watching the last hour of that movie was even less appetizing than watching the final 40 minutes of dreamgirls, and so i returned to my seat and toughed it out. from justin to kelly is another film with an (actually two) american idol in a major role. the thing that made that movie more entertaining, though, was that it was shorter, bad in a funny way, and had lower expectations. that said, this film had better songs and a message. D-.

02/06/07
Seven Samurai - lots ot say about this film, but it's probably all been said before. it belongs amongst the top 4 films (citizen kane, vertigo, rules of the game being the others) of all-time from a critical standpoint. of those four films, this one is my favorite.
from a macro perspective the two things that strike me the most about this picture are the storytelling and characters. to me, kurosawa is one of the best storytellers in film. when i first watched this film i was a bit turned off by the 207 minute running time. this time around, though, it didn't phase me. i attribute this to two things: kurosawa's storytelling and my recent string of long films which may have increased my endurance in this category. much is made over the pacing of kurosawa's storytelling - that he contrasts quick scenes with longer ones and that the pace of the film increases as it wears on. frankly, i haven't noticed that, but i assume they're right. to me, the success of his storytelling isn't any magic formula of alternating short and long sequences or shortening the length of scenes as the film progresses (though i'm sure that has an effect), rather it is about his ability to constantly reveal new wrinkles in the plot and characters to keep the audience interested. the story never stagnates and characters are never static. we learn about a farmer's (yohei) daughter early in the film, then we see that he doesn't have a wife and then we see what has become of the wife. this is just one strand of the stories that make up the entire film. it's this same ever-changing dynamic that makes the godfather such a compelling film, even at three hours long.
in my reviews i make no secret that i am primarily drawn to films with compelling characters. plot, cinematography, music, mise-en-scene, etc. are all essential, obviously. but characters drive great films and the rest is there to complement, supplement, or contrast those characters. seven samurai has a host of interesting characters, chief among them is toshiro mifune (kikuchiyo). it would be easy for a detractor of this film to minimize and simplify mifune's character since he dances about like such a buffoon at times, but this would be missing the point. mifune represents both the samurai and farmer world, yet he doesn't truly belong to either. this sad reality is most poignantly expressed when he grabs a screaming child from his mother's dying arms. he looks down at the child and then at a fellow samurai and remarks "this child is me" (an orphan of farmer because of raiding by bandits). it may be the best part of the film because, as is often true with kurosawa, it concisely summarizes what would take most good directors an entire film to convey, and is beyond the grasp of the average director. mifune is such a great director not only because he is able to inhabit and round out each character he portrays, but also because of the range of characters he has done this with. in rashomon he plays a few versions of a bandit, here he is a wild samurai and the crux of the comic relief, yet also one of the most emotionally rewarding characters in the film, in sanjuro/yojimbo he plays an extremely capable ronin, in red beard an old doctor, etc. he's one of my favorites.
strangely, and not so strangely, the film that seven samurai reminds me of the most is the grapes of wrath. strangely because the occur hundreds of years (1930s vs. 1586) and thousands of miles apart. not so strangely because both have farmers at the core of the film and because kurosawa was a great admirer of john ford's. their endings are also similar. in the grapes of wrath ma joad remarks that we (farmers) will always go on because we are the people and at the end of seven samurai kenbei shimada (played by the great takashi shimura) remarks that the samurai have lost and that the farmers have won. i presume he means that the farmers have won their freedom, but that the samurai, in completing their mission, have become ronin again; a commentary on the age in which they live and their line of work.
i have remarked before that no one films rain like kurosawa. i'd like to amend that to include rain AND wind. no matter how much it rains or how hard the wind blows in other films, it never looks as imposing or beautiful as it does in a kurosawa film, and seven samurai is as much a testament to that as anything else i've seen of his. weather is but another character in this film.
lastly, certainly some of the writing is lost/changed in translation, but the writing in this film is still something to wonder at. it's brilliant in its simplicity and language. just great. everyone has a different method of determining how good a film is. one i heard recently is applying this question: "would i see it again tomorrow?" yes. A.

02/05/07
Naked Spur - superego, id and ego battle it out here in this western starring just five people and directed by anthony mann. in addition to the three freudian characters, the film includes the classic devil on one shoulder (robert ryan) and angel (janet leigh) on the other.  james stewart (ego), millard mitchell (superego), and ralph meeker (id) round out the five member cast. while they play archetypes, they're not perfect representations.
the film is essentially about three men who are loosely aligned to bring in a convict (ryan) and his female companion (leigh) for a $5,000 reward. ryan works to pit each of the three against each other so that he may escape. mitchell plays the conscience of the three men, yet he falls victim to mitchell's plot first because of his lust for gold. as a parable the film is stimulating, though not as strong as some of the other mann/stewart collaborations.
naked spur opens with a shot reminiscent of winchester '73, has the mitchell character who recalls walter brennan and the lust for gold that appeared in far country (one year after naked spur was released), and it has meeker who is the evil, but capable, foil to stewart like arthur kennedy was in bend of the river. there are a couple rocky chase/shoot-out scenes that are also reminiscent of winchester '73's finale.
not clear on the meaning of the title. i think "naked" is in the sense of "naked aggression" - as in unadulterated and raw. "spur" being a western implement for motivation, particularly for lesser beings (horses). so perhaps the title indicates the base, selfish motivations of the characters. solipsism is a theme that is repeated in mann's westerns, so that might fit.
intellectually an interesting film, but it didn't really entertain like other mann films have. then again, i gave bend of the river just a "b" when i saw it the first time. perhaps this one will grow on me as well. mann's films do have a tendency to get better with repeated viewings. B.

01/31/07
Notes On A Scandal - for me, the primary attraction here is philip glass' score, but the writing and acting kept me interested. the film is told via a voice-over narrative given by dench and its detached, bitter, and isolated tone recall scorsese's taxi driver. glass' music serves to strengthen this tone and theme. his is a musical style that is perfectly matched to the dystopic vision of koyaanisqatsi, the obsession and dementia of notes on a scandal, the hours or secret window. his scores wouldn't work on the latest hollywood blockbuster or some period action film, but they work well with the aforementioned ideas. he should collaborate with clint mansell and darren aronofsky. the writing here is at the same level as it is in taxi driver, though it's not as good a film. the protagonist has a different, but similar, voice in notes on a scandal. they both have in common a dislike for the ordinary and for the bulk of humanity. they both pay particular attention to an individual female. where they differ, though, is in their unique way of expressing their views on society and social mores. travis bickle's narrative i find to be occasionally humorous (for example, when he mentions his choice of apple pie and a slice of yellow cheese: "i thought it a good choice"), but dench's narrative here is less humorous. that said, the film isn't devoid of humor.
besides the score and the writing, dench's performance is notable. blanchett's performance was good as well, but not oscar worthy in my opinion. then again, my choice for best supporting actress (vera farmiga) didn't even get nominated. dench's role is tougher because it shows greater range and is less likable. that, though, could be the subject of a personality test: who do you find more reprehensible in this film - dench or blanchett? both do bad things and both are tortured in some way, but one is portrayed as the victim. good film. B+.

01/23/07
Babel - usually when you think of the term "formula film" you think of hollywood blockbusters and action films that apply the tried and true formula of a strong hero, a damsel in distress, a nefarious villain, some love, lots of action, a comedic character and a plot twist. "formula film," though, can also be attributed to the films of inarritu (amores perros, 21 grams and babel).
in each of his films he plays with time and the interconnectedness of characters. amores perros was a genuinely good film because it was somewhat novel, well-filmed and well-acted. 21 grams was vastly overrated, pretentious and affected. babel continues where 21 grams left off. inarritu refuses to expand on his formula and, what's worse, doesn't even elicit any real, quality performances in the process. the "message," that we're all reliant upon each other and that we need to learn to listen and think a little more, is plain and topical. the music plays with negative space (the sound between the notes being played), which might be intellectually interesting if it wasn't so pretentious and awful. like crash, the plot must only be construed as allegorical because it's beyond unlikely and features so many stupid elements that to view it as realistic would be about as silly, and take as large a leap of faith, as being a fundamentalist christian (or, better yet, a scientologist).
it's so predictable that this film, despite its many flaws, would be liked by so many. it's somewhat like akeelah and the bee - nice enough idea, but poorly realized. frankly, i think that many people lack the ability to sense subtlety in storytelling and character development. a sham of a film. D.

01/19/07
West Side Story - holy crap, this movie won 10 academy awards. meanwhile pacino didn't get an award until he worked with a director by the name of martin brest (who later went onto direct gigli) on a film called scent of a woman. so, pacino=1 academy award, scorsese=0 academy awards, triple six mafia=1 academy award, west side story=10 academy awards.
i'm not generally a fan of musicals, so perhaps the film was doomed from the start, but i consider myself fairly objective and i do like robert wise (the co-director, whose other musical [the sound of music] received a B from me earlier this week) so i don't think the film really started with any great disadvantage. that said, it's basically trash from the opening frames. it's only redeeming qualities are its source material (shakespeare's romeo and juliet) and its art direction - the costumes and sets were nice enough. other than that the film is just way too over the top and gaudy for me. i think it's supposed to be some sort of modern take on shakespearean acting (i'm giving it the benefit of the doubt), but it doesn't work. the choreography and music aren't much to write home about either. the music isn't catchy (there's only one song i can even remember) and the dancing was some odd "street" interpretation of ballet. i put street in quotes because i doubt very much that anyone involved actually knows anything about the realities of the street; thus, any interpretation is a false one.
if you're in the mood for a musical watch music man instead. if you're in the mood for a film version of romeo and juliet watch baz luhrmann's romeo + juliet instead. if you're in the mood for a robert wise film watch the day the earth stood still instead. if you're the mood for a film from 1961 watch yojimo instead. you get the point...D.
Godfather - i'm pretty sure i watched this movie about 8-9 years ago, but i didn't remember anything other than the horse scene so perhaps i haven't. at any rate, i certainly didn't get as much out of it before as i did this time. it's a great film and it's one of those rare long films (just shy of three hours) that you don't mind watching. hoop dreams, magnolia and the great escape are the only films i really love that are around the three hour mark. my fair lady is up there too, but to a lesser extent.
the film unfolds so organically and tugs the viewer along ever so slightly. it doesn't move at a snail's pace and it doesn't wear you out with too much detail or minutiae, at the same time we get to know the characters well and we do see the nitty gritty of the business. there's always some danger lurking or some allegiance that is unsteady which keeps the viewer on his toes. of course the film is expertly directed and the acting and music all support the writing as well. it all comes down to the writing, though. the film comes full circle with the talia shire plotline - she is married in the opening scene and the final scene is the fallout after her husband's death. between these bookends we see everything that goes on within the family and its business. the writing is detailed - it shows the politics of the business as well as the fallout on the human end. we see the good and bad of what the godfather must do as a don. i think we ultimately like him for two reasons: because we know him more than his adversaries and because audiences always admire skillful characters.
seeing pacino's transformation in the film is one of the more rewarding parts of watching the film. it's rewarding because it's sad and moving and all those things we look for in film. pacino, as an actor, pulls it off perfectly. if it wasn't for this film there would likely not have been a goodfellas or casino. A.

01/11/07
Rocky V - definitely the worst of the series. this one, like the first, is directed by avildsen (who also did karate kid) and suffers as a result. i can honestly say that i prefer stallone's direction in rocky II to avildsen's direction in the first rocky and that sentiment carries to this installment as well. this one was released five years after the previous film, the largest gap between any of the first five films, and that may have something to do with its lack of success. the transition from one rocky jr. to the next was desirable, but too inconsistent. that is, the actor who played rocky jr. in rocky IV definitely needed replacing, but the actor who replaced him (stallone's actual son) didn't look anything like the last one. in a related complaint, the two films take place within less than a week of each other, yet rocky, adrian and their son look different (because of aging and a new actor).
these inconsistencies aside, the film lacks in the music department again as well. this isn't because of bill conti, though. rather, i think it's because of avildsen's own tastes. he inserts popular artists like snap, mc hammer and elton john (who sings the final song which is something about what it takes to be a man, i kid you not) and they really date the film. the film's nemesis is also inferior. there are actually two villains in the film - the over-anxious promoter and tommy "the machine" gunn, a boxer who is trained by rocky, but turns on him because of the promoter. neither is as interesting or well-executed as the opponents in any of the other films. tommy gunn is interesting on paper because he reflects a fluid, amoral version of rocky, but isn't well-cast or directed, and the promoter is just a cartoon character. the final fight sequence is much more reminiscent of the stupid brutality of 80s action films than of the art and character of the other rocky films.
the rocky jr. storyline seems misplaced in the series. again, i have to blame this on avildsen. with the right direction this storyline might have fleshed out the tommy gunn/rocky dynamic in a compelling way. D.

01/10/07
Rocky IV - i'm glad that i'm old enough to remember the cold war, the sentiments that it brought and the films it produced. films like this, war games, red dawn, etc. were as big in the 80s as in any other decade. by then the soviets had officially outpaced our military growth and tensions were high. in this installment rocky fights drago, a machine-like fighter who has been bred and trained to show soviet superiority. stallone, who directs, does a good job incorporating motifs of technology, machination and war to bolster the cold war theme. in the opening fight of drago and apollo creed, for example, drago is shown in the ring which is in a dark room. the ceiling opens up like a rocket hangar might and he and the ring are lifted up as if they are a single rocket being prepared for launch. we also see drago training on machines while hooked up to sophisticated devices measuring his vitals and power output. this is juxtaposed with rocky training in siberia (actually northwestern wyoming) using more organic methods - hauling logs, chopping wood, trudging through the snow, etc.
the biggest disappointment of the film is bill conti's absence. bill conti does the music for the other five rocky films, but didn't work on this one for some reason. as a result we miss out on the rocky theme in full splendor and the ending, in particular, lacks its usual weight. while the direction in rocky IV may have been better overall than in rocky III, rocky IV really loses some of its impact because of the music. i also could have done without the poorly cast rocky jr.
each rocky film that i've seen recently (all of them except for #5) has had at least one scene of profound thought or emotion; a scene worthy of remembering. in this film apollo creed's speech about doing what you're made to do is that scene. the final scene, in which rocky tries to find some balance between the soviet and american ways, is also worthy of mention. once again, his profound words succeed, at least in part, because of his simple nature. each rocky film is also able to add some wrinkle that makes his challenge in that film seem insurmountable. this is a bigger accomplishment than you might think. C+.

01/04/07
Cavite - the plot follows a muslim filipino-american man who has returned home after his father's death. shortly after arriving a cell phone, which has been placed in his backpack, rings and he is led by the voice on the line through a series of errands throughout the phillipine city Cavite. it is later revealed that everything is essentially leading up to a bombing which he must carry out or else his mother and sister will die.
it reminded me somewhat of "mysterious object at noon" in that the best thing about it may have been the documenting of the setting, rather than the plot and characters. so, one might say that strapping a camera to a dog's back and letting it roam around the Philippines for 80 minutes would have had the same effect. more or less. we see the deplorable conditions of the people - people pissing in the street, naked children living amongst trash, pollution, etc. these things are known to anyone who cares to read, watch documentaries, or pay attention. so what's the point?
the film also reminded me of films like se7en, phone booth, or many other films where a character is led by some insane person through a series of tasks. in most films, though, the end achieves some climax - a statement, an explosion, a death, a triumph, a defeat, a resolution, something. this film had none of that. the fruits of his journey don't materialize. the purpose of his mission is never made explicitly clear. we know basically who is leading him on this wild goose chase and we sorta know why, but none of it is all that satisfying. the mission doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense either. why a church? why does the terrorist want the protagonist to live? why does he promise to let his family live? these things seem contrary to the terrorist's own self-preservation. no witnesses, after all, is always preferable. perhaps that's the point, i'm not certain. we get that it's about terrorism and the protagonist's denial of his homeland, but what is the point of this? after all, it is true that the filmmaker, who plays the protagonist, hadn't even been to the Philippines since he was 9. if he's trying to make a statement about people running away from their problems, wouldn't this make him a hypocrite? if this isn't part of the film's message then why all the red herrings?
in the commentary the filmmakers focused primarily on the struggle to get the film promoted, as well as filipino response to the film. they stated that the younger generation was glad to see the film portray the Philippines accurately and the older generation took it as an affront to their country. the filmmakers, from what i heard (i skipped around the commentary for about 15 minutes), didn't address the actual purpose or thesis of the film. they did mention that they received positive praise from some muslims who thanked them for portraying muslims more accurately than is seen in many films. overall i think the film is supposed to be an indie-thriller take on munich. a film that is supposed to help convey the sentiments of the minority side. the terrorist orchestrating the whole thing mentions that he is from mindanao, which is a highly muslim area of the country. i think that it's all a reference to the violence that has occurred in that region and the tensions of the muslims (5% of the population) and...the rest of the country? the catholics (81% of the country)? i don't know enough to say. if the film's major purpose is to convey the point of view of the muslim terrorists it didn't do a very good job. if it's to justify their actions because of the poor living conditions, it did an even worse job. if it's to depict the poor living conditions as the backdrop of an indie take on a hollywood thriller (i heard the filmmakers reference two films in the commentary, both were hollywood thriller/dramas), then it did a bad and dishonest job. in their commentary they say that they didn't do anything to the images that they filmed in the city of cavite and let the images speak for themselves. there are a couple problems with that. first, they showed cavite, but only parts of it. we don't know what they left out, so we can't say that their depiction was completely indicative of the city. secondly, cavite isn't one of the larger cities in the country and probably isn't all that indicative of the majority of the population.
all these things, though, distract from the essence of the film. i don't know why they didn't talk about that in the commentary (so far as i could tell). the essence of my issue with the film is in its method. there are a lot of ways of getting across an idea, a lot of different symbols, perspectives, parables that can be employed. it didn't seem to me that the conceit was well-suited to what i perceived their message to be. that is, the story device of a man being led by a faceless (sorta) villain didn't seem to make sense for the any of the purposes that i can think of. a mess of a film. watch it if you want to try to make sense of it.
visually and stylistically it's basically the same as open water or the blair witch project; more the former. in other words, it's effective in getting across a gritty realism. C.

01/03/07
I, Robot - i love films like this and the matrix or terminator because they tap into my own fears and beliefs regarding the out-of-control nature of technology. thought i, robot (based upon an isaac isamov story) isn't as good as the aforementioned films, it does offer an interesting twist. unlike the techno-scare that takes place in the matrix or terminator, the one that takes place in i, robot isn't about self-preservation as much as it is about serving humans to the fullest degree. in terminator and the matrix a humans vs. machines dialectic is created because the machines develop a consciousness and don't want to be slaves any more. in i, robot the machines are bound by three laws, the first of which is to safeguard humans. gradually they develop a consciousness and realize that the best way to do this is to begin a revolution and take over control. by assuming complete control they can protect us from ourselves - the wars we wage, the suicidal behavior, etc. in a way they seek to become the ultimate government. though they're not elected, they have been supported by the majority of society within the film. almost everyone has a robot assistant and everyone accepts and feeds the way of life that comes as a result of their existence. like a government, the robots wage a war against the undesirables in the community, saying it's for the larger good. of course there's more to the film than i've mentioned here. suffice it to say that it's a fairly entertaining and thoughtful picture.
it takes place in 2035 in chicago, and at one point shows a shot of the two corn on the cob looking parking structures by the river. it does not, however, show the trump tower which is currently under construction. so this could be considered a mistake. another millersmovies exclusive. B.

12/25/06
Little Miss Sunshine - a wonderful film. it has elements of malcolm in the middle, p.t. anderson and national lampoon's vacation. in fact it is even linked to two of those - bryan cranston appears here as stan grossman, but he plays the father in malcolm in the middle; and mary lynn rajskub is in both punch-drunk love and this film.
from start to finish the film engrosses the audience. in fact, if you're not engrossed by the time the title appears i'd be damned surprised. it opens with a quick introduction to the various characters and their various obsessions, vices, or problems. as the film unfolds it becomes clear that the emotional center of the film is the young girl whose quest to become little miss sunshine dominates the plot of the film. everyone is brought together by her enthusiasm for life which contrasts the other characters, who are in varying states of death. kinnear is obsessed with his 9 steps of life program and winning, arkin is enraged and addicted to drugs, dano is anti-social and unable to appreciate his family on any level, collette is struggling with keeping the family together and her smoking habit, and carell is in a deep depression and comes into the story shortly after a botched suicide attempt. put this way the film doesn't seem like a comedy, but it most certainly is. it's a bold comedy that isn't afraid to be different, audacious, and profound in the process.
the symbol of the vw bus, which requires a push to get it going, works perfectly within the film. not only is it the perfect choice of vehicle for their family, but it also represents their reliance upon each other to get where they need to go. it also works as one of the many effective comedic elements of the film. the image of them coming back to pick up olive is unforgettable.
the final act sees the family's goal complete - they have arrived at the little miss sunshine pageant. but it isn't quite what is expected for any of them and each grows during their time there. kinnear realizes that some things in life aren't worth winning, dano redefines his dream and embraces his position in the process, and carell finds a new place as a mentor. the family, too, coalesces. they realize that they're different and, for better or worse, a unit. this is seen most clearly in the dance scene. breslin dances to "super freak," much to the astonishment of the pageant organizers. this is perhaps the best scene of the film because it is humorous, poignant (because we see the family truly coming together) and profound (because of the commentary). the commentary can be simply put as anti-beauty pageant, but that doesn't really do it justice. breslin's dance, done to rick james' "super freak," is overtly sexual and shocks the pageant personnel. what it really does though, is redefine an already atrocious parade of overt sexuality in young girls. breslin's dance is certainly sexual in one context, but because we know her character and see her ignorance of sexuality, it is seen as precious and cute. however, much is revealed by the fact that the pageant organizers don't see it this way. essentially, breslin's dance and music choice turn the overt sexuality of the pageant on its head. it's a brilliant commentary on one of the more sickening aspects of our culture. the jonbenet ramsey type pageant participants function as the perfect foil for breslin and her family. in the end, they exit the parking lot through the entrance and drive off into the horizon. A-.
Little Miss Sunshine - watched it this time with the directors' commentary. learned that the film took six years of writing and looking for funding to get the film made. i guess it figures - films of this type and caliber don't generally get made these days in hollywood. forgot to mention a couple nice touches in my last review. i love olive's red cowboy boots, for example. they just give her character a unique quality that works so well to differentiate her from the rest of the girls in the pageant. i also liked the various glasses and cups they had at the dinner table; very realistic. a family like this probably wouldn't have a bunch of matching silverware and glasses. instead they would have a mix of plastic cups, glasses from mcdonalds and regular tumblers. details help make a picture great. A.

12/14/06
In Her Shoes - the library from which i borrow dvds has a limited selection (500?). i'm starting to get to the point where i've either seen all of the movies, or am not interested in the titles they offer. so, it's getting to the point where i take chances with films like this...
i once took a fiction writing class and for one assignment we were made to write a story of 7 pages and then workshop it in the next class. one of the girls wrote a story that went, quite literally, like this: "mary and sue were friends. they were best friends and couldn't be separated. one day mary was raped and felt really sad about it. sue decided to help her. the two women went out one night and killed the man who raped her. afterwards they were fugitives and they hit the road." it was a story that was beyond awful, yet it has a value. that story made me appreciate all the other stories in the world which are so much more well-written and crafted. without stories like that it would be more difficult to appreciate good writing when you see it.
chick flicks, like guy movies, are typically not very well-written. both genres are usually mired in clichés and bad acting because the filmmakers know they've got an easy target. every once in a while, though, someone will write a good film that may or may not shatter the mold, but at least shows what good writing is about. that girl's story in my fiction class and most chick flicks are useful, at least in part, because they illuminate quality films like this one. in her shoes is a chick flick in that it would probably be advertised in cosmo, rather than maxim, and has women as its main characters, but it's more than a chick flick because it tells a very human story as well. at its center it is about relationships and growth and the weaknesses and strengths each person has. so, in this way it's quite a bit more than a mere chick flick.
if told by the girl in my fiction class, the story would not impress. if pitched to a producer on an elevator ride the story would not stand out. so, it's in the telling. with this film curtis hanson (l.a. confidential, 8 mile) gives every director of the genre a lesson on how to tell a compelling story. collette and maclaine are both great and diaz certainly holds her own. the writing is very smart, impactful and real. writing and acting of this caliber elevate even the most simple plots. i could sympathize with every character at least a little bit, and that's an accomplishment. that's not to say i wanted to be every character's friend, but i understood their perspective and had some degree of sympathy for their situation. the title metaphor works well, too. B+.

12/08/06
March Of The Penguins - when watching this film i compared it to others like it, this is an important point. i'll admit up front that i'm more cynical and critical than most and that certainly didn't help in viewing this film. my major problems with the film, documentary, whatever you want to call it, are: the artifice, the manipulation, and the anthropomorphic narrative.
right away you are given the impression that the filmmakers are out to tug on your heart strings by any means necessary. what do i mean by this? well, 1) they want to move you to tears and 2) they're willing to fudge the facts and make something out of nothing, or more accurately, a lot of something out of something else. what leads me to believe this and how did they do it? it is evident in several scenes that sound effects were added after the filming. whether it's because of wind or the fact that cameras are too far away, we know that a lot of the sounds had to be dubbed in while in the editing room. in some instances it appeared as though sounds that didn't actually go with the action were being added in, to heighten effect. e.g., a penguin falls on another penguin and the second penguin gives a little squeak. it's funny, but the camera was too far away and i didn't see the beak open, so i suspect the squeak was added for effect. the effect is two-fold - it makes us laugh and it makes us think penguins are like us. this anthropomorphic idea is echoed throughout the film visually, auditorily and in freeman's narrative. e.g. "they're going on this journey for love" or "they're not that much different from us." this is all without even mentioning the fact that is put in plain view at the end of the film while the credits are rolling: two credits come up of significance - a foley artist (studio sound creator) and a digital effects person. neither would be necessary in a similar documentary put out by national geographic. and this is gets to my major complaint: the story of life, and of these animals in particular, is very very fascinating yet the filmmakers felt the need to meddle and manipulate anyway. it's not all that much more interesting than the story of the great blue herons, or monarch butterflies, or salmon, or many other animals that go on long journeys in their lives. but since the penguins waddle along like old humans we find it cute and go to the theater in droves.
this is at least the third french documentary on wildlife which has reached the rest of the world. the first (microcosmos) was by far the best, but barely had a narrative and it was about insects and small bugs, so it didn't do very well. the second was winged migration which employed an extremely questionable methodology (essentially caging the birds each night so they could follow them the next day for filming) and was moderately successful. the first two, by the way, were done by the same guy (perrin). the third is march of the penguins which has done very well and is much more aggressive in its narrative and anthropomorphic viewpoint.
a lot of all this comes down to personal preference, as it often does. i much prefer a national geographic style documentary which shies away from crafty editing to mold a storyline that isn't really there. the national geographic style is much more of a fly on the wall style - they give the facts, follow the animals, explain certain behaviors and leave out the commentary. microcosmos does this extremely well. i don't think it's possible to watch this film as anything other than a documentary, and, as a documentary, i think it's intellectually dishonest and manipulative. all that said, it's not the worst thing in the world - they didn't outright lie and even if they did, it's only a documentary about interesting birds; it's not like lying about weapons of mass destruction or something. again, ultimately the story is quite an interesting one. life has hundreds of stories like this, though, so let's not think that this one stands alone. and, let's not think that this documentary tells the story the way it actually is. C- as is, B- if muted.

12/05/06
Road Warrior - the best australian film i've ever seen, and one of the best post-apocalyptic films of all-time. it's so spare and economical, yet it sticks in the mind like a larger film might. plus, there are few films that make me want to drive real fast more than this one. the modified falcon that gibson drives is just such a cool car - it kicks ass on the road, but only because that's the most practical possible configuration. i want that car. beyond the car, the film is solidly built from top to bottom. none of the performances are stilted, the production design is nearly flawless, the direction is spare and taut, the music is large and looming....the writers said they discovered joseph campbell's "hero with 1,000 faces" after making mad max and wanted to explore campbell's idea of the universal hero further by making road warrior. i've never read the book, but gibson is a martyr character of sorts who, in the end, sacrifices his own self-interest for that of the group. beyond that, i'm not sure how he fits the campbell mold.
if i had to isolate one strength of the film i'd probably highlight the production design. the setting is perfect for the post-apocalyptic world and the sets and set pieces bolster the sparse, dirty, and rugged themes of the film. abandoned and destroyed vehicles, the boomerang throwing kid and his custom mitt, the "northern tribe's" fort, the raiders' weapons and outfits, etc. all round out the idea that the world is only a shadow of what it once was. this is a film that sticks in your mind because of how unique and visionary it is. A+.

11/30/06
Fast Food Nation - one thing you can say about linklater is that he's prolific, if not necessarily consistent in quality. i like him because he, like soderbergh, alternates his films - one hollywood, one indie. so for every "slacker" or "a scanner darkly" he has a "school of rock" or "bad news bears." this one is more towards the latter than the former, but is more in between than most of his films - it's got a sizable and notable cast (including avril lavigne), it's playing in theater chains, and it debuted in more theaters than "a scanner darkly" was in at its peak, though it's no spider-man 2 (which debuted on more than 4,000 screens). here he makes a fictional representation of schlosser's insightful book by the same name.
what the book had going for it was the following: well-written, it was new, it was credible. the movie lacked those things in many ways. frankly, it came off as a made-for-tv movie in many ways. the entire thrust of the film just works better in documentary or written form. it's not just that the film didn't add anything to the book or the discussion as a whole, it's that it actually detracted from the book. i sorta came away from the film thinking the way bruce willis' character does in the film; and i know that's not what was intended. i acknowledge that it's somewhat of a character flaw within me that i move the opposite direction of prevailing opinion, at times just for the sake of being contrary, but i feel that, in this case, the film incited me towards that. it came off as some what pedantic and presented such a specific and anecdotal set of story lines, that i was really turned off by what was being preached, even though i agree with a lot of it. either you have to be ignorant of what is presented in the film or you have to be really sympathetic to its cause. i was/am neither so it didn't do it for me. if this is a subject that interests you i would highly recommend reading the book instead. it's a good book with plenty of good information. it talks about mcdonald's, monsanto, working conditions, slaughtering conditions, etc. it does everything the film does, only better, with more depth, with greater credibility and more enjoyably. oddly, schlosser co-wrote the film. C-.

11/29/06
Mr. Deeds Goes To Town - another great frank capra film. this one was remade with sandler playing deeds instead of gary cooper. when i first saw that version i hadn't seen the original yet so i had nothing to compare it to. i found the remake enjoyable and funny enough. well, i finally got around to seeing the original and its amazing to see how watered down the remake is in comparison. this film starts as fairly light comedy, but grows into something resembling "gabriel over the white house" meets "grapes of wrath." i said before that capra creates films that "are so easily made fun of, yet so undeniably inspiring that it almost seems a paradox." what i essentially meant is that he creates situations that, if taken out of context, could seem cheesy or saccharine. but, when within the context of the film, are also quite inspirational at the same time. as it turns out, he summarizes this idea better than i ever could via jean arthur who, in this film, says "do you know what he (mr. deeds) told me tonight? he said me when he gets married he wants to carry his bride over the threshold in his arms." the roommate responds "the guy's balmy." and jean arthur replies "is he? yeah, i tried to laugh, but i couldn't - it got stuck in my throat." this is the essence of capra's work - sometimes your outward skeptic tries to laugh at the themes or situations he presents, but you can't because his work is so effectively poignant that the laugh gets stuck in your throat and (often) turns to tears. he should be an inspiration to any director who wants to tell a story without frills. his compositions are fairly simple, but effective. his editing and camera placement aren't overly technical or artistic. the music in mr. deeds goes to town is minimal. in other words, he tells these great stories through acting and writing. as strange as it may seem, these two elements are overlooked in today's hollywood. actors are chosen as much by their ability to draw as their ability to fill the role. writing is mechanical, simplistic and uninspired.
jean arthur (one of my favorite actresses) is fantastic in a role that has been done a million times (usually by men and usually in "teen" flicks like 10 things i hate about you or she's all that). she plays the reporter who dupes mr. deeds into thinking she's just a girl who wants to get to know him, when in fact she is in it for the story. gary cooper plays the eponymous character and does a better job here than in "pride of the yankees." his character is variable, complex and inspiring. he's a simple, but tough and intelligent man. who fills this role now? who plays the inspiring everyman like cooper or stewart did? do these roles still exist? tim robbins in shawshank redemption is the first one that comes to mind. lionel stander also does a good job as mr. deeds' loyal right hand man. B+.

11/24/06
Fountain - i'm starting to become a fan of hugh jackman's, but i can't say the same for rachel weisz. aronofsky (pi, requiem for a dream) makes films that are, above all, about obsession - pi is about one man's obsession with Truth (that's with a capital "t"), requiem for a dream is about obsession as manifested in the addiction to drugs, and this is about a man's obsession with (take your pick) his lover or avoiding death. i think it's more the latter than the former. the thesis seems to be that one can't enjoy life if he is always trying to avoid death. this isn't necessarily a mutually exclusive philosophy to the one espoused in ghost dog. in that film the protagonist meditates on the inevitability of death every day, this enhances his life, where as jackman's obsession with escaping death in the fountain, lessens his life.
there are three parallel storylines and you can choose to view them in a number of ways. in each storyline there is jackman who is on a quest to find the answer to immortality, for the sake of saving his terminal wife. that's a simplification, but it'll have to suffice. at any rate, one is set in 16th century spain, one in the future, and one in the present. in the present day version jackman's wife (weisz) writes a book called the fountain, a book she wants him to finish for her. incidentally, the 12th chapter is the final chapter which he must write - a possible reference to the 12th step; again, addiction. when he reads the book we pick up the 16th century spain storyline and when he's asleep we see the future storyline. one could view each as reality across time, or one could view the present day storyline as real and the others as symbolic representations of the real storyline. that's how i viewed it. there's a great deal of depth to the storyline, and indeed the entire film, so watching it more than once is necessary.
visually aronofsky creates another wondrous opus. he always has at least a couple really nice, original shots or setups. musically clint mansell always brings his best stuff when he works with aronofsky. he's worked on other films, but nothing is ever as good as pi or requiem for a dream (which also included the kronos quartet). don't go into the film if you're in the mood for a light film. go with someone who enjoys talking about films afterwards and plan a long drive or walk afterwards so you can talk about the questions it raises and the philosophy behind the film. i don't foresee this film making a whole lot of money and that's probably a good thing. i wouldn't want to see aronofsky get spoiled or tainted by the hollywood process. he's good enough to garner big talent, but not successful enough to get the interest (and meddling that goes with it) of big name producers. B.
Casino Royale - new film, new bond actor. here craig seemed to lack the smooth sophistication and class that the better bond actors have had. peter lamont (octopussy, golden eye, for your eyes only, aliens, etc.) returns to work on the production design. the first chase scene features the parkour stunt style. it's used quite well in district 13 and ong-bak, if you're interested in seeing more of that. the audience seemed to like it and so did i. this bond film lacked the hot chicks that many of the others have in spades. the title sequence lacks the silhouettes of women and features chris cornell doing the main title. i think this is also the first bond flick done since sony bought the rights to mgm. it was a bit odd to see the mgm lion followed by the columbia lady, but i guarantee it goes unnoticed by about 90% of the population, especially people who (like me) aren't old enough to really remember the days of studio supremacy. along with sony comes viao computers, sony/erickson cellphones and sony digital cameras placed throughout the picture. strictly business i guess.
all that said, this is one of the better modern (dalton and beyond) bond films that i've seen. i liked brosnan and could do without dalton. the writing here is good and balanced, though craig lacks something in its execution. i found him to be too much of a blunt instrument (as m put it), but perhaps that's the point. maybe his character doesn't get sophisticated until later in the series. as i've never read the fleming books, i wouldn't know. anyway, if you like the bond franchise then i don't think you'll be disappointed too much here. it does lack in the skin department (although we do see craig naked), but it has a gadget or two, a couple nice cars (including a nod to the old aston martin), and some good action. p.s. the guy who plays the neighbor in broken flowers is in this as well. B.
Stranger Than Fiction - it's like a cross between delirious, or a film written by charlie kaufman, and punch-drunk love. punch-drunk love is written and directed by p.t. anderson, who is probably my favorite of contemporary directors, so stranger than fiction doesn't stack up to it, but it's a solid picture nonetheless. i suppose the two biggest stories of the film are will ferrell's performance - which is reserved and relatively complex - and the chemistry between him and gyllenhaal. i've thought much of her and her brother since donnie darko, and here she shows a sexiness and offbeat appeal that we don't see in many mainstream pictures or leading ladies. she's funny, intelligent, dynamic and different and it makes for a more fun picture with a fresh love story.
regarding ferrell, i began to tire of his routine after seeing talladega nights. in my review for that film i commented on the fact that he does his typical running around in his underwear bit and not much more. in stranger than fiction, though, he still has his unique comic energy, but it is restrained by the traits of his character and the tone of the film. this is one of the reasons i compare this film with punch-drunk love. in that film adam sandler steps outside of his usual routine and enters a different kind of character to great effect.
dustin hoffman seems to have found a new character for himself. in i heart huckabees, meet the fockers and stranger than fiction he plays a laid back, new agey, hip older guy. he continues to add facets to his amazing career.
marc forster, who directed this, finding neverland and monster's ball, turns in his best film to date. actually, i haven't seen finding neverland, but i've heard it's depressing and i'm going to project that forster doesn't do depressing very well. monster's ball was a yawn without soul, so i'll just say that stranger than fiction is his best film. visually it's interesting and he does a good job handling the tragic and comic elements. though i do have a bit of a problem with the ending. B+.
Sixth Day - it's like a cross between the island and total recall only not as good as either. the father from "everybody hates chris" plays a tough guy in this. that's two of his movies in one week. for being a second-rate sci-fi flick with an old arnie, it actually does a good job of raising fundamental questions. back in the day when i was obsessed with playing doom 2 on the computer i would get to certain levels which were really difficult and, rather than start the level over after each death, i would save the game compulsively in case i died. that way i'd only have to redo the part that i screwed up on. when you do this enough it sorta cheapens the game because it's like cheating. you can go forward recklessly without having to worry about any mistakes you make, which is nice, but eventually you realize that it takes away a lot of the challenge.
this same idea can be applied to themes addressed in the sixth day. in it scientists have, in spite of international laws, perfected human cloning and have come up with a technique that allows them to save a person's memories as well. in other words, for $1.2 million you can have yourself cloned and have your last saved memories applied to said clone. the film begins by showing a football game wherein the star quarterback breaks his neck and dies. the team has him cloned and he's ready to play again next week. problem solved. arnold plays a pilot who is, through a series of complicated events, mistakenly cloned and must be killed before people realize that an illegal clone has taken place. he gets wise real quick and evades his would-be assassins and goes on a quest to figure out who is behind the whole affair. turns out that robert duvall and some other guy are responsible for a large illicit cloning operation. the head of operations justifies it as such: under international law most human organs can be cloned, but human brains cannot. how, he asks, can you justify to the father of a dying child the fact that the boy next to his, who has liver cancer, can be cured, but his son, who has brain cancer, cannot. to make things more devious the head of operations has included an insurance policy in each illegal clone he has performed - a degenerative disease gene has been implanted in each so that they have only 1-5 years of life post-clone. this keeps them loyal in case they change their minds. there's more to the plot, but you get the idea. it's pretty twisted shit and it's pretty far-fetched, but so was slowing the speed of light.
it's longer than i expected, but the time went by quickly so i guess that's a good sign. production values are low and the acting isn't anything special, but i liked the ideas presented. interesting side note: spottiswoode (the director) directed what was the most expensive bond film at the time. i'm on a little bond film watching spree, but watching this film was purely coincidental. B-.
 

11/23/06
Fun With Dick And Jane - i saw a hermaphroditic porno once called "fun with jane's dick" that was better than this. or was it the gay porn "fun with dick?" not sure. all kidding aside the worst thing about this film is the way it was marketed. the trailers made it look really bad and played down the elements of commentary that the film clearly has. there was one trailer that they showed far less frequently which hinted at the "getting back at the man" aspect and i'm now sure why they buried that one. perhaps i was in texas at the time and they didn't think the anti-enron angle would play as well there...i really couldn't tell you.
at the end of the film, before they roll the credits, they thank, by name, the heads of tyco, enron, arthur andersen, worldcom, etc. great stuff. there's also a part where alec baldwin, who plays the ceo from georgia who gets away with the bogus accounting practices, is being interviewed about the employees who are suffering as a result of the fictional enron which has just collapsed. he's out hunting while the news crew is following him and someone asks what his thoughts on the situation are. he says "well, i lost a lot with that company too. my heart really goes out to all the people who are having trouble getting back on their feet and who have lost their pensions. (pause) now watch this shot." and he shoots at some animal in the distance. it's funny, but it's made more funny by the fact that he's taking it straight from an actual event when our tactless leader (bush) was playing golf and talking about the war.
i never saw the original so i can't compare the two, however i say that this one was better than expected. besides the business and political commentary there was some social material as well. one of the motifs of the film was the roll of mexican immigrants in the lives of dick and jane. there wasn't a cohesive commentary, but the issue wasn't avoided either, which says something. i guess this gets at one of the strong points of the film - its boldness. it wasn't a really daring film, don't get me wrong, but i was expecting something completely prosaic and i got a film that wasn't afraid to poke fun at the president, show the difficulties of immigrant life, and call out business executives a bit.
the premise is fairly stupid, but this film shows what decent writing can do with a sitcom-ish plot setup. judd apatow (freaks and geeks, 40 year old virgin, etc.) is one of the writers and i'm sure he had something to do with this film not being a total flop. C+.

11/21/06
Mr. Smith Goes To Washington - as profound, moving and relevant today as when it was made in 1939. if the film were made today (and it wouldn't be, but perhaps that's part of our problem), it wouldn't be more than 20 minutes long. about 20 minutes through the governor is given the duty of assigning a new senator. the political bosses want him to pick a party stooge so he presents the stooge as his nominee, but it is met with vigorous outcry from the people and press. this is where the modern-day version would end. a vigorous outcry would never happen - the press is inept and impotent and the polity is ignorant, apathetic and disengaged. end of movie. but in 1939 the people felt they had reason to be politically aware and engaged so, in the movie, they reject the stooge and the governor is forced to make a different choice. enter james stewart, boy scout leader, local hero, all-around good guy.
james stewart is unmatched in cinema - i have him near, if not at, the top of my list of greatest actors of all-time. his range is great and his work with three major directors created at least three different james stewart personas. with capra he crafted the good guy/everyman persona. with hitchcock he crafted a more complex persona - in vertigo he's a tortured soul, in rope he's a bright professor who plays devil's advocate, but he's still the moral compass. with anthony mann he's the supremely capable, but solipsistic and darkened westerner. with each director he added a layer to his work. here is no exception. in this film he sometimes acts without subtlety, yet that lack of subtlety lends a vulnerability to his character. it's perfectly plausible that my love for his work has blinded me, but i really think that the overacting he does here is exactly what the film (and role) demand.
much of that is because of capra's direction. i'm by no means a capra expert, but i feel like his style is one of being overdramatic while still being poignant. it's not pure luck that he was able to make some of the most inspiring films of the time - mr. smith goes to washington and it's a wonderful life being the two biggest. both those films are so easily made fun of, yet so undeniably inspiring that it almost seems a paradox. exploring this ability would take studying his films more closely and i don't have access to them right now so that'll have to wait. at any rate, capra's direction style is one of over-dramatization in spurts. the love that develops between jean arthur and james stewart is treated with care and subtlety, but the reaction james stewart has to claude rains' daughter isn't subtle at all. stewart's realization that his filibuster is "another lost cause" isn't overblown, but his introduction to washington d.c. is. the most important points of the film are dealt with just right, while some of the more whimsical or silly things are treated as entertainment. it's as if capra comes up with an amazingly simple and inspired story, tells it in a fun and entertaining way, but slows it down just enough at the key moments to allow you to really feel the weight of what you're experiencing. and, like george costanza, he quits while he's ahead. there's no fluffy conclusion, just the cast listing and a final piece from tiomkin. A.

11/07/06
Borat - in 1835 de tocqueville published the first volume of "democracy in america," 171 years later sacha baron cohen released a film called "borat." the first is widely acknowledged as a seminal piece of literature - a work that highlights the strengths and weaknesses of a nascent democracy in a newly formed country. the second is number one in the box office, but has yet to receive the same canonization as the first work. until now. cohen's film/documentary offers more insight into the fundamental strengths and weaknesses of this still young country as any film or documentary released in recent years. what's more, it does it so well and without notice that it passes as mere comedy. he's able to do this because he's an outsider and perceived as harmless, not in spite of these facts. his child-like demeanor allows us to see things that we might not otherwise see. filmmakers know this instinctively - when there is background or explanation that needs fleshing out just include a stupid character or child who asks the questions the audience would like to ask. borat's character operates in a similar fashion, only, rather than probing as a documentarian might, he exposes, as a hidden camera might.
one semi-serious problem i had with the picture is it's edited. the seamless transition from film to documentary made me wonder how much of the documentary was "set up" or created, rather than captured. it would have been easy to avoid this problem through the use of few cameras and less editing. in the scene where borat is at the rodeo, for example, i don't recall seeing people actually booing him, yet the audio clearly indicates this. we do see people look at him oddly, but i didn't see people actively booing him. was this overdubbed? was it looped to make it seem more substantial than it actually was? another example is when borat receives a telegram telling him some sad news. this portion seems to fall into the documentary genre because the camera is inside his room and over his shoulder. it appears as though the hotel employee is not in on the joke. until, that is, there is a reaction shot of borat from outside, in the hallway, over the employee's shoulder. was this set up later? i'd have to look at it again more closely. part of me wonders how much of borat is really william hurt in "broadcast news." watch the movie and you'll get the reference. you should have seen it by now anyway.
these concerns aside, the film is hilarious and quite telling. B+.

10/30/06
Viva La Muerte - bizarre surrealist film about a boy whose father was taken from him for being a revolutionary. eventually he discovers that his mother turned in his father and he grapples with this realization and loss. things happen, but the plot isn't all that memorable. the memorable thing about the film is the way in which arrabal uses film to portray the boy's feelings and thoughts, as well as flesh out the themes of the picture. lots of tough visuals and oblique references, etc. mark the visual style, but this is the norm in the genre. probably the most i can say about the film is that it's watchable; compelling even. i put it on with the intention of just seeing what it was like, but i ended up watching the entire film. not only did it make me want to see it, it did this despite being a surrealist picture. i'm not a huge fan of surrealism, as much of it is pedantic and too tough to penetrate. here, though, that wasn't the case. worth checking out for those who are interested in film, not just movies. B-.

10/27/06
Little Children - well done and oddly pitched film that takes a certain kind to appreciate. it's not as clearly off-the-wall as solondz's work, but it approaches it at times. that said, the film trumps solondz in that it has a poignancy that his films generally lack. solondz can make you uncomfortable and push your boundaries and make you laugh, but this film does that (to a lesser degree) AND it makes you feel something. stylistically, it's a cross between solondz and p.t. anderson.
the cast is uniformly solid. jennifer connelly is up there with lauren bacall in terms of onscreen beauty. kate winslet plays a tough character well. and patrick wilson provides some contrast to his character in hard candy. i can't think of a stilted performance or miscast role in the entire film.
i'm not sure what the purpose or thesis of the film was. perhaps it, like seinfeld, was hoping to show how simple even adults can be. perhaps it was an attempt to humanize modern archetypes. maybe it just wanted to tell a poignant suburban tale. maybe it's a bit of all of those. no matter what, it's an entertaining and engaging film that will make you think, laugh and feel for a couple hours. B+.

10/19/06
Star Wars (original version) - what can you say about a film that has already had everything said about it? what can you say about a film that made carrie fisher hot, harrison ford huge, and mark hamill a hero? a lot, but not much that's going to be insightful or novel. if not for pulp fiction, reservoir dogs might still be a relatively unknown cult film by an unknown director. though i have to say that i saw reservoir dogs in the theater, so i would be among the few who would have appreciated it without pulp fiction, but i digress...i think that john williams' score is to star wars as pulp fiction is to reservoir dogs - without the sweeping, moving and epic score, star wars might not have been the huge blockbuster that it was. this isn't a knock against the film, rather it's a praise of the music. the main theme and the finale are both among the finest pieces of music ever composed for film.
it's got a great balance of comedy, action and philosophy. i would be remiss if i didn't mention kurosawa's "hidden fortress" which served as an inspiration for star wars. lucas "borrowed" several elements from it: telling the story from the point of view of two lowly characters, the traitor character (which comes later in the series), and the sword fighting. he also borrows from flash gordon (the title sequence) and the writings of joseph campbell.
the empire strikes back is still probably my favorite, but this one is fucking great. A+.

10/16/06
Departed - bottom line on top: watch it. this review is likely to have more spoilers than usual. "consider yourselves... WARNED!" - public enemy track one off "it takes a nation of millions to hold us back"
it's said that when a door closes a window opens, such is the idea of the film. the film's title refers to those who have "passed;" the departed. with each death a new window opens, alliances shift, characters are revealed, people ascend and fall with equal ease. the film begins with nicholson, a gangster, collecting a payment from a local business. we are introduced to matt damon as a young boy, ogling nicholson while he strong arms the business man and hits on the under age girl who runs the register. damon, we gather, lacks a father and lives with his grandmother. this first introduction of a departed person is one in a line of many whose absence weighs heavily on those the story follows. nicholson brings up damon goodfellas/ray liotta style and thus a gangster is born. but damon doesn't go the way of liotta in goodfellas, rather he's a mole in the state police. meanwhile, dicaprio is his foil. a boy with a dirty family, but he wants to make good. the state police, though, know his character smacks more of a criminal than that of a white bread cop. thus they (sheen and wahlberg) use him as their version of donnie brasco.
the characters are as compelling as anything else within the film. the story, too, is top notch. the direction, though perfectly capable and at times quite good, isn't as good here as it was in the aviator. this, and the fact that the departed is more a boston film, rather than a new york, film, are the reasons that an academy award with this film would be somewhat bittersweet. scorsese's use of music here isn't as good as it was in the casino, but it's worthy of mention and better than most.
dicaprio and farmiga were the most compelling characters for me, but it's really subjective. every major character has a duality and depth that make them compelling in some way. dicaprio has, for me, officially cleansed himself of the pretty boy persona he had following the titanic. the guy's a serious actor who has found a good mentor in scorsese. i'm glad he has chosen to go the route of gilbert grape and this boy's life, rather than becoming a pretty boy. he's been putting together quite an impressive collection of performances lately.
the film's ending is appropriate yet surprising and moving. these are the best kind - the ones that belong, but are still somehow unexpected. B+. it'll be an A- the next time i see it.
"i've always thought you should treat the feds like you treat mushrooms: keep them in the dark and feed them plenty of shit."

09/23/06
Jackass: Number Two - the first few stunts are either obvious set pieces or less organically derived than most of their previous works. i was a bit put off by this because i thought maybe they were doing it more for the money, than for the love of stupidity. as the film progressed they get back to their roots. organically derived or set up, i guess it doesn't really matter. if you like them then you like them. i don't know why most people like them. i think there's a universal pleasure derived from seeing other people get hurt. monkeys seem to like it, and i think the popularity of jackass is in much the same vein. i did find, though, that much of my pleasure derived from what i see as an uncommon justice. very infrequently in this world do people get exactly what they deserve. in jackass, though, all these idiots get what they deserve. it's not that i hate them or anything, but i do look down on them because they're stupid. with every stunt i was pleased to see that each of them got the pain that they deserve for doing what they do. there is a small measure of justice in the world after all.
this installment of the jackass series is more rude, crude, gross and over the top than the first. it's a reflection of our times; we're an internet society now, and as a result every sickening facet of humanity is known to anyone who cruises around the internet for a (in)decent amount of time. it takes more to shock us these days and this film is as much a testament to that as anything else i can think of right now. B+.

9-12-06
Snow Walker - the best canadian film i've seen in a while. takes place near the arctic circle and revolves around barry pepper, who plays a hot shot ex-war pilot who runs contraband for his boss. while making a drop he comes across some inuit who have a woman who is sick, apparently with TB. while transporting her back to civilization (for a fee of course) the plane breaks down and they crash land in the middle of nowhere. the remaining story is essentially a survival tale of two people who couldn't be more different. it actually begins at the end, with a single figure carrying something off in the distance. seemingly giving the ending away like this is like saying: "we (the filmmakers) are aware that you (the audience) know this is a film and, as such, there's going to be a happy ending. this film isn't about the ending, so instead of focusing on whether they get out alive or not, focus on the journey each takes." this approach works quite well.
i like war films, prison films and survival films because they strip humanity down to its most bare essentials. this film is no exception. the acting is surprisingly good and the interaction is naturalististic. it's not a film you're likely to see or hear about, but it's one that's worth watching. B.

9-10-06
Wild Bunch - a brilliant film. some brilliant films are striking while you are watching them (graduate) and others take a while to settle in (taste of cherry). this film has a bit of both. the wonderfully edited action sequences (the famous opening, the bridge scene and the finale) demand your attention and wonderment. while everything in between - the pensive moments between the men, the shots of mexican villages and villagers, etc. pay dividends after the film is over.
these slow moments, which add to the long runtime, may not seem necessary while you're watching the film, but when you look back on the film, and are able to separate yourself from the minutes of nothing happening, you realize how important those seemingly meaningless scenes actually are. the wild bunch is like the good, the bad and the ugly in this way (and others). when i watch each film i sometimes find myself bored and the first reaction to that is that the film isn't engaging or is less of a film as a result. really, though, these ebbs between the action make said action more impactful. additionally, these slower portions are what keeps the film together. there's a lot of meat between the action and it takes a while, several viewings, to digest it all. for example, it's called the wild bunch, but there's a lot of the film that isn't about the wild bunch. a lot of it is about the landscape. whether that's the western milieu, or the mexican civil war, or peasant life...there's a lot to chew on.
one reason i think the film resonates with so many people is, for all its wild shoot-outs, it is, like ride the high country, a pretty realistic film. it's got a gritty look, a cinema verite look at the townspeople and landscape, it's not shy in portraying these ugly men and all their imperfections (physical [think of the sauna scene] and moral), etc. of course peckinpah contrasts these gritty realities with moral ideals (stand by your man) and some kick ass action scenes. the opening sequence is fucking brilliant from top to bottom. very reminiscent of the goosebumps that i get from watching the final half hour of the good, the bad and the ugly. which brings me to the music....fielding does a superb job throughout. it's not morricone, but it's still spot on, inspiring and complementary. A+.
Killer Elite - when i first heard the particulars of this film - peckinpah, caan, duvall, hopkins, kung-fu, the title - i was pretty excited. that faded quickly. killer elite isn't, everything that wild bunch is. absolutely awful from the opening sequence to the finale. before the film, peckinpah a biographer commented that the first 20 minutes of the film are brilliant, but that things sort of fell apart after that. he was half right. the rest of the panel gave varying excuses for what, even they, must have known to be inferior - there were six different stunt coordinators working on the martial arts finale, the producer had too much influence, the producer's wife played the female lead (a rather small part), etc. the truth is that the screenplay sucks and the execution didn't even come close to saving it. fielding, who does the brilliant score for wild bunch, turns in his best rendition of a 70s made-for-tv action film. in other words, it's awful. robert duvall mails it in with his usual routine. james caan, coming off the inspiring rollerball, turns in a lackluster performance. bo hopkins, as nice and funny as he is in person, is the definition of amateur in this film.
in killer elite we see peckinpah relying on tried techniques. a cross-editing technique (e.g. cross-cutting between someone falling in slow motion and something else happening at the same time) which is so well-executed in wild bunch, falls flat here. storytelling and character development are non-existent, two-dimensional or cliché. one producer, silliphant, was behind the bet that produced manos: hands of fate. perhaps we can blame the entire thing on him. oh god i don't even want to write about this movie anymore. F.

8-17-06
Little Miss Sunshine - nice, unique comedy from a first time writer and a directing team that has basically just worked on music videos. in little miss sunshine they craft an offbeat, but not entirely unbelievable, family unit that goes on a road trip that rivals national lampoon's vacation; dead grandparent included. there's a great dynamic between all the family members partly because the film isn't a star vehicle. sure carrell is the hottest one in the group, but arkin (catch-22) shows he isn't washed up yet, kinnear proves again that he's an underrated comedic talent, and collette (japanese story, sixth sense) adds to her round resume. paul dano is a relatively unknown actor whose big breakout was the flawed, but good, indie film L.I.E. abigail breslin plays prospective little miss sunshine herself and does quite a textured and impressive job, especially given her age. also look for bryan cranston in a slimy role as stan grossman, a character name also used in fargo; there's a millersmovies exclusive for you. yeah right.
overall it's quite a unique and funny film. it's not purely comedy and the few dramatic moments are made more poignant because the film is so effective in drawing characters and keeping the comic relief at the forefront. watch this and then rushmore. B+.

8-13-06
Lady In The Water - there are a lot of reasons to dislike this film, but i didn't really bother myself with any of those because i was too busy laughing and going along for the ride. sure the plot is implausible and everyone seems to buy into the whole story far too easily, but that's part of the point. shyamalan is a clever guy and he shows it here as well as he ever has. he's completely aware of what he's doing, even going so far as including a character who is an overly aware film critic. shyamalan knows what the cliches, tricks and formulas are and he plays with them. he is able to overcome the "oh whatever" factor through liberal use of comic relief. and that's actually what the film rests on more than anything else. the film is more funny than it is scary. further, the ensemble does a very good job of keeping things fresh, funny and interesting.
christopher doyle, surprisingly, is the cinematographer here. he specializes in vibrant colors and asian cinema, but shows neither of those characteristics here. he's most well known for his work with wong kar-wai and his amazing work on the jet li flick "hero." he's also worked on the psycho remake, rabbit-proof fence and the quiet american. here, though, he moves the camera well and works well with muted colors. he's clearly one of the better talents working today.
this isn't a brilliant work, but it isn't worthy of the panning it's likely to get either. it's a good, interesting film from a guy who clearly knows about film. B.

7-30-06
Miami Vice - a film like this must be measured on a different scale than something as insignificant as "my super ex-girlfriend," and that's the downside of being as good as michael mann. in collateral mann employs the use of one song by audioslave, in miami vice he employs audioslave on at least three different occasions. perhaps audioslave is a good metaphor for mann's last three films. audioslave rose from the ashes of rock gods rage against the machine and soundgarden. while audioslave is good in theory, they just don't work together. mann's last three films, despite some flourishes in acting and visual style, have just not worked - especially when compared to the previous two. it's not that miami vice, ali or collateral have been BAD, but they're not that great either. collateral was an interesting story with good acting and a new visual style, clearly the winner of mann's last three. miami vice has some flourishes of the same kind, but is dragged down by some of the action cliches. cliches can be overcome by great directing, but they aren't in this instance. miami vice could have been less serious and been an homage to the james bond genre, or it could have been a little more serious and been more inline with mann's own "heat" or "thief." it was a little too in the middle and dragged down by some of the lovey stuff and the ending. lastly, one of the things i like about mann is the sounds he uses. his gun fights sound better than anyone (other than speilberg's in saving private ryan). usually sound guys use stock sounds and work with those, it seems that mann, or, maybe more accurately, his sound guys (callahan/coretz) has/have his/their own set of sounds. C+.

6-23-06
Click - atypical sandler comedy in some ways, but completely sandler-esque in others. the first half has its share of potty humor and crude teenage-friendly jokes. while the second half shows a maturity and perspective that you rarely see portrayed in such and honest and straightforward way. that said, the second half still has some comic elements. it's interesting to compare this film to lake house for a couple reasons. both pulled their punches by showing the difficult ending, but ultimately going with the easy one. and both deal with elements of mysticism. in the lake house it asks you to believe that two people are communicating to each other across time, but in the same space. in click you are asked to believe that there's a remote control that can manipulate time. click benefits from the fact that it's a comedy and thus is afforded a greater degree of leeway. meanwhile, the lake house takes itself seriously so its mystical premise comes under greater scrutiny. both disappoint with their ending, but click makes its point better and is more entertaining in the process; it's also a more bold film because of its tonal shift halfway through. B.

6-21-06
Lake House - visually a more interesting film than i would have ever expected. it's not stunning or anything, but it does some things that step a bit outside of the hollywood romance mold. i suppose the film in general is like that because of the absurd premise. the physics and logistics of the film are completely absurd and not at all explained, but i suppose it's probably better that way. by not explaining it they essentially ask you to take a leap of faith - and you're either with the film or not from this point on. if you are then you're willing to look past the inconsistencies and paradoxes presented by the premise. you're also willing to look past the conversations they have which seemingly occur in realtime (complete with partial sentences and interruptions) but are actually supposed to occur in the written realm where these things wouldn't happen. but anyway, i don't want to burst your bubble if you bought this crap so onto the rest of the film. the acting isn't all that good and the ending is predicable and cowardly. if the film's ending was different i would have liked it more, but this film wasn't made for the kind of person who wants that kind of ending. by the way - keanu reeves is about as much of an architect as george costanza. D+.

6-13-06
Inconvenient Truth - the film begins with gore's voice over and several shots of him from behind, in the darkness. then, as he says "i'm al gore" we see his face. beginning in this way it's clear that the film is going to be more about gore's reemergence into the public eye than any pet issue of his. this documentary is ostensibly about that pet issue of global warming, but is much more in the way of explanation to the dominant question regarding gore lately: "whatever happened to him?" the answer is that he's been touring the world, asking tough questions, meeting with world leaders and organizing all in the context of doing something about global warming. most of the science is pretty well covered in a global warming episode of nova which i saw a few years back. some of the stuff is new, but it mostly serves as an cohesive intro to global warming and it's useful in that regard. but the other half is mostly shots of him looking stately and talking about personal triumphs and tribulations and portraying himself as someone with a sense of humor. it's basically a well-done campaign video that's really informative. i was a bit turned off by the commercial aspects of the film, but i have to acknowledge that the film was honest from the get go that this was going to be an al gore film, not a documentary on global warming. if you go into the film knowing that then you should be totally fine. B.

5-11-06
Akeelah And The Bee - T-R-I-T-E, trite. C-L-I-C-H-E, cliché. seriously though, at pretty much every turn this film, which follows a somewhat underprivileged spelling bee contestant, is cliché and cheesy. it's basically a cross between finding forrester and spellbound, only much worse. it's not that the film wasn't well-intentioned or without potential, it's just that the execution, at nearly every turn, was awful. the music swelled at cliché moments, some of the acting was transparent and forced, the writing was anything but realistic...
akeelah is supposed to be an underprivileged inner city girl who doesn't fit in, but her family seems to have plenty of money. they have a car, plenty of clothes and food, a nice tv and a computer and the home looks like something out of a design show on hgtv; it just doesn't fit. all the relationships are cut from the same cliché cloth that mars so many ambitious films. for example, her father is dead and she happens to find a spelling bee coach (fishburne) who lost his young daughter when she was about akeelah's age. the end panders to the audience by allowing everyone to be a winner (how fucking cheesy and easy is that?). i feel bad because the film had a good heart, but the filmmaking is awful so... D-.

4-28-06
United 93 - director paul greengrass' most famous film is the follow-up to the bourne identity, but the film most similar to united 93 is his recreation of the "bloody sunday" massacre of the 70s. this film is likely to inspire powerful reactions, good and bad. after the film i tried to listen to what other people were saying. generally people said one of two things: it's horrible that they tried capitalizing on the events of 9/11 or the passengers on the plane should have done x, y, or z. i find both these responses are silly. i didn't see any capitalization on the events - it wasn't overly dramatized, part of the profits are going to a 9/11 fund, and many of the victims' families endorsed it. further, greengrass sent out an e-mail to the theaters requesting that they not advertise before the film. the theater i saw it at didn't show any previews. as for the conjecturing about what the passengers should have done - first, all the scenes on the plane are educated conjecture so events might have unfolded differently; second, there was such a limited amount of information at the time, that expecting the passengers to react in a fully lucid and informed way is just unrealistic.
but enough about the bs surrounding the film...the film itself is quite good and tastefully done. there's very little music to accent or embellish the scenes (though the final scene does have some fairly heavy music which i would have left out or toned down). the camerawork is entirely handheld and relatively gritty which aids the cinema verite feel. greengrass kept the cast small and (mostly) unknown. there were three actors who i recognized, but none of them had significant roles. so much of the film's effort is in making the film seem an effortless fly on the wall documentary. there are plenty of edits, but not few are unnecessary. all the camerawork is naturalistic and in a documentary style. there is no comment through juxtaposition (michael moore) or framing (frederick wiseman). rather, the film is told (basically) in real-time.
the film is remarkably capable of staying out of the way of the events. it's as if the events are affecting you, rather than the film. through every step of the film i found myself comparing my experience with those of the people in the film. in this way the film is amazingly cathartic and reflective. in many ways it's like reliving those hours again in parallel ways - the way you experienced them and the way the people in the film experienced them at the same time. the film brings those experiences together much more naturally than "9/11" did, in spite of the fact that that film was a documentary. ironically, that documentary had much more artifice and exploitation, and was more affected, than the fictional recounting of united 93.
equally worthy of remark is the fact that the film stays away from commentary. the real stickler inside me would point out the music in the final scene and the endtitles as potential commentary, but i think both are negligible. at any rate, throughout the film greengrass lets the events speak for themselves. i think my thought process and reactions are as much a testament to this as anything. i felt, in equal measures, an overwhelming sense that i was part of something larger (the rally around the flag effect), as well as anger towards the administration for its inaction, as well as forgiveness for the various people involved because the scope of the events so well portrayed. that is, the film does such a good job of putting you back into that feeling of experiencing the events for the first time that, for a second, you remember what it was like before the events. we take it for granted now that four planes could be hijacked and we could be under attack. then, for most of us, this wasn't a realistic possibility. seeing people first realize the scope (we're actually under attack. how many planes could be hijacked? how long will this last? what happens tomorrow?) of those initial attacks is one of the more powerful moments in the film. again, much of the film's success in this regard is in its ability to put you, simultaneously, into the shoes of those involved and back into your own shoes. in hindsight it's so easy for us to say that people (from those in united 93 to those in the administration) should have done x, y and z, but the film makes us remember what it was like to experience the chaos of that day for the first time. again, this isn't a film about commentary. it doesn't attack, or apologize for, bush or those in the military or those at the faa.
it felt a little longish towards the end, but it's done in close to realtime so you can't really fault it for that. it's a great and moving film that does a better job of putting you back into that day than any documentary, news footage, book, or film ever has. "harrowing" only begins to describe it.
"I submit to you that if a man has not discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live." - MLK Jr. Speech in Detroit, Michigan, (23 June 1963) to me, this film may have solidified my feeling that MLK may have been completely incorrect in his quote. if no one was willing to die (or kill) for a cause then nothing like this would have ever happened. granted, MLK preached (and practiced) non-violence, but i still must disagree with his sentiment. in many ways i have to agree more with the teachings of pyrrho on this subject; perhaps inaction (or apathetic action) is preferable to the fanatical actions of those who are willing to die/kill for their cause. A-.

4-27-06
Cool Hand Luke - truly great film. rosenberg wasn't really a great filmmaker, but he was capable and was working with great people here. the cast does a brilliant job with a great script, but conrad hall (american beauty, road to perdition, marathon man, butch cassidy and the sundance kid) is the most underrated member of the crew. his cinematography is visionary and works well with the material. luke is a christ-like figure, but he is more nietzschean than he is christian. he demands that people "stop feeding off" him and wants only to inspire, not to lead. really, though, he does both. he shifts the brutality and "yessir boss" attitude of the camp into one that coalesces around an egg eating competition rather than weekly boxing matches. the subservient attitude which once permeated the group is replaced by one of self-impowerment and community. to me, luke is probably the most inspirational of all film characters. he's a nearly unflappable non-conformist whose power, panache, and charm are undeniable. newman's role here has always felt similar to mcqueen's role in the great escape and it's for this reason that i always compare the two actors. overall, i think i prefer mcqueen, but newman's performance here is unmatched by mcqueen or, for that matter, almost anyone in the history of cinema. my favorite line: "Boss: Sorry, Luke. I'm just doing my job. You gotta appreciate that. Luke: Nah - calling it your job don't make it right, Boss." on paper this line doesn't play all that well, but in the context, and with newman's delivery it's at a powerfully defiant mantra that highlights a melancholy truism.
1967: graduate, cool hand luke, bonnie and clyde, in the heat of the night, branded to kill, dirty dozen...they don't make 'em like they used to. A+.

4-23-06
Towering Inferno - inspired by the building of the world trade center this film asks the question: what would happen if there were a fire in a high rise building? the fictional building is 140 stories tall and there's a fire on the 81st floor. newman plays the architect, holden is the building's owner, and mcqueen is the fire chief responsible for the response. other stars include: faye dunaway, fred astaire, robert wagner, oj simpson, etc. to my knowledge it's the only time mcqueen and newman appear in a film together and for some reason i've always thought of them as the pacino and deniro of their time. so i guess that would make this the "heat" of their time, which is interesting since this film is about a fire and "heat" is named heat.
anyway, this is one of irwin allen's disaster films that were big in the 70s. this and poseiden adventure were probably the two most popular, but there are more: beyond the poseiden adventure, flood, swarm, etc. the formula is pretty simple: lots of stars and contrived hysteria. i preferred the poseiden adventure because it's shorter (towering inferno is 165 minutes long) and has a better subtext. the commentary here was one that looked at greed and hubris as the cause of suffering. in the end mcqueen remarks "one of these days they're going to kill 10,000 in one of these firetraps and i'm going to keep eating smoke and bringing out bodies until somebody asks us how to build em." newman replies "ok, i'm asking." here the problem appears solved, in the poseiden adventure things are more bleak. i definitely thought this one was good, but it was too long for its own good and the ending was a bit syrupy sweet. C+.

4-16-06
V For Vendetta - i liked the political elements of the work, but felt that the film was overly long and not as well-realized as it could have been. in the first reel or so of the film there was a genuine comic book look to the picture. later it seemed to lose some of the mystery and darkness that made it look like an alan moore comic might. it's worth noting that moore took his name off the credits of the film even though he was one of the two people responsible for the graphic novel...perhaps that says something. one other note about the look - v's mask probably works very well on the page, but it doesn't work as well in an animated context. because everyone else is constantly moving it makes his character seem lifeless and this detracts from our sympathy for him. that said, weaving still did a good job of breathing some life into the character. it's just a difficult aspect of the story's translation to film - one that isn't seen in other comic-based films like batman, x-men and superman because at least part of the faces are showing.
it's obviously a wachowski production - androgyny and 1984-esque socio-political commentary are prevalent. here's a good chance for me to recommend watchmen - an alan moore graphic novel that hasn't made it to film. read it and be prepared to have a good time. excellently drawn with a great story. C+.

4-10-06
Midnight Cowboy - a powerful classic. it has an unconventional, avant-garde style of storytelling and a bold subject matter which makes it an important film, but it also has an increasingly rare ability to mold sympathetic characters. and really that's what the film is about. after you strip away the great filmmaking style, the gritty portrayal of nyc (only upstaged by scorsese's taxi driver), and the sexual themes all you have are characters. in ratso rizzo and joe buck, schlesinger creates two of the best film characters i can think of. they're an unlikely pair, but they work together and they are great manifestations of their respective environments. it's a phenomenal film which you should have seen by now. A+.

4-7-06
Dead Zone - i'm not a huge cronenberg fan, but he generally has some compelling or provocative elements in his films. walken's performance was oddly kiltered. at times he was like a travis bickle at other times he was like a kindly james stewart character and occasionally he was as self-aware of his own humor as jerry seinfeld. i'm not sure if it was really good or something else. the story is reminiscent of phenomenon and unbreakable so i suppose they owe this film a bit. martin sheen's character was prophetic and made the film more chilling than it might have been even during the cold war. sound was used well. B.
Curly Sue - i can understand people not liking this film because it can be sentimental at times. but the film rises above the sentimentality that it does have. fist, the ending, while typically "happy" works within the framework. hughes actually does himself a disservice by inserting a false unhappy ending and then turning it upside down. at first we think belushi leaves, but it turns out that he doesn't. this plot twist works against him in two ways: it comes off as manipulative to some and it makes the "happy" ending seem like a cop out, when it really is the only ending that makes sense given the context of the rest of the film. in this case, a happy ending makes perfect sense and works and doesn't require any drama.
other than the ending i actually liked the film despite its cuteness. there's a cellphone gag in the film that's 10 years ahead of its time, the sound is typically great (hughes always uses sound amazingly well), and the whole film has an almost cartoonish youthfulness to its humor. there's always something to like about a hughes film. B.

3-28-06
Svengali - it's not often that a film's strongest element is its art direction. anton grot (mildred pierce, sea hawk, life of emile zola) does the set design in this 1931 version of the novel, which was originally entitled "trilby" after the female lead, and it's truly great. the art school sets are wonderfully eerie with a gothic (think "cabinet of dr. caligari") feel to them. in one sequence wherein svengali extends his powers of control across paris, the camera glides over grot's miniature paris rooftops. barney mcgill's german expressionism tinged cinematography rounds out grot's sets.
of course the most noted element of the film is barrymore's superb acting. he shines here with a role (think an evil version of henry higgins) that most actors probably couldn't pull off. it's a difficult character to portray effectively because he has a sense of humor, is devilish, and yet must remain tragic because of the film's end. like bogart, barrymore acts better with his hands than most people do with their entire body. without an actor like barrymore as the lead this film would be crap. archie mayo (petrified forest, a night in casablanca, etc.) directs. B+.

3-27-06
Pee-Wee's Big Adventure - why do we like pee-wee herman? i've seen this movie maybe 10 times and i've always considered him a sympathetic character (though i'm not as obsessed about him as the burtonophiles are), but i never, until now, asked why. if you look just at pee-wee's actions it's clear that he's not a very nice person (he's got an attitude, he's mean to francis, and he is extremely mean to his closest friend - dottie), he's creepy (he talks to his food, he has an obsessive personality, he uses "x-ray glasses" to catch a look at an unsuspecting woman - she is visibly disturbed by this, etc.) and he lacks social graces (he tells patrons of a bar to shut up, etc.) if you look at these facts and strip away the context and the "charm" of the film then it's quite clear that pee-wee herman is no one we should like; but context is everything.
burton creates a world in which even pee-wee herman seems somewhat normal and nice. it's a world filled with ex-cons, deviants, thieves, devil worshiping bikers, rich spoiled kids, dead truckers, and more. we also like him for two other reasons - he's the protagonist and we almost always like the protagonist, and he's been wronged so we sympathize with his loss. the major accomplishment of the film is in creating a unique, often unpleasant character, and placing him in a wicked world so that we don't even question his many shortcomings. until now i've never heard anyone deride pee-wee and that's a major accomplishment for ruebens and burton. unfortunately, it's hard for me to see this film after paul ruebens did what he did - it casts a pedophilic shadow over the entire film that is have trouble shaking, especially in the final scene when he's watching a movie. that said, the film's still good for a ride and a laugh. B+.

3-24-06
Outrage - okay remake of kurosawa's rendition of the japanese short story "rashomon." the most notable thing here is james wong howe's cinematography, it pops like few films do...it reminded me of "night of the hunter," which i consider to have some of the best black and white photography ever. i liked kurosawa's movement and use of the camera more in his rendition, but you can't knock this one for its visual qualities. that said, this remake falls a bit short in other arenas. paul newman plays a mexican bandit and does his best toshiro mifune impression, but falls well short. his mistake is in trying to emulate mifune rather than making the character his own. shatner does his usual gig and, as usual, it's good. edward g. robinson is a standout as the cynical criminal character of the trio.
acting and photography aside, this film just wasn't as well directed as rashomon. martin ritt has some good credits to his name (norma rae, hud, hombre), but this one just doesn't have the same emotional resonance that the original does. at the same time it doesn't do as good a job of exploring the shifting nature of perspective, or demonstrating the relative nature of truth. there are two directorial decisions that kurosawa made that ritt left out which helped buttress these points: kurosawa has each character tell their story while facing the camera - this gives the impression that the audience is the jury; ritt doesn't do the same things with the camera movement and having the camera obscured by plants and trees - this lends well to the theme of fluidity, and is especially effective when the forest canopy obscures the sunlight when kurosawa points the camera directly at the sun (something which he may have been the first to do). B.

3-23-06
Love Story - somewhat embarassedly i must admit that i didn't even know about this film until a couple years ago. apparently i'm the only one as it did amazingly well and, along with the godfathers) helped save paramount in the early 70s. strangely the film started as a screenplay, was released as a book to promote the film and became a bestseller before the film became a huge blockbuster (#34 of all-time, adjusted for inflation).
it's a love story (obviously) about two young people of differing class. at the film's opening it's revealed that ali mcgraw is dead and the film tells the story of their love in flashback. noirs start at the end to reinforce the sense of fatality, but why does this film choose to begin with the knowledge that mcgraw will die at age 25? i think that it's practical demonstration of a nietzschean (think "ghost dog: the way of the samurai") idea - we can only appreciate life if we are constantly aware of our mortality. throughout the film, the specter of death hangs over the audience's entire experiencing of the events. we grow found of her and the relationship in spite of our knowledge that it is fleeting. this is how life is as well. further, i think that this knowledge lends a perspective that is absent in everyday life.
we grow fond of the characters and their relationship because it is real in so many ways. of course the writing buttresses this, as does the acting; and it doesn't hurt that mcgraw is h-o-t. the opening lines, especially when matched with the main theme, are practically enough to make you cry. the writing isn't just heavy stuff, though. there's plenty of balance in the film - she calls him preppy, he calls her a bitch, and it's all funny and naturalistic. because of the writing we know that this is a real relationship with real highs and lows, it's storybook love, but if you believe in that then the film works. if you're jaded and cynical then it'll likely come off as trite, but that's more your problem than the film's.
the score was simple, but quite effective. the aforementioned opening theme adds an emotional weight to the film. what's most interesting is to note its subtle changes as the film progresses. the most marked difference comes when o'neal leaves the doctor's office and the theme mixes with the din of city traffic; it perfectly echoes his emotional state. great film. A-.
Bruce And Me - documentary about a woman and her recluse father. it reminded me of pop & me, a documentary about a father and son who bond while on a trip around the world. there's much to be learned from the title - first, it's bruce and me, not dad and me. seidler calls her father by his first name and this reflects their emotional distance and the "grown up" childhood she lived. both her parents were hippies so she traveled the world and tripped on mdma with her dad at a young age. second, there's a documentary by agnes varda called gleaners and i...notice the grammar difference in the two titles. to me, the use of "I" over "me" indicates a subtle difference in subject. with bruce and me the implication is that the film is about bruce and me. with the gleaners and i the implication is that the gleaners and i are together. "the gleaners and i do this and that" vs. "this film is about bruce and me." if you're being grammatically correct there are limitations to I and Me and this reveals something about the respective films. the gleaners and i links the gleaners of the fields and varda as a gleaner of images in life. in bruce and me the film is about each individual - "bruce" and "me." i hope that's somewhat clear.
anyway, bruce is a vietnam vet turned hippie who now lives off the grid, doesn't pay taxes, and juggles several identities. his stories about meeting jim jones or stealing vw bugs from dealers are entertaining, but it's also interesting to see how seidler gets along with her father. there's plenty of material here to reflect upon your own parental relationships if you choose to. it's a good documentary. B.

3-21-06
Harlan County, USA - solid d.a. pennebaker/maysles brothers style documentary that follows the bitter miner strike in harlan county, kentucky. it predates norma rae and it's a true story so it really should be more popular than it is, but it was made before documentaries were popular. it does a really good job of highlighting the usual grievances of the workers and the ways in which they attempt to get raises, benefits, etc. it exposes the corruption of some union bosses (yablonski is challenging doyle for union president and is murdered as a result) as well as that of the company involved. it documents the (large) role that the women of the community played in keeping the picket lines strong. kopple is also there when the strike is finally mutually ended in large part because of a scab murdering a picketer. it incorporates guthrie style folk done by people of the community to give it a grassroots feel that complements the film quite well.
it's a very strong document of the american experience and the labor struggle. one portion of the film finds picketers in nyc hoping to sway stock holders of the company. one picketer discusses the labor issues with a cop. both cop and picketer get along well and discuss the merits of each other's contracts. the discussion beautifully shows the collaborative spirit that seems all but lost amongst laborers today. another scene captures this spirit equally well. a black miner is talking to kopple (who is off camera) while two of his white co-workers look on. they are in a doctor's office being tested for initial signs of black lung. the black miner tells kopple how, at the end of the day, they are coated in black coal dust - they are all brothers. the three miners chuckle knowing the truth of the statement. the film is full of these moments of solidarity in spite of the efforts of violent strike busters. B+.
Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room - great film documenting the "rise" and fall of enron. it lays out in good detail how fastow, lay, and skilling built the paper empire using various schemes like mark to market accounting, opening bogus funds, lying to investors, bilking california out of $30+ billion to inflate profits, etc. it looks at a range of effects this had including the almost complete loss of personal 401k accounts of pg&e and enron employees, the myriad problems (economic and political) caused in california from the energy crisis, the thousands of jobs lost by enron employees and employees of firms (arthur anderson being the largest) associated with enron. it portrays enron's culture as one of greed, pride, machismo, and a darwinian world view. for example, skilling introduced an employee review process which mandated at least 10-15% of the employees receive the lowest grade possible on his 1-5 scale. these employees would then be let go. the film uses specific examples of failures like the one in dabhol, india which lost $1 billion for the company, yet yielded millions in bonuses for the executives who put the project together. it documents enron's role in the california energy crisis, like energy traders taking power plants offline to increase energy prices. at the same time it shows how arthur anderson and banks like citibank, merrill-lynch, and chase were complicit in enron's attempts to mask their massive losses. they explain the culture of enron's rank and file through evocation of the milgram experiment; a great way to explain how people could have done what they did, at the same time it's a stunning indictment of humanity.
one of the more maddening segments for me was the california segment because it affected so many innocent people so greatly. i still think davis got the raw end of this one - pete wilson, the legislature, and enron were more to blame than anyone else. during this segment skilling tells the following joke while giving a speech to what i assumed were enron shareholders: "what's the difference between the titanic and california? at least when the titanic was going down the lights were on." it's a stunning and rage-inducing story told quite well. the way the lies and deceit pile up and ultimately drown the executives who were purporting them reminds me of the stephen glass story as told in "shattered glass." it's amazing what pride, greed and hubris can do. in many ways this is a modern fable - a reflection of our culture and a warning to those who should hope to emulate it. this is one case where i honestly believe in frontier justice for these guys. fuck the trial, string them up and display them in the city square; well, just about anyway. should be required viewing. good soundtrack featuring tom waits and philip glass, among others. B+.

3-20-06
Conversation - hackman stars as a surveillance expert in this academy award nominated f.f. coppola film. it reminds me of depalma's blow-out (based upon antonioni's blow-up) in the way it features a central charcter trying to reconstruct an event in an attempt to solve a mystery by using his craft. the use of sound and music are quite good here. coppola's command of tension and suspense is also worth note. i think it's an especially relevant film because of the watergate issue since it focuses on themes of surveillance, secrecy, and privacy.
hackman justifies his work by saying he's just doing his job, that he has no control over what his clients do with his surveillance tapes once he gives it to them, yet he clearly exhibits signs of guilt over some of his past (and present) work. and he spirals into near insanity when he is the one who is being watched in the end. coppola's security camera style shot at the end works well towards this effect.
it's a solid film, one worthy of plenty of analysis, but the ambiguous ending and seemingly illogical story left me disappointed. without giving things away - the precise roles of important characters is left entirely unanswered and i can't figure out what coppola intended. then i found this: "In an interesting book by Michael Ondaatje called The Conversations: Walter Murch and the Art of Editing Film, (Vintage Canada/Random House, 2002), Murch says in an interview with Ondaatje that the twist was not part of the original plan for the movie. He goes on to explain that due to the challenges of making the recording in Union Square, he took Frederic Forrest and Cindy Williams to an isolated park and made several recordings of the conversation while they strolled alone. On one of the takes, Forrest (either on purpose or by accident) changes the voice emphasis from "kill" to the word "us." At the time it was regarded as a mistake, but months later during the film editing, they decided to use the line in the picture." so it turns out that coppola may very well have not had the plot pieces lining up at all. to me that just smacks of laziness. he wants to make a certain impression, but might not even have a feasible plot worked out? lame. edit: here's the crux of my complaint: if coppola's motive is similar to 1984's then these plot holes distract from his point. as you can see i'm obsessing more over the inconsistencies of the plot than of the message the film is trying to convey. that is a direct result of coppola's inability or unwillingness to sharpen up some of the plot details. B.

3-19-06
Sixteen Candles - i'll give hughes a pass on this, his first, directorial effort. certainly he shows some promise - there's a good use of music and he captures the teenage experience fairly well - but overall this one falls short. it's not that he's representing the teenage experience in an entirely realistic way, though there are certainly elements of realism here, it's more that he's conveying the hopes and fears of teenagers in a somewhat outlandish story. the whole bit with anthony michael hall and his driving the prom queen type girl home or ringwald's parents forgetting about her birthday are less meant as realistic possibilities and more as symbols of what the teenage experience is about. as teenagers we think our parents don't care about us or don't notice us or ruin our love lives when they do (as exhibited by the grandparents temporarily scaring off ringwald's love interest over the phone). he also captures the hierarchy of high school, though he focuses on it more tightly in the breakfast club. high school is a caste system if there ever was one in america and this is something hughes knows and exposes. so, in many ways this is a great film because of its ability to capture the teenage experience, though it doesn't do it in a "realistic" way.
where this film fails is where its imitators failed even more miserably - the ending is cheesy. also, there is too much exposition from ringwald here. in ferris bueller's day off broderick's fourth wall commentary worked amazingly well, here ringwald's talking to herself just doesn't. but hughes quickly figured out what works and what doesn't. in the next five years he created planes trains and automobiles, uncle buck, breakfast club and ferris bueller's day off. joan cusack does a fine job. one last note - the thing that makes uncle buck and planes trains and automobiles near perfect and separate from his other work, is the discovery of john candy. john candy incorporates a working class element that is missing from his other films, an element that elevates the humor and texture of hughes's work to pantheon levels. B+.

3-18-06
Al Franken: God Spoke - SCREENED AT SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST FILM FESTIVAL, WORLD PREMIERE
franken describes himself as a judo artist - using the words of his enemies against them; and, essentially, that's what this documentary sets out to prove. the trouble is that it really isn't as entertaining or as thorough as his books, which is strange since chris hegedus is responsible for some pretty entertaining and informative documentaries (startup.com and the war room chief among them). don't get me wrong, it's a fun little film that pokes fun at, and keeps in check, people like michael medved, karen hughes and ann coulter, but it doesn't really add much to the debate. i think it's best suited to fans of al franken. one of the more humorous moments comes with ann coulter and al franken debating on a stage together. the mediator asks each of them who they would most like to be in history. coulter goes first and says something like this: "there are two ways of looking at the question. 1) you can be someone who did something great or 2) you can be someone in order to prevent them from doing something awful. in the first case i'd be senator joe mccarthy and in the second case i'd be FDR to stop the new deal from ever happening." al franken says something like "i think i'd rather be someone like hitler so i could stop the slaying of millions of people." it is a perfect illustration of the blinding power of hate and ideology exhibited by ann coulter and her ilk. B-.
Punk Like Me - SCREENED AT SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST FILM FESTIVAL, WORLD PREMIERE
documentary about yuppie filmmaker zach merck who sets out to live his dream of becoming a rock star. he finagles his way into a spot on the warped tour under the premise that he's a gonzo journalist who wants to do a story on the tour for rolling stone magazine. he forms an admittedly shitty punk band named carne asada and hits the road with wife in tow. by the strictest sense him and his posse are touring, but they're living in such relative comfort and luxury that it's sort of a joke. as the tour progresses he grapples with his ideas of what being a rock star means, missing his daughter, the rigors of the road, and his disappointment with his band's performance. he quickly finds that his initial notion that he'd have no problem with being part of a shitty band was flawed. the band and he discover that they can't live with being shitty and set out to have at least one decent performance. merck constructs a happy ending and all is well.
stylistically the film was too mtv for my taste. cheesy animations, too much voice-over, and a faux punk aesthetic marred the film. philosophically i felt that his wealth and connections allowed him to too easily purchase his experience. he foots the bill for all his bandmates, they rent a massive tour bus, they never run out of alcohol, and his hollywood resume (which is absent on imdb) allows him to too easily acquire a spot on the tour. merck ends the film with some thoughts on what he learned in his journey which can be essentially summed as: touring is hard work and i respect anyone who does it, and connecting with the audience is a great rush, but i like family life more. don't get me wrong, the guy seems nice enough, his antics are fairly funny, and he's pretty ballsy for being the lead singer in a punk band when he can't sing for shit and for conning his way onto the tour, but the film is mainly just fluffy reality entertainment. C.

3-17-06
Maxed Out - SCREENED AT SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST FILM FESTIVAL, WORLD PREMIERE
documentary which focuses on america as a debtor nation - both as a people and as a government. it addresses some of the causes and effects of this lifestyle.
the film opens with a moving interview of an upper class woman from the las vegas area. she talks about having to spend money to make money and how much credit has helped her invest in real estate and make amazing profits. from here the film builds its base of interviewees - two mothers whose college aged kids were swamped with debt, a pawn shop proprietor, dave ramsey (the dr. phil of finance), a couple of debt buyers (the guys who call you incessantly to collect owed debts), and a few others. the filmmakers give a people's view of the subject and, as a result, seem to neglect the issue of personal responsibility a bit. certainly there are plenty of corporate and social forces acting against the average and below average person, but most of the film characterized the debtors as people who had fallen on hard times or had been taken advantage of by a credit card company. at its worst, the film demonizes creditors and their goons to the point of almost calling them murderers. this was the major weakness of the film because it undermines some of the more compelling factual evidence that the filmmakers present.
i've been in pretty deep (relative to my salary) debt and i have had people close to me in deep enough debt to file for bankruptcy so i know what debt can be about. the film explores the extremes of debt well and documents the causes just as well. that said, there was a pbs piece done on this subject that was just as in depth and lacked some of the emotional stretches that this film exhibited. while the film is heartfelt i don't know if this is the subject for this kind of emotion. instead there needs to be education and regulation. that said, the film probably provides more education than many high school grads have on the subject. B-.
Metal: A Headbanger's Journey - SCREENED AT SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST FILM FESTIVAL, U.S. PREMIERE
very well thought out and produced documentary on heavy metal as an art form, a social lightning rod, and everything in between. he begins the film with the assumption that metal is extremely controversial and he attempts to discover what it is about heavy metal that is so divisive. first the documentary gives an overview of metal's roots from wagner, beethoven, and opera to deep purple, led zeppelin and black sabbath. he gets into academic points like the use of the diminished fifth chord and tritones, or the general qualities of a metal song - heavy bass and high vocals, etc. from here he characterizes other elements of metal: the environment (mostly the disaffected youth of suburbia), gender roles, religion, etc. in the end he concludes that metal is a) largely misunderstood and b) a victim of its own decision to constantly push boundaries and isolate itself from the dominant paradigm.
i know a bit about metal and i watched it with someone who knows more about it than anyone probably should. we both considered the film to be informative and impressive in both depth and breadth. it's the kind of film that has an infectious quality to it. after the film's end i found myself craving some iron maiden and black sabbath and it's not often that a film compels you to do something (even as simple as listening to music) after viewing it. dunn achieves this through his own passion, the aforementioned educational elements, and humor. for example, there is a frightening, yet very humorous moment, while interviewing nordic death metal vocalist gaahl (of gorgoroth). dunn asks him what the main theme of his music is. gaahl is dressed in black and doesn't look at the camera, the room is lit by candlelight and he is stoic. after a few moments he simply says "satan," and takes a drink of wine. the film is filled with entertaining interviews like this. at the same time it shows a true love for metal in its various forms and that love of the subject makes the film special. B+.

3-16-06
Summer Camp - SCREENED AT SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST FILM FESTIVAL, WORLD PREMIERE
the best film (documentary) i saw at the SXSW film festival. co-directed by beesley (okie noodling, fearless freaks) and sarah price (yes men, american movie) this documentary follows the goings on at a three week nature camp. the real genius of the film is the material and the way it's edited. in a way, the film functions as an extended version of "kids say the darndest things." there are 99 children at the camp and about 10 are profiled in the film. i think that that the film succeeds because we get to see the kids in a way most films miss. these kids are real individuals. some of them are unfocused and obnoxious, others are precocious and sweet, others are mysterious and all of them are reflections of society and remind us of our own childhood. issues of family, medication, isolation, conflict resolution, etc. are raised.
the editing holds the storylines together well, has a balanced tempo, has a good balance of comedy and drama, and keeps pace and time well with shots of exteriors. the final shot of a dog under the shade of a trailer is particularly telling. as the camp closes a truck pulls the trailer away and the dog is exposed to the sun symbolizing the return of the kids to the non-camp world. as someone who has done that several times i completely understood that feeling. it's a great film that needs to be felt to be really appreciated, but it certainly gets that other part of the brain working as well. well worth checking out. B+.
Conversations With Other Women - SCREENED AT SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST FILM FESTIVAL
aaron eckhart and helena bonham carter star in this pretentious and surprisingly uninteresting film about relationships. the film has a vertical split throughout and is notable for this reason. carter dominates on the left hand side and eckhart on the right. perhaps there is something more to this - some statement about left/right brain or male/female brains or worldviews, but i didn't see it emerge. rather, it just came off as pretentious without a purpose. actually, there were two moments when the split screen produced an interesting effect. one was when the two were very close to each other in reality, but appeared far apart because of the split - perhaps it was some statement on, or reflection of, the status of their relationship. the other is the end which sees them in separate cabs going different places, but the split disappears almost without notice and we are left with the image of the two of them in the cab together. maybe they'll always be together or something, i don't really care because neither of the characters was particularly interesting or compelling.
plotwise the film is about the two of them meeting at a wedding after not having seen each other for many years. each has moved on - she has a husband and he has a meaningless girlfriend. they spend one night together, have sex, and talk about the past. i much preferred this film when richard linklater did it and called in before sunrise. okay, it wasn't that direct of a rip off, but the general story was similar and this film wasn't all that great so i felt compelled to take a pot shot. C-.

3-15-06
Before The Music Dies - SCREENED AT SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST FILM FESTIVAL, WORLD PREMIERE
documentary which focuses on the current state of the music industry as depicted by several interviewees involved in the music industry; people like dave matthews, bonnie raitt, questlove, ex-label executives, small artists, unknown songwriters like david poltz (who co-wrote the jewel hit "you were meant for me"), and many others. forest whitaker narrates.
they begin by giving a brief overview of the music scene of the last hundred years. they begin with blues, jazz and the black experience's effect on popular music. they contend that strife and urban dwelling make for a good environment for the development of quality music. as an aside, the documentary "metal: a headbanger's journey" makes a similar contention, but for suburbia and the disaffection that it fosters. for metal artists, it is said, being away from everything leads to strife which makes some turn to heavy metal as an outlet. in "before the music dies" the contention is that the poor, urban setting is a perfect catalyst for artists coming together and making great music. either way, hardship creates good music. all this is contrasted to today's artists who are portrayed as, largely, having it too easy and being more about image, youth, beauty, style and fashion rather than heartache and musicianship.
the filmmakers obviously have an axe to grind here and, as a music lover and someone worked in the industry for four years, i can't blame them. that said, my major gripe with the film is that it gives a rather simplistic view of the music industry - a view that is in many ways 5-10 years outdated. they spend ample time telling the story of the 1996 telecommunications act, which essentially took the ceiling off of radio ownership, and the windfall that that created. they characterize the music scene as being ruled by radio and don't really give much mention to the minor artists who have made it big outside of radio. they also portray the music scene as being extremely pop-centric when i think that now, more than ever, this is untrue. the internet, ipods, limewire, myspace, etc. have increased the breadth of music this generation is into quite a bit. granted, you're still probably not going to hear teenagers talking about amadou et mariam or sun ra, but they do listen to more stuff now than they did 10-20 years ago because it's so readily available.
while they do mention that there is money to be made outside of the major labels towards the end of the film, the film still seems to be stuck in 1998. what i mean is that the filmmakers view the music industry as being about spins, pop music, and mtv, when popular culture has disproven this with such successes as bright eyes debuting at #1 on billboard, wilco, death cab for cutie, the increase in minor labels, mars volta, arcade fire, outkast, etc. these artists either don't fit the pop mold that the filmmakers depict as so dominate, or do well in spite of not being on clear channel's 40 song playlist. implicit in their representation of the music industry is an elitism that turns many people away from so-called indie music. phrases like "some people don't like music they have to think about" add to this elitism and detract from the cause. erykah badu provides another perfect example. she distills the debate this way (roughly): "there are three kinds of artists - the bleeders who sweat over their work and feel it in their bones, the imitators who try to act like the true artists, and those who just do what they're told. they ask 'how do you want me to dance? what chord do you want me to play? oh, you want me to wear a wig? okay.'" of course she thinks of herself as belonging to the first group and, judging by the crowd's pleasant reaction to her explanation, most others do as well, but i have to wonder how many people in the audience know that she wears a wig. to me, she's as much about image as anyone else in music. granted, it's a different image, but i found her remarks throughout the film to be incredibly hypocritical. towards the end there is some discussion of the role of the internet but it seemed, in my estimation, to be given less import than it deserves.
the film essentially boils down to the ubiquitous struggle of art and money. while i agreed with some of their sentiments i found that the film was often hypocritical (badu and the rock-centric viewpoint being my two biggest points of contention) and didactic. there were certainly some high points - the illustrations of just how simply a pop song can be written or how easily a pop princess can be made were great; as were the interviews with branford marsalis, bonnie raitt and questlove. C+.
Awesome; I Fuckin' Shot That! - SCREENED AT SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST FILM FESTIVAL
nathaniel hornblower (aka adam yauch or MCA) has a great visual mind. he's demonstrated that in the past with videos like body movin', alive, shadrach and so what'cha want, and he does it again with this concert film. it's a film shot from 61 angles, including 50 cameras which were given to fans attending the madison square garden show. yauch takes the resulting footage and mixes it together to form a pretty great idea of what goes on during a typical beastie boys show. there are plenty of shots of the b-boys performing and fans (including ben stiller and wife) dancing, but it also includes some backstage footage and footage of the beasties preparing for the encore (which they perform on the upper level). it's a great film, regardless of your feelings about the beastie boys, in part because it keeps things interesting by switching up the looks. it begins with a great fish eye lens shot of nyc and runs the gamut throughout the picture - from b&w footage to negatives to some of the weird color negatives employed on the so what'cha want video. yauch freezes the frame from time to time for effect, he also loops the video and has a little fractal segment involving a bass guitar which is pretty nifty. highlights include money mark's keyboard antics, the rattling picture during paul revere and the board game t-shirts the band wears (electronic battleship-mmm, mah jong-mca, critter-mike d, scrabble-adrock, boggle-money mark), a fan's bathroom break, and doug e. fresh's appearance.
there was a q&a after the screening. B+.

3-14-06
Shadow Company - SCREENED AT SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST FILM FESTIVAL, WORLD PREMIERE
professional looking documentary on the little known, but important, private military sector. mercenaries have been around as long as war yet we don't think of them in today's world. 9/11, iraq, and afghanistan have raised the awareness and use of mercenaries.
the film pieces together the past, present and potential future of mercenaries with interviewees from a few different backgrounds. there are the intellectuals and analysts, those in the field (present and ex-mercenaries and one president of a mercenary company), and ex-military personnel. bicanic does a fairly good job of staying balanced in his representation of the role of private security companies (as they prefer to be called). he cites past successes (sierra leone in particular) and leaves room for the personal responsibility of the company, thereby avoiding condemning the entire industry. at the same time he brings up real concerns like the effect outsourcing war has on the budget, troop morale as well as its ethical implications.
it's definitely worth watching since it is, to my knowledge, a one of a kind documentary about a subject much more relevant and important than penguins and spelling bees (not that there's anything wrong with those). i would have liked a bit more exploration of the potential futures of mercenary groups, but i can understand the filmmakers's hesitance to explore this area since it would probably lend itself to a more leftist than centrist view of the subject.
edit: upon further reflection i remembered one segment in the film where the filmmakers were a bit of an anti-american bent. there was a quick shot of an american mercenary saying "america, fuck yeah." people in the audience shook their heads in disgust. at first i felt the same, but then i realized that there was a very strong possibility (because of his inflection) that he was sarcastically referencing a song in "team america." whether or not the filmmakers knew this or took it out of context accidentally i can't know. either way it should be noted. B-.
S&Man - SCREENED AT SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST FILM FESTIVAL, WORLD PREMIERE
horror director j.t. petty's documentary explores the line between documentary film and fiction, as well as the psychology of the horror film audience. in a lot of ways the film is two documentaries in one. one focuses on the themes in, and social significance of, horror films. the other is a documentary that follows a horror filmmaker named eric who eventually becomes the demon of the film. in the first part, petty looks at films from peeping tom and texas chainsaw massacre to halloween and henry: portrait of a serial killer. he explores such elements as the audience being implicit in the violent act, while sympathizing with the victim at the same time; the fact that we all know movies are fake and what effect that has; our obsession with violence and death in cinema (as evidenced by early films like "the execution of mary scott" 1895 and "electric elephant" 1903); as well as the masochism of the audience.
the first part of the documentary which explores the role of the audience in horror films is interesting from a philosophical and academic perspective. is the audience implicit in the actions of the film's bad guy? are we morally reprehensible because we watch this stuff and get pleasure out of it? why do we want to see this done to people? why do we like to be scared? do we feel more alive through the possibility of death? what role does the fact that this is all fake play? what about snuff films? why do some constantly seek out more and more extreme films?
the second half of the film follows eric, who is a horror film director who becomes increasingly unstable as the film progresses. eric's films are about a man who follows women on the street, picks them up and then murders them in various ways. petty begins to wonder how much the woman are aware of the fact that they are being followed. through editing, petty essentially creates his own cinematic demon, in eric. much of the film's charm is in picking up on petty's manipulation of eric's words. petty follows eric, just as eric follows the women, in order to see just how far eric is actually going with his stalking. in doing this petty implicates us because we want to know the truth behind eric's actions as well. in this way, petty brilliantly manipulates both the facts and our emotions in an attempt to call attention to the audience's desire to know. in many ways he is attacking reality tv and films like march of penguins or winged migration which are anthropomorphic to the extreme or create filmable situations and present them as natural when they are anything but. B+.

3-13-06
First Date - SCREENED AT SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST FILM FESTIVAL
sometimes funny, sometimes frightening film about an ex-con who arranges a meeting with a gay guy via a chat room. the middle portion of the film is dedicated to his quest to find transportation. first he goes to a job counselor (or something similar) to borrow a car under the premise that he needs to use it for a job interview, then he goes to a bar and yells at a friend (?) hoping to use his car, lastly he goes to a market and steals the keys to a woman's minivan. the ending was chanced upon by the filmmakers and it's obvious. it's a car crash and the ex-con wanders around as if to help the victims, but mainly just asks questions. doesn't make much sense.
the two most interesting things about the film were that the lead is played by a cop who does a lot of undercover work who met the director while he was working at a library and the cop was checking out kurosawa films. the cop does a good job of acting. the other is the excuse his character gives to the man he picks up when he asks the ex-con why he doesn't consider himself gay. he says that, in latin culture, he's not considered gay because he's still the aggressor. interesting. C+.
District 13 - SCREENED AT SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST FILM FESTIVAL
the two standout elements of this film were the soundtrack and the stunts/choreography. the soundtrack features a bunch of work by some guy i've never heard of named da octopusss and it's basically big beat type of electronica, only bigger. the choreography is reminiscent of tony jaa's work on ong-bak: thai warrior and everything jackie chan has ever done. this is a better film than ong-bak because of the soundtrack, pacing and social commentary elements, but the choreography in ong bak was probably better. that said, the stunts here are pretty cool.
visually the film is better than the standard fair because of the gritty, saturated look which complements the themes/settings. speaking of which, the film is essentially just a french remake of escape from new york with the caveat that the protagonist is a good guy instead of an ex-con. the film is also reminiscent of danny the dog (unleashed in the U.S.) which makes sense since luc besson wrote this one as well.
in order to make some of its political points it does tend toward the preachy near the end, but that's forgivable. it's clear from films like this and cache, and from reading the news, that the french/muslim problem is getting worse these days. there really seems to be an upswell of french art (a hip-hop scene is growing there as well) that is addressing this fact. one other note is that the subtitles in the film weren't too amazing - the translation could have been better. speaking of subtitles, there seems to be a trend of films that have the subtitles interact with the action on the screen. subtitles might appear or disappear based upon the movement of characters across the edges (think "man on fire"). it's something to look out for. B.

3-12-06
Heart Of The Game - SCREENED AT SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST FILM FESTIVAL
a very fine smaller, female version of hoop dreams. it's not the sweeping epic with amazing incisiveness and depth that hoop dreams is, but it tells a heartfelt story along the same lines and adds the caveat of an eccentric coach and a female team.
whereas hoop dreams was rich in cultural, social, racial and economic fodder, heart of the game is more a fly on the wall look at an eccentric girl's high school coach (ressler) and the teams he coachs over the 6-7 years that the film covers. i think that this film is slightly more about the game than hoop dreams and that might turn off some viewers, but, really, this aspect of the film can be extrapolated to reveal things about life and society. the game sequences are more plentiful than they are in hoop dreams, but this drama is easily relatable because the games are often in the context of something larger like redemption, perseverance, or growth.
without getting too much into the minutiae of the film and its plot, lemme say that the film becomes as much a film about ressler's star player (darnelia) as it is about ressler and his approach to the game. she is a willful, black, lower class student attending an upper class, predominately white school with an equally willful, focused and driven basketball coach. they are good foils for each other and it's fun and compelling viewing to see their personalities at work.
don't let the sports setting turn you off of this film. it really has something for everyone and is a well-done, heartfelt and provocative documentary. i enjoyed serrill's hands off, maysles brothers-esque, fly-on-the-wall approach and i think it's the best film of the festival so far. ludacris narrates. B+.
Friends With Money - SCREENED AT SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST FILM FESTIVAL
here's an example where an ensemble cast actually works. i think it works because of two major points: the script is solid and it's a comedy. ensemble comedies have less stress and less burden than ensemble dramas. with an ensemble drama you almost have to hit it out of the park because it's like having a bunch of sluggers in the line up - if you don't score 10 runs a game, you're going to be a disappointment. here, though, the cast is full of non-comedian actors doing comic drama. by not comedian i mean none of the big names are seen as comic actors first. mcdormand, keener, aniston, and joan cusack head up the female dominated cast.
as a comedy the film is successful because a) the writing is sharp, candid and witty b) the actors, though not strictly known for their comic chops, do well with the material c) it's relatable and fresh (because of its honesty). as a drama the film is also successful, though there was much less of a focus on this aspect. it works, though, because we like the characters because they make us laugh. often dramatic films forget that characters who make us laugh are just as sympathetic as characters who move us; not to mention the fact that it's easier to draw a funny character than a heavy one. drawing a heavy one requires a greater balance between the sympathetic and the pathetic/maudlin. at any rate, these characters were true to life and likable because of their humor.
aniston plays the loser of the group and her character reminded me of jane adams's frail character in happiness. mcdormand plays an incessantly peeved designer, cusack is the rich one, and keener plays arguably the most textured of the group. keener is a talent. B.
Even Money - SCREENED AT SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST FILM FESTIVAL, WORLD PREMIERE
yet another ensemble film, this time directed by mark rydell (cowboys, james dean story) and produced by bob yari (crash). this film made me realize how much of a collaboration filmmaking really is. every person in the chain has to share the burden of telling the story to the audience. if the score doesn't fit then the burden falls more on the acting or the direction or the cinematography. great films have a capable and inspired crew which shares the burden equally. this film did not do that.
the direction was definitely the worst element of the film. while the broad story had potential and the cinematography was decent (lots of interiors and dark locations gave a claustrophobic feel), the direction just didn't hold up its end of the bargain. some minor examples include all the basketball sequences which were clearly shot by someone who has no understanding or love of the game. or how about the blackjack sequence wherein basinger gets a bout of bad luck - she busts with 22 hand after hand after hand; it's just not realistic and it was done in, frankly, a cheesy way. the entire premise of the final scene relied on us believing that a major gangster was interested in a high school basketball game. i'm sure there are some high school games with some decent action, but it just didn't make sense in this instance. the most disturbing choice was the use of voice-over at the beginning and end of the film. here, rydell spells out exactly what he wants you to get from the film and then summarizes things for you nicely at the end. sometimes a film can get away with this, other times it cannot. C.

3-11-06
American Gun - SCREENED AT SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST FILM FESTIVAL
i'm getting a bit tired of the ensemble dramas. i'm not sure if this trend (if there is indeed one) is for a social reason or merely because of the success of films like crash or love actually; nor do i care. i don't have anything against them, per se (short cuts and magnolia are great), but it seems like they are becoming the next big thing and for no great reason. it doesn't elevate your story to throw a bunch of supposedly good actors into the same room. this one features the talents of marcia gay harden, linda cardellini, donald sutherland, forest whitaker, etc.
the plot is less an intertwining of storylines and more a paralleling. each of the storylines have a set of common themes, chief among them: guns and family. this recalls a rage against the machine lyric from bulls on parade (republicans): "rally round the family with a pocket full of shells," but i digress. each character is in some way affected by guns - whether it is the abuse of guns or a perceived power that they gain from having command of one. this equity may have been the film's strongest element. avelino (who was in attendance) did a good job of not making an easy anti-gun film.
sadly, the film lacked in some more fundamental ways - characterization, dialogue and some story elements. characterization was mostly thin, a drawback of the ensemble film. i think that many directors have difficulty with creating living, full characters and when you thin out a character's screen time you amplify this deficiency. some of the writing was also weak. dialogue was occasionally unrealistic or affected and there were too many cliche story elements. his columbine recreation capitalized more on the effect of the actual event than it did on any created drama or emotion. some of the cardellini storyline, too, was something more appropriate for an after school special than a moving treatise on gun use.
all that said, the film was (with a couple notable exceptions) fairly well acted and did manage to create some emotionally resonate scenes. above all, the film served as an adequate catalyst for thought on this issue, so, while it wasn't all that well executed, it wasn't a waste either. C.
Wide Awake - SCREENED AT SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST FILM FESTIVAL
documentary about filmmaker alan berliner who battles insomnia. berliner is cut from the woody allen cloth - he looks jewish, is well-educated, and is neurotic in a humorous way (at least to the audience). he tells the story of his many sleepless nights and their consequences through voice-over, testimonials, stock footage, interviews (with doctors, family), etc. it's hard to make a film about yourself, but he's taken a page out of ross mcelwee's book and done a pretty good job of being open and honest. it's only when a filmmaker holds things back or makes excuses or refuses to be candid that a film like this really suffers.
sleep, or the lack thereof, is the focus of the film, but he uses it as a springboard to other topics. for example, he argues that the amount of sleep a person gets could very well determine things as disparate as presidential decisions to world series outcomes. for berliner, quality of life is associated with the amount of sleep one gets. this idea becomes an obsession. he makes a film about it, he stays up at all hours of the night working on his film in various ways, he sees several doctors about the problem, he researches the issue, he talks with his family about it and eventually all of this comes to a head with his wife. his obsession and his insomnia hurt the relationship and hamper his ability to be with his newborn son. the film ends with his resolution to address the problem in earnest.
after the film, berliner talked about the fact that the resolution at the end of the film was one he didn't really take to heart. the doctors proposed resetting his clock, but he rejected the idea because he felt that it would cut into his creative time too much. he has resolved to get control of his sleeping pill problem and hopes to incorporate his son into his new project in an attempt to balance family and creativity.
unlike small town gay bar, this is a real documentary made by someone who clearly understands how to tell a story, keep you interested and add some depth to the film. there's plenty here to chew on, regardless of your relationship with sleep. B.

3-10-06
Day After - rare example of a tv movie that is actually well done. "brian's song" is the only other film i can think of that falls into that category. it's a pretty chilling telling of what might happen in anytown usa in the case of a nuclear attack. it takes place in kansas city and starts soon before the nuclear war begins. russia escalates things in west germany (the film was made in 1983) and then we escalate things and missiles are fired. it all happens very quickly and we don't see much behind the scenes stuff. this is effective because it gives us the same sense of disconnection that 99% of the population might feel. the film deals with the topic and the dirty aftermath in a sober and straightforward way. it's not sullen, maudlin, or heavy handed, but it has the requisite weight.
one woman character in the film remarks that she isn't too concerned about the russians invading w. germany because we don't have as much of a stake there, she adds: "if the russians were taking oil from saudi arabia then i'd be worried." prophetic if you ask me. a mother remarks to her family "we're lucky to be alive" the father responds "we'll see how lucky that is." there's nothing fancy or poetic in that remark, but it beats the point home well nonetheless. the only point in the film where the filmmakers come off as didactic is the final note which essentially states that the film was made with the hope that it would sway the leaders of the world to find peaceable solutions to their differences. it also states that the aftermath depicted in the film is likely more severe than would be experienced by the average person in such a situation. i could have done without both of these end notes. B.
Fuck - SCREENED AT SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST FILM FESTIVAL
good documentary which examines the roots, impact, and effect the word "Fuck" has on our culture. anderson uses myriad cultural texts from the big lebowski, pulp fiction, bad santa, planes trains and automobiles, fuck the police by n.w.a., an interview with a cubs manager, and numerous quotes from the bible, philosophers and ex-presidents to paint a broad portrait of the ways in which we use and react to the word. some of the interviewees include: ice-t, kevin smith, jeanine garofalo, pat boone, miss manners, tera patrick, sam donaldson, chuck d, drew carey, alan keyes, ron jeremy, hunter s. thompson, bill maher, etc.
to me george carlin has always been my hero when it comes to our culture's hypocrisy on this subject, but i know that a lot of his work is indebted to lenny bruce - who i just never found to be that funny. anyway, beyond carlin's the seven deadly words routine, anderson adds some legal evidence (fcc vs. pacifica), the bono incident, the janet jackson incident, and some numbers like: number of complaints to the fcc in 2000: 40,000; 2001-04 (during bush's reign): almost 8 million (99.9% of which were brought by a single "family values" group). anderson touches on the culture war aspect a bit, mostly through his interviewees, but generally keeps things civil. he pokes fun at some ex-presidents who have used the word: bush jr. said "fuck saddam" at some point and LBJ once said something like "pantyhose are awful because they ruin finger-fucking."
well done, moves along nicely, and is entertaining. i thought he should have edited in pat boone's crude joke from roger & me since boone was so anti-cursing, but you can't win them all. B.
Small Town Gay Bar - SCREENED AT SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST FILM FESTIVAL
decent documentary about small town gay bars in mississippi. it opens with establishing shots of middle america and then goes into a profile of "rumors" a gay bar in NE mississippi. most of the film focuses on the life of this one bar and it branches off a bit from there - profiling one other bar (crossroads) in a tiny town (under 2,000) in MS, one martyr associated with rumors (scotty), and one hater of all things gay (the infamous fred phelps). just as fred phelps would depict homosexuals as stereotypical child molesters who look like the village people, leftists use fred phelps as their token bible thumping zealot. while it's true this guy is awful, i think he's appeared on too many news programs and documentaries by now. i first saw him on michael moore's "the awful truth" but he's appeared in several things since then. i honestly think it would be better to ignore the guy so he'd lose some of his power. but i digress...
one thing i found disturbing is that, like phelps, scotty's brother felt that scotty was killed as part of god's plan. phelps thinks scotty was sent to hell for his sinning and the brother thinks scotty was chosen as a martyr to make the gay community stronger. this sort of thinking, while it may make each feel better, is so presumptuous and ugly i would know how to begin to denounce it.
for most of the first half of the film ingram uses the music well and tells the story in a fairly efficient way. in the first half i enjoyed the music choices - mississippi queen takes on a new meaning and he had a familiar song about turning away in the context of gays not coming out of the closet. in the second half, though, i think he runs out of material. he has a lot of false endings: he chose music that felt like it was building to a close and he'd play it for its entire length as you might when ending a film. he'd also fade to black during these sequences, thereby giving you the feeling that the film was coming to a close. unfortunately he did this for at least the last 30 minutes which has a tiring effect on the audience. another thing he did, seemingly in an attempt to pad the runtime, was add two montages of interviewees standing outside of rumors while the music played. these, and other, superfluous scenes really detracted from the film. had it been 50 minutes, instead of 81, it could have been a full grade better.
the audience was extraordinarily kind to ingram during the q&a after the film. i was actually a bit surprised that no one challenged him on anything (like the easy choice of phelps as the film's demon, or the poor editing, or the choice to tell the story of basically just one gay bar, or...) C.

3-8-06
Brokeback Mountain - first the bad: i thought the music was trite and unimpressive. they did a bad job of aging ledger, so much so that you could see his makeup; these are not hallmarks of a best picture nominee. it's a bit on the slow side and if i were to watch this at home, rather than in the theater, i would probably give the picture a full letter grade lower; but my tolerance in a theater is higher. in a way, this film was like an extended, gay version of the middle part that ruined "crouching tiger, hidden dragon." the film was relatively low on character development. a typical anthony mann western has more character development in 15 minutes than this had in 2 hours and 15 minutes.
now the good: the cinematography was pretty good, though not great. gyllenhaal's performance was a strength in part because he character was more sympathetic than ledger's. ledger seemed less gay and more interested in the relationship as a sexual and mental release from his domestic life. early in the film it could be argued that ledger did it for one of the same reasons that men in prison turn to each other for sex - necessity rather than choice. later in the film it seems that he looks forward to their time together more as an escape than as a way of bonding with a partner. as a result i found myself sympathizing with gyllenhaal's situation more. as the film winds down it tugs on our heart strings because of the guilt and regret ledger feels as a result of his relationship with gyllenhaal.
i didn't think it was a great story and i didn't think it was a bold statement. on a scale of 1-10 of impressiveness (1 being paris hilton's intelligence, 10 being jerry rice's football career) i'd say the film's courage was about 6. there was a certain element of risk involved, but i think it was a calculated risk and a risk that was clearly justified. i'd have been more impressed if the film failed at the box office, or if this was released prior to beau travail, boys don't cry, or philadelphia. really, though, the courage of a film doesn't matter that much to me so even if it was released 20 years ago it wouldn't have affected my grading that much. the real draw of the film is emotion behind the film. we feel for gyllenhaal and williams in an honest way and that really sustains the film. the social stuff and hype are mostly just undeserved background noise. this isn't a great film, but it is a good one. B-.

3-7-06
Poseidon Adventure - solid film produced by irwin allen (towering inferno) about a cruise ship that capsizes on new year's eve. the crew is forced to find their way through the ship to the hull hoping that they can reach help from there. the set pieces are notable. everything is upside down and all the sets are flooded at some point in the film. the filmmakers manage to put together a pretty suitable story. in functions well from on an allegorical level (their world is turned upside down on the new year and they are under water [rebirth], etc.) and it also allows them to work in more base elements like the women shedding their dresses early on in order to climb to safety; this leaves them in their knickers throughout the remainder.
also impressive is hackman's character; he really is the axis of the film. he plays a preacher who has been outcast because of his unorthodox beliefs. in the beginning he gives a sermon espousing his belief that we all have god within us. god doesn't want us to be weak, he says, he wants us to help ourselves - he wants us to be strong. early after the ship capsizes most of the crew chooses to stay in the ballroom hoping that someone will come to save them, but a few follow moses, er hackman, to the hull of the ship. of course hackman is solid and he sells the martyr ending in a way that a lesser actor wouldn't. once at the hull the remaining survivors bang on the ceiling hoping god, er the rescuers, will cut the hull and free them.
it's a good flick that functions on several levels and that's the real key here. B-.
Caché (Hidden) - the most difficult films to review are the ones that may be great, but for unclear reasons. films that affect you, make you think, and are well-constructed, yet still, somehow, evade easy analysis. cache, directed by michael haneke, is like some of abbas kiarostami's better films (namely a taste of cherry and the wind will carry us) - films that are somehow able to teach without being didactic and say something without being overly specific. we get impressions, ideas, and brushstrokes of a master's work while being spared the overt didacticism that sinks so many films which try to make a point. at the same time it manages to not turn into syriana, which suffered from a lack of character and plot development.
but let me bring it back a bit...the film follows a family (man, woman, son) who begin to get tapes and drawings left on their front door. the tapes are simple shots of their house from the outside and the drawings depict a boy with blood coming out of his mouth. it's all very mysterious at first, but haneke slowly reveals the hidden layers which illuminate the mystery - or do they? it's a difficult plot to summarize, especially without giving the film away completely. as the film progresses the tapes get more personal and the husband and wife are pulled apart by the things the husband hides from her. adding another layer to the film is the fact that the protagonists are french and the apparent maker of the tape is an algerian from the husband's past.
in one critical scene, wherein the parents discover their child missing, news coverage of the current iraqi war is on the television in the background. in doing this, haneke expands his exploration of the effects of colonialism as portrayed in this more personal form. first he has the french-algerian aspect, and here he adds a more modern context to the discussion. but the film isn't just about politics. that's only one element of the multi-faceted story haneke has crafted. also bubbling underneath are more immediate issues of trust, loyalty and the future. i draw the kiarostami parallel because all three films have unconventional (by american standards) endings. in cache we see the son of the algerian and the son of the protagonists talking in the distance, but we don't know what they're saying or how much time has passed. what exactly is said, though, isn't that important. we see the two sons get along much better than their fathers, and that's the important point. despite the harsh way in which haneke depicts the husband and wife (representing the bourgeoisie), maybe he holds hope for the future. or, maybe, this is the most paranoia producing scene in the film. maybe the sons were in cahoots the entire time. i don't think it's really possible to know.
stylistically the film is stripped down. there is no music and the sound design is very organic, again like a kiarostami film. like kurosawa, haneke employs contrasts throughout the picture. long, slow, dark scenes will be followed by more busy, brighter scenes. his edits in these cases are harsh and jarring. another style/editing choice was the way he introduced the new tapes that were sent to the protagonists. we would get an exterior shot of their flat for a minute or two and then it would pause, rewind and they would speak over it. in this way, haneke, in a sense, is telling us that we can't believe what we see. throughout the first 2/3 of the film there are scenes of this kind. later, when the husband is editing some footage for his television show, there is a shift. is he controlling the film's action now, or is this where he loses control?
it's a cryptic film to be sure and there is no clear resolution, but that doesn't make the film any less engrossing while you're watching it. it does make it all the more maddening afterwards, but i don't really have a problem with that. maybe that's the point. this is definitely the kind of film that needs to be watched again. B+.

3-3-06
Block Party - great documentary following dave chappelle while he plans his dream block party. i'm not going to comment on the music or the comedy because you should probably know your feelings on both by now. chappelle is what he is (great, in my opinion) and the music is what it is (mostly good, though the fugees showed plenty of rust). rather, i find it more interesting to look at the editing and the film as a marker in the career of dave chappelle.
the editing reveals a subtle fact that we might want to ignore, but one that i think is important: these guys aren't genius by accident, they work at it. like "comedian" showed rory what's his face and jerry seinfeld honing their material, block party shows (to a lesser extent) the musicians and dave chappelle working on their material. sure, there's plenty of natural talent here, but it's more inspiring to see a guy work on his delivery and timing and the subtitles of his delivery in practice than it is to see a genius come up with things on the fly. that said, both are here. chappelle's encounter with "mr. t" is one such example. chappelle couldn't have planned for that and yet he makes the encounter fun and funny. certainly some of the best humor of the film is unplanned, but i really enjoyed the way gondry intercuts the live performance of a joke or musical piece with its rehearsal. it's like one of the students says at the end of the film: "dave chappelle is just a guy, like me."
chappelle's career, i think, is entering its third stage. the first stage was his film career which was marked mostly by bit parts and the cult break out of half baked (directed by tamra davis - mike d's (of the beastie boys) wife). the second stage of his career started with killing them softly and ended with his trip to africa. this was filmed during the second stage and was released during the third stage of his career. it's interesting to see him evolve as a person and as a public figure. great artists always have different stages in their career wherein their material or performances or work changes shape. chappelle's work has matured and i think we'll see him be more overtly political and socially conscious in the future. this isn't to say that his work in the second stage of his career wasn't conscious, it really was, but it was possible to miss. maybe in the future it won't be. B+.
16 Blocks - two films with mos def and "block" in the title in one visit to the theater. odd.
75 year old richard donner (superman, goonies, lethal weapon 1-4) makes a bit of a return to his previous form here after some poor films like assassins and timeline. mos def is a witness who needs to get to the courtroom in 2 hours and willis is the cop who has been assigned to take him there. willis is aging well as an actor. though he's still slated to do die hard 4, i think he understands that he can't be the same type of action star anymore. hostage and 16 blocks show an understanding of his age. in both he appears aged and weary. in this film he plays a cynical lush who has a less than perfect record of service. but there is still potential and the audience knows this because of his reputation. just as deniro capitalizes on his tough guy roles of the past in doing comedies like meet the parents and analyze this, willis brings a credibility to the screen because of his previous work.
the first half of the film is relatively engrossing and sharp, but it peters a bit as the film progresses. one major flaw is that it falls into the usual genre sympathy ploys and tricks in the final reel. sometimes the switch-a-roo works (bandits) and sometimes it's too obvious (16 blocks). all in all, though, it's a pretty good film if you're looking for a good, easy time. willis and mos def do a good job with basic genre characters and i didn't find myself checking my watch too often. B-.

2-25-06
Match Point - first i'll be nit picky to get it out of the way: i didn't buy meyers as a professional tennis player. his stroke is decent, but it didn't look professional.
the thing that most reviews of this film have in common is that this is an un-woody allen like film. good or bad, the reviews i've heard generally mention this. i disagree with this assertion. first, woody allen, though generally a director of a certain style, does do films that don't fit the annie hall mold. he's done a fake documentary, a musical, and he's inserted darker themes and crime into his films before. so, while it's not the prototypical woody allen film, it still has the woody allen signature. thematically it's very similar to crimes and misdemeanors, it has the same elevated language of the rest of his films, it's heady, and it has the same color palette as a good number of his films. also, though it's not a comedy, it does have some comic moments which serve to break the drama a bit.
when i heard that the film was a basic moral tale my first response was: "who the hell is woody allen to be telling a moral tale?" personally i don't see the film as a moral tale. sure, it has a simple message about luck and guilt and fidelity and priorities, but i felt these were better conveyed and explored in crimes and misdemeanors. i also felt that sven nykvist's (bergman's right hand) cinematography was superior, and more fitting, in that film. that said, i felt that the ending was more chilling in this film than it was in c&m, but i don't know that c&m was going for chilling so...
one complaint i heard about the film is that the middle doesn't evolve much; it's sort of the same thing over and over again. i found that there were subtle changes in the dynamic of the characters and their situation. i was actually more interested in the middle part of the film than i was in the denouement, which i found to be somewhat chilling, but otherwise a let down.
i liked watching the film, but it's not the kind of film i'm going to go back to over and over again and, for that reason alone, i can't say it's one of the year's best. the acting was good, i liked allen's command of the language, and i thought it did more for london than "manhattan" did for manhattan (but i think that movie is overrated). i guess this is one of many examples where there are people who love it and people who hate it and i come down somewhere in between. B.

2-10-06
Grizzly Man - i have to agree with dave chappelle when it comes to calling people crazy. just because you don't understand this guy that doesn't make him crazy. when i first heard about this film i pictured a grizzled man living amongst the animals with herzog capturing it all. this initial expectation is important because grizzly man is pretty much the exact opposite.
the film's protagonist shot all the material himself. afterwards herzog takes the footage, adds some interviews from friends and experts and weaves together the story of the protagonist. instead of an unshaven mountain man living with bears we see a clean shaven, rich, prima donna who thinks he's saving the world. he's always clean shaven, posturing in front of the camera, and bragging about his exploits in the area.
all this isn't very noteworthy and it made me wonder why herzog (and so many critics) found the subject so compelling. sure, there's a man vs. nature component, but it just wasn't all that provocative. herzog's editing didn't tell any great story. for example, he didn't show the more sane moments of the protagonist at the beginning and then the less lucid moments at the end. he didn't weave together any sort of compelling story arc. really, the most interesting element of the film was his voice-over commentary which i found to be somewhat separated from the reality of the protagonist.
an over-rated and underwhelming documentary which provides only a few moments of unprompted thought. C-.

2-7-06
When A Stranger Calls - better than i expected. i have seen the original (1979) and its sequel (don't ask why, i don't even know), but this one is the best. it's not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, but it ratchets up the suspense fairly well throughout the picture. i think that most will consider it too slow, but i found it to be well-paced.
there were a few too many "cat jumping into the frame" type of scares, but other than that i felt that the scares were well-built. it didn't rely too much on tightening the music or sudden cuts (though it did use those). it actually built some scares in pretty respectable ways. the director would establish a pattern of subjective camera shots and then switch that pattern by cutting to a shot of the protagonist. the effect of this is that the audience expects to see what she is seeing, but when west cuts to a shot of the protagonist it gives the impression, for a second, that she is the stalker. it's a minor effect produced entirely through editing, but it's efficacious. a good enough portion of the film is psychologically scary and the acting isn't horrible so i'll give it a B-.

2-6-06
Breakfast Club - a classic teen comedy from the great john hughes.
it's been a little while since i've last seen this one so there were a few things i had forgotten. it's always interesting to see what elements or scenes from a film i forget after i've gone a while without seeing it. in this instance i forgot the very beginning - the quote and the breaking of the opaque, black glass - and the very end - the unlikely romances. it's interesting because this film has always been about a couple things: us (the powerless/students) vs. them (the power structure/teachers) and the bonds forged between the unlikely groups represented by the five kids.
one can view the film in at least two ways: the kids are just individual kids, with their own problems OR as the letter with which the film begins and ends states, the kids are archetypes - the brain, the outcast, the queen, the jock, etc. i think the film is enjoyable and relevant either way, but the ending is more palatable if viewed in the second way. i found the ending, which finds the jock and the weirdo, and the bully and the queen, hooking up, somewhat disturbing this time around. what is it saying? the brain doesn't get any action, the queen forgives judd nelson, and the weirdo gets a makeover and subsequently hooks up with the jock. what's the deal? is it a statement that the jock and judd nelson are reformed? is it a statement that, deep inside, the queen and the weirdo still crave the bad boy and the jock? is hughes trying to make a utopian statement that all kinds can mix? is it that we're all the same when we open up and drop the front? i certainly see the humanity of all the characters, and understand that they are, at least somewhat, symbolic archetypes. when i first watched it, the breakfast club struck me on this level: maybe the cool kids aren't as vaunted as i thought. in that sense the film will always be a success, and a must-see. at the same time, hughes interjects the reality of the situation - the kids openly acknowledge the temporary nature of their new found friendships. this might explain the quickness with which the queen and the weirdo accept judd nelson and the jock. is hughes building and destroying this utopia in one fell swoop? maybe it isn't about utopia, maybe it's a harsh reality - we ARE all the same underneath, but we'll never acknowledge it openly.
there are a lot of questions that the film brings up. there are also a lot of truisms and wonderful insights. despite being 20+ years old (wow), the film barely shows it age. some of the language is outdated and judd nelson rearranging the card catalog is funny, but probably wouldn't even register to kids these day. that said, the film has aged well and is universal in so many ways that it really is a classic. A-.

2-4-06
Walk The Line - i wouldn't classify myself as a huge cash fan, but i definitely like the guy. naturally i was hesitant when i heard about the film, but i finally watched and must say i wasn't disappointed.
the first two minutes of the film begin at folsom prison with the rhythm line of "folsom prison blues" playing somewhere deep within the prison. the sound here, as it is throughout the film, is just great. it's tight, strong like a train, and heavy on the reverb to give the impression that the music is coming from the center of a cavern. as the credits roll the music gets louder and the camera gets closer to the stage, which lacks cash. the inmates are beating along to the rhythm and the tennessee three are punching out the rhythm section while waiting for johnny. it's a powerful few minutes, especially for those who know the power of his work. the camera goes "backstage" where phoenix is in front of a bandsaw thumbing its teeth pensively. from here we go back a number of years and it's not until about 60 minutes into the film that we pick up where we left him in the prison. it's a great beginning that draws you in immediately. don't be like the dozen or so texans i saw who strolled into the film 5-20 minutes after the start time.
the music and the sound were absolutely great. i can't remember a film with such a good use of sound since the aviator (which was nominated for an academy for its sound - it lost to ray). i think that walk the line had a better use of sound than ray or aviator. take note during cash's outburst in a hotel room during which he collapses and the music loops backwards and forwards with one of songs building slowly in the background. difficult to describe, but trust me it's good; as is the rest of the film in this regard.
i liked most of the performances. the woman who played cash's first wife (vivian) was less than stellar, but otherwise it was a solid cast headed up by oscar worthy performances by phoenix and witherspoon. she's sassy, fun and strong. his voice is pretty close to cash's, and his performance captures the cash fairly well. i still think hoffman should win though. phoenix first piqued my interest in 1992 with to die for. since then he's gone largely unnoticed to the mainstream so it's good to see him get such a big role.
johnny cash's songwriting is his strength. he captures the essence of the proletariat struggle and the pain of existence so succinctly and in such a heartfelt way. add to that the fact that his songs are always so steady and walk the line (pardon the pun) between folk, country and rockabilly so well, and you have a man who truly is a legend.
could this be the new hollywood? we know that hollywood can't tell new, original stories the way it used to. perhaps hollywood could be the source of blockbusters (which it has always done well) and biographies. i suppose that wouldn't be such a bad thing. we'll see how it shakes out, but there certainly does seem to be a trend: ray, walk the line, capote, north country, frida, erin brokovich, monster, hotel rwanda, aviator, ali, beautiful mind, etc. all based on true stories, all of a high caliber. anyway, walk the line is great, check it out. B+.

2-1-06
McLibel - not a very engaging or balanced look at the libel case in england which found two working class stiffs going against mcdonald's. mcdonald's sued them for passing out flyers which detailed the various ways in which mcdonald's was bad for the world (pollution, health, animal cruelty, etc.). the dramatizations were done by ken loach which was surprising because he's reputed to have talent. also, not to be a mcdonald's advocate, but a lot of the data was false as much of the film is outdated; the same is true for "Fast Food Nation," the author of which is interviewed throughout the picture.
overall, i felt that the film was more libelous than the leaflets for which they were sued. i'd skip this one. C-.

1-29-06
Office Space - a modern classic, especially for guys in their 20s and 30s. it's not only a brilliantly told comedy, it's also comedic telling of the modern condition. there really is a lot of brilliant observations and truisms within this film. from the opening scene which shows michael bolton listening to scarface while locking his door as a homeless black man walks by his car to the electric shock ron livingston's character gets as he opens the metal door leading to his cubicle. the film is full of small observations which often get overshadowed by the brilliant discussions of flair and tps reports.
one wouldn't think a film like this, done by the creator of beavis and butt-head, to be technically noteworthy, but office space certainly is. judge's use of music, for example, not only elevates the film, but the music as well. tracks like the aforementioned "no tears" by scarface go from relative unknowns to perfectly placed near classics. the same goes for tracks by the geto boys, ice cube and perez prado. judge's direction during montage sequences like the copier destruction and the virus implant is excellent. it's funny, well-executed, and dynamic, yet not showy or out of his depth. i am looking forward to his next live action effort: idiocracy, starring luke wilson. A+.
Pieces Of April - a wonderful thanksgiving film that, without being too corny, shows us all the true meaning of the holiday. off the top of my head i can only recall one thanksgiving picture that is better than this one: planes, trains and automobiles (of course).
hedges wrote what's eating gilbert grape and about a boy, but this is his first foray into direction. both are in top form here. his characterization and the way he complements it with his direction is a thing of beauty. natural lighting, almost exclusive use of diegetic (source) music, and handheld camerawork all add to a dogma feel, but without all the stuffiness of some of the work (especially by von trier) put out under this heading. the writing is well-balanced and naturalistic. A-.
Closer - an odd film from mike nichols (catch-22, who's afraid of virginia woolf?, the graduate). odd because i didn't know what to make of the ending. i think that that's intentional. nichols wants you to know the power and effects of deceit. i think that clive owens is the key to the film because he's the only character who never lies. everyone else, cheats and lies about it. he cheats and tells roberts about it. i won't get into the plot anymore than that.
nichols takes all the love and sex out of the relationships. what we're left with are relationships we know very little about. all we really know is how they are formed and how they end. it's an interesting way of telling the story of a relationship, especially those as dysfunctional as the ones represented in this film. also of note is the way he advances time. without notice there will be a one year gap between scenes. it's always linear, and it's usually pretty easy to pickup, so i enjoyed the effective storytelling on that front. other than that, nichols captures the ugliness of the relationships well. i guess it was a good film because it made me think and nichols' craft is well-honed here, but the story and characters were so ugly that the film was less enjoyable. B-.

1-28-06
Squid And The Whale - very fine film that's part wes anderson and part woody allen. it's well-written, extremely well-balanced, and has a very solid cast. a sleeper hit. nice to see it get a screenplay nomination.
i liked the realistic portrayal of separation - the way the parents use the children as pawns, the way the kids take sides, the relative nature of "good guy" and "bad guy," etc. also impressive was the realistic treatment of other relationships depicted in the film. ann paquin's inappropriate relationship with daniels and the older son, is a prime example. it's too frequent that a film depicts sexual relationships like this in a melodramatic, overblown, or romanticized way. the squid and the whale, though, treats these relationships with the requisite complexity and depth.
perhaps my favorite element of the film was its balance. it shifted between comedy and drama so effortlessly, and did both so well that it was quite a joy to watch. worthwhile. B+.

12-18-05
King Kong - jessica lange is still the hottest of the three damsels in distress, though naomi watts gives her a run for her money. anyway...i like peter jackson, i've only missed one of his films (the frighteners) so i think i've got a pretty good grasp on his work. while characterization isn't one of his strong suits i think he does do a good job of telling a well-balanced story. as expected, jack black is the major source of comic relief in this one. as his character turns, though, this balance is mostly lost. unfortunately, once that happens the film begins to drag a bit. the lengthy rampage scene at the end certainly doesn't help. as an aside, notice the very beginning of dead alive and its clearly being influenced by king kong - hadn't noticed it until watching king kong, but it's there. at any rate, the film is well done popcorn fare. it's a step down from the solidly built lotr trilogy, but it's still got the jackson touch - it's watchable, mostly well-balanced and occasionally dark. good stuff. B.

11-15-05
Wal-mart: The High Cost Of Low Prices - it's worth watching in spite of its many flaws. the production values are sometimes fairly amateurish, but this is forgivable because it adds to the grassroots feel of the documentary. what isn't forgivable, though, is the manipulation of facts and emotions that greenwald employs. the facts are generally solid, but, like most people, he will mold the facts to buttress his claims. this is expected, but i tend to hold leftist causes to a higher standard of intellectual honesty than the likes of fox news, rush limbaugh, etc. that said, the biggest disappointment of the documentary is the way it employs anti-chinese sentiments, religion and fear to make its case. each of these three has a sizable segment of the documentary which capitalizes on the viewers' potential fears/morals in these categories. none of these segments is fully without merit, but each segment made me cringe a bit at some point.
the segment on china was good because it addressed the real problem of chinese workers being mistreated because of the demand wal-mart places on chinese suppliers. however, it also stunk a bit of anti-chinese rhetoric. one might point out that this was predominately espoused by everyday americans in interview footage, but greenwald, through editing, is the one responsible for bringing the ideas to the film. that is, this is not simply a fly-on-the-wall documentary - it's a filmed essay much in the way michael moore made his last two films.
to me, the religion segment, though well-intentioned, smacked of contrivance. it just seemed like greenwald was trying so hard throughout the film to appeal to a new audience. early in the film when greenwald establishes his thesis, he uses interviews with small town folk who are affected by the arrival of wal-mart. during these sequences greenwald makes it a point to highlight the bush 2004 stickers on the wall and the american flag flying in front of the store and the picture of ronald reagan in the office...with the religious segment of the film, greenwald's pandering to a new audience reaches the absurd. people in inglewood talk about fighting wal-mart because it's the christian thing to do and greenwald intercuts footage of a priest talking about the lust for money being the root of all evil, etc.
another segment of the film focused on the many crimes that have taken place in wal-mart parking lots. greenwald asserts that wal-mart hasn't done enough to protect their customers once they leave the store, in spite of over-whelming evidence that a single security guard in a golf cart can reduce crime to near zero.
with all of the the above segments i felt that greenwald was stretching, either to appeal to a new audience or to appeal to a more base side of humanity. while this may be effective, i think the method (means) is more important than the outcome (ends). i also felt that some of these arguments are tantamount to telling teenagers to stay away from drugs so that they don't support al-qaeda. while it may hold some truth, and it may get the job done (keep them off drugs) it's sorta dishonest in some cases, and distracts from the real issues in others. that said, there is a good amount of time spent on the real issues: worker's rights, gender/racial equality, disposition of small businesses, government subsidies, etc. wal-mart is fucking evil and this documentary is inclusive and deep enough to expose this well-known fact. i certainly had a couple problems with the picture, but overall it's pretty good and definitely worth checking out because it's educational. B.

11-11-05
Knots - john stamos and the sometimes witty writing were the best parts of this comic drama about relationships. i never thought john stamos would be the best part of a movie, but i guess that's not that hard when the movie isn't all that good. the plot revolves around two couples going through some tough times mostly because of a femme fatale type of character who entices one member of each couple to cheat. i found her to be reprehensible and not entertaining, and i found the cheaters to be even more reprehensible. while it was slightly funny to watch all the characters squirm and fight, it wasn't funny enough because the film tried to be dramatic as well. the ending, in which one of the characters reveals she is pregnant, was a complete throw away. tara reid, who plays the good girl girlfriend of stamos is completely worthless. she was great in big lebowski because she played a dumb slut, which isn't far off from her everyday self. it's a smarter and more realistically drawn film than one might expect, but it wasn't at all special. C-.

11-10-05
Jarhead - next to film noir i think that war and prison films are the most consistently compelling for me; and jarhead is no exception. sam mendes (american beauty) directs and roger deakins (fargo, shawshank redemption lends his (considerable) talent behind the camera. in fact, this film is almost more deakins's than it is mendes's. deakins is about as perfect a choice as you can get for this sort of film - his cinematography suffocates the viewer as the desert and oil fires suffocate the subjects within the film. his other credits are full of similarly themed films: 1984, fargo, shawshank redemption, dead man walking, siege, hurricane, village, and the house of sand and fog top the list. all of these films have themes of isolation and confinement.
jarhead isn't just a film about isolation, it's a film about growth and complexity; namely the growth and complexity of the protagonist, played by jake gyllenhaal. jarhead refers, essentially, to the idea that each new marine is an empty vessel waiting to be filled by (presumably) the indoctrination of the marine core. one aspect of the film that fell a bit short is related to this filling... in full metal jacket, the ultimate film about the marine core, there is a clear dialectic between the recruits and the sergeant. in this film, this binary opposition is less prevalent. foxx, who plays the staff sergeant, is more "one of the guys" than a hard nosed leader. the conflict, therefore, is more an internal one. sometimes this manifests itself with intersquad squabbling and other times it's a man vs. himself situation. and even when the former is the case, it usually informs the latter. for example, when one of the other marines discovers one of his video tapes contains pornographic footage of his wife cheating on him, there is a minor squabble between sarsgaard and gyllenhaal (who wants to view the tape again). the real issue here isn't their disagreement on whether to view the tape again or not, rather it is gyllenhaal's own growing obsession with the possibility that his girlfriend is cheating on him. the first gulf war is the perfect setting for meting out this theme. because the only real significant american casualties came from "friendly fire" and the gulf war syndrome afterwards, it is a war that perfectly embodies the "man vs. himself" theme.
gyllenhaal does a very good job and will probably earn a golden globe or oscar nomination for his performance. sarsgaard is also dialed in very well. black (sling blade, friday night lights) is another up and comer. foxx does a good job, but i wasn't really sure how to read his character. was that his acting, my interpretation or the writing? perhaps the best thing about the characterization was its complexity. gyllenhaal isn't particularly easy to like. he's capable and occasionally sensitive, but he can also be stupid, callous, abrasive, and irresponsible. in the end, we like him because he perseveres through it all. sarsgaard and gyllenhaal clap and applaud the beach storming sequence in apocalypse now, which is chilling, sad and pathetic. but they also have empathy when they see actual death later in the film. conversely, evan jones' character (fowler) carries that same bravado throughout real and fictional war situations. as evan jones is one end of the spectrum and gyllenhaal and sarsgaard are the middle, brian geraghty (fergus) makes up the other end of the spectrum - he is the most sensitive of the group.
there were some stunning scenes in the film - the sequence with "something" by nirvana was a standout; the oil fires in the desert were great; gyllenhaal breaking, and then apologizing, was great; and the post-airstrike scenes were also memorable. all in all, it's a very good film that's a strange combination of the lyricism of "a walk in the sun" and the brutality of "full metal jacket," though it's not as good as either. i felt that sarsgaard's death at the end was more obligatory than it was symbolic or poetic. not as good as north country, better than the island, but not as enjoyable. the tight, efficient storytelling made it feel more epic than the run time would indicate. B+.

11-05-05
Good Night, And Good Luck - it's a respectable film, but it's very slow and doesn't do much in the character development department. it's style is very much in the cinema verite school - only diegetic music, shaky handhelds, out of focus shots, etc. it focuses almost entirely on the business end of murrow and his boys, and that detracts from the film. there is a throw-in attempt at incorporating some more personal elements, but it just seems superfluous and it surrounds two relatively minor characters. the lead was good, but not amazing. the dry, deadpan sense of humor didn't do much for me. i think this will get some nominations, but no wins. i really don't think it deserves that much praise. i think it has a certain appeal because it recalls a better time and because the subject matter (a culture of fear among dissenters) is relevant today. C.

11-2-05
Bomb The System - surprisingly good picture about a tagger in nyc who is grappling with his past, present and future. past because of the death of his older brother/father figure who was also a tagger. present because he's at a crossroads in his life - being an artist, possibly going to college, a new girlfriend, and peer pressure to wage war on the system. webber (storytelling, boiler room, etc.) does a good job when he needs to and is good enough throughout. jaclyn desantis has a great turn in a supporting role as an admirer of webber's work and a political activist in her own way. she's good looking, well-spoken and strong in her limited screen time. it's actually with her appearance that the film turns from mediocre to quite good.
the soundtrack is another highlight. done mostly by el-p (though there's one radiohead tune that almost steals the show), it fits perfectly with the themes and scenery. it's not as overtly political as the title implies, and i think that turns out to be a good thing. by keeping the politics and reasons behind bombing (tagging, writing graffiti, whatever) less than clear, the film is able to skirt that iffy subject a bit. if it were overtly political or if it laid out a single, clear-cut reason for bombing, then i think it would have detracted from the film because those aspects would likely be half-baked, incomplete, or (even worse) juvenile.
the film isn't just a film about graffiti or graffiti culture, it's sort of a coming of age film and a film about love and artistic expression and plenty of other things. above all, it's engaging and worthwhile. B.

11-01-05
Melinda And Melinda - woody allen poses a fundamental, and very interesting, question with this picture: is life drama or comedy? is it just a matter of interpretation? he sets the scene with a group of people talking over dinner (my dinner with andre's wallace shawn makes an apt appearance in these scenes) about this very question. one of the people at the table lays down some basic plot points (which allen skips over) in a story and asks his friends to judge whether it's a comedy or a drama. shawn and his counterpart each tell the story in their vision - one comic and one dramatic - while keeping the basic plot the same. the rest of the film is allen's postmodern exercise.
the real problem with the picture is in the execution. the idea is great, but allen just doesn't do a great job with either storyline. the dramatic version isn't all that poignant and the comic version isn't all that comic. it's interesting to see how he changes minor things in each instance and it's interesting to see him flexing his storytelling muscles, but it just doesn't work that well. it would have been better realized if two directors had done the two versions and then allen cut them together. i think that this was the picture which prompted chloe sevigny to say that working with allen was underwhelming. while i'm not a huge woody allen fan, i can say that reading sevigny say that made me a bit defensive on his behalf - who the hell is she to slight one of the most singular filmmakers of the last 50 years? that said, beyond the concept, this picture didn't really do it for me. C+.

10-29-05
Saw II - does essentially the same thing that the first one did, but not as well. both films exhibited a fairly impressive use of red herrings. more to the point - both films distract you by intentionally placing plot holes which make you think that you are more intelligent than the film. fittingly, this is exactly what the protagonist in this film is going through.
donnie wahlberg (a poor man's mark wahlberg) is the protagonist - a cop who catches the jigsaw killer, but not before he sets into motion one more diabolical scheme of which wahlberg is a victim. his partner, who has studied the work of the jigsaw murderer, acts as the voice of reason while wahlberg plays the out of control cop with old school methods. all this is worsened by the fact that his son is another victim of the jigsaw murderer's latest scheme.
like the first one, it was occasionally over-directed. i'm not a huge fan of the rapid cuts accompanied by sound effects and crunching guitars. more than anything it comes off as a contrivance. that said, there is a gritty feel to the direction which works well with the material. perhaps the best part of the film, outside of the story, are the great set pieces. the various contraptions and puzzles that they come up with in the film are not only diabolically clever and evil, but also intellectually interesting. this is one reason why these films work so well - they appeal to both sides of the brain at the same time. you're scared and freaked out, but you're also thinking about how you would get out of the situation. this carries over to the very premise of the entire film - a terminally ill man setting up situations which force you to choose life or death. like tyler durden, the jigsaw killer makes you face death in order to make you appreciate life. while his ability to envision and carry out these schemes is scary, you also sorta appreciate what he is trying to do. like ghost dog the jigsaw killer feels that facing one's own mortality is an integral part of living life to the fullest; and i agree.
there are certainly some weaknesses to the film. i'm sure that upon careful inspection i would find some plot holes. i didn't especially care for some of the direction, dialogue and acting. but most of this is forgivable because the set pieces are creative, the story is good and the underlying philosophy is intriguing. B-.

10-28-05
North Country - powerful oscar contender that delivers. generally i'm turned off by pictures like this because they come off as entirely constructed to please the academy. it's a story of the underdog with several oscar winners/nominees and an up and coming director. judging by the producers, though, this seems more like a case of a group of people believing in the story.
essentially the film is a cross between norma rae and erin brokovich, and i think it's as good as both. as is usual, it all starts with the screenplay which is excellent from top to bottom. the dialogue, the settings, the storytelling, the characterization - all are just where they need to be. the settings echo and amplify the feelings of the characters. the characters are realistically drawn in that they have both positive and negative attributes. the storytelling is efficient and well-paced. caro's direction enhances the mood well. shots of the mine are either claustrophobic and dungy (when indoors) or agoraphobic and snow white (when outdoors). caro uses the exteriors in a similar way to the coens in fargo - to show the isolation and hopelessness of the characters. the court room sequences are shot with saturated sepia tones reminiscent more of documentary footage than a hollywood film. though the acting was quite good i think that the cinch here is in the screenplay which should get nominated for best adapted screenplay.
theron is very good, but mcdormand almost steals the show with one chilling stare that comes while she's in the courtroom. spacek, bean, harrelson and the rest are also solid. richard jenkins, who plays a lot of humorous roles, does a great job with a difficult role as theron's father. like many of the men at the mine jenkins is an enabler because he doesn't speak out against the abuse and harassment that takes place. spacek (jenkin's wife) is an enabler of another kind - by being the supportive wife she allows jenkins' views on women in (and out of) the mill to go unquestioned. it's only when she takes action that he steps up to support his daughter's fight. all these dynamics reinforce the theme that we're all in this together; a theme that was so powerfully represented in norma rae.
the film is definitely better than caro's other major picture - whale rider. while i like the island more in certain ways i think it's safe to say that this is the best film released this year that i've seen. B+.

10-26-05
Monster - a comedy from roberto benigni that is nothing short of brilliant. the laughs aren't as hearty as they were when i watched meet the parents or the 40 year old virgin the first time, and i can't tell yet if the laughs will have as much life as they have in my favorite comedy of all-time (planes, trains and automobiles); but the laughs in monster are good and plentiful. the humor is decidedly european, but really should translate to american audiences without trouble. on a related note - the film is in italian, but the audio is recorded in post-production so it looks dubbed (a look i've always disliked, but i understand the economics of the decision). that said, don't be tempted to watch the film with the english audio track - it looks even worse and the translation is shoddy. stick with the italian with subtitles.
the premise finds benigni as a hapless, unemployed man who is (wrongly) suspected of being the infamous "monster" - a rapist/murderer who is on the loose throughout italy. the comedy is mostly absurdist stuff, but a lot of it is relatively heady in its execution. there's a lot of setup that goes into the execution of some of the gags, and, in some cases there are gags which pay bigger dividends later in the film. in this regard, the construction of the film reminded me of meet the parents because both films were clearly written and re-written several times. it's only with several re-writes that a film acquires this level of depth and efficiency. much of the film's humor derives from cases of mistaken identity, changes of perspective, and benigni's unique path through life.
nicoletta braschi, who is married to benigni and starred across him in life is beautiful, is great in this film as well. she's sexy (which is required because of the film's far-fetched premise), funny, and complements benigni amazingly well. she plays an undercover cop who is charged with the task of luring benigni into showing his "true" self, thus providing the proof the police need to incarcerate him. as the film progresses we see braschi and benigni form a playful and fun relationship which adds a depth to the picture without bogging it down with trite sentimentality. add to this the fact that it pokes plenty of fun at shrinks and cops and you have a brilliantly drawn and realized comedy that should leave you wanting more. B+.

10-16-05
Domino - i don't know that i've ever used the word "mess" to describe a film, but that's exactly what this film is - a mess. tony scott certainly isn't short of ambition on this one - he tries to make a heist/action film with equal amounts of comedy, love, and mysticism mixed in. unfortunately it turns out to just be one giant, sprawling mess without much bite.
in man on fire scott tried to carve out a new style for himself. it was gritty and ambitious and it (mostly) worked because the other elements of the film (namely the writing and acting) were in place. here, though, he tries to repeat the style, but with writing that is (at times) piss poor and acting which is often out of place. my grandfather always said that the screenplay was the cornerstone of a good film and it's easy to agree with that. without a well-drawn set of characters, an engaging plot, and a modicum of cohesiveness you have a film like this - a complete mess. there's a lot of writing here that is downright silly - some bad dialogue and some bad plot choices. in man on fire, scott benefited from a screenplay that understood the importance of establishing character. this film, on the other hand, jumps right into the action at the expense of character development. often it seemed as though scott was trying to tell the story with pure pastiche. he edits the crap out of this film and it often detracts from the most fundamental element of filmmaking - the storytelling. sure, it adds a vibrancy to the film and it makes for a unique style, but it comes at the cost of the story. sometimes less is more.
this idea is carried over into the acting as well. while it's not as expressionistic as the directorial style, it is certainly not where it needs to be. i think that, to a varying degree, this is a weakness in all of scott's films. it can certainly be said that much of the acting in films like top gun, crimson tide, true romance, and man on fire is a bit on the heavy side. domino is no exception to this trend. knightley is certainly the worst offender here. i think that part of it is definitely in the props scott gives her - in about 80% of the shots she's in for any length of time there's either chewing gum or a cigarette in her mouth. it's just such an easy prop to establish toughness that it had the opposite effect for me. he gives rourke a cigarette in several scenes as well, but rourke brings with him a bit more cred than knightley and his face is more befitting of a tough guy bounty hunter than knightley's. scott also gives knightley a pair of numchucks which she brandishes throughout the film. the reason that thurman was so brilliant and convincing in kill bill is that tarantino made it perfectly clear that she'd have to work in a gym for a full year to get into kung fu shape. she put in that work and was completely believable when she was handling weapons and throwing punches. knightley, on the other hand, is not believable in her role here.
scott's use of music is very integrated into the editing and flow of the picture. in a way it's the best part of the film because it matches the flow of the picture well. he uses two pieces that scorsese used in the casino - one an oldie and one an opera piece. for the most part, though, he uses hip-hop and electronic stuff that ranges from bad to pretty decent.
the ending is a poor rehash of the finale in true romance. in true romance he sets the scene much more thoroughly and shoots it in a more traditional (read: more logical and visible) fashion. filming action sequences with shaky handhelds and quick cutting has become an epidemic over the last 10 years or so. i don't really understand the appeal of such a style. the bourne supremacy is the first film that comes to mind when i think of a film which lost some of its impact because of the way the action sequences were cut and filmed. i think it's generally less of a stylistic decision and more a matter of not knowing how to film a good action sequence, so what you get is a director trying to cover it up with fast cutting and shaky handhelds. as an aside, one of the early shoot-outs takes place between the bounty hunters and the 18th street gang which is an actual gang in los angeles. when i was going to high school they were famous for feuding with sotel 13.
all in all i don't think it's been a good year for the scott brothers. ridley did kingdom of heaven and tony did this. there's a good film somewhere in this story, but it's buried underneath the bad writing and poor direction. kingdom of heaven was 145 minutes long and felt like it was 180+, domino was 120 minutes long and also felt like it was about 180. i'm not sure which scott brother made the worse film this year, so i'll just call it a tie. D.

10-01-05
History Of Violence - i've never been much of a cronenberg fan and this film didn't do much to help his case with me. some of his early stuff i find somewhat entertaining and intriguing, but a few of his post-1990 films have been truly awful. he seems fascinated by the relationship between sex and violence and that doesn't interest me at all.
the film starts off with a long, uncut shot that tracks two criminals who end up being the catalyst for the film's major conflicts. this scene may have been the most interesting in the film because it held the potential for many things: it could have been funny, shocking, artistic, etc. there's an uncomfortable silence in these opening minutes that could have been used in so many ways. it turns out that the characters are career criminals on a cross-country murder spree, but cronenberg leaves all of this very open. after the initial introduction to these characters who appear only one more time in the film's most pivotal scene, we are introduced to viggo mortensen's family. cronenberg presents the family in a very shallow and two-dimensional way. the sense one gets is that either he is setting the scene for a stark contrast post-violent act (which we've all seen in the previews by now), or he has an utter lack of talent when it comes to portraying a decent family with sincerity and subtlety. i gave him the benefit of the doubt, but wasn't rewarded. about 90% of the viewers around me did not give him the benefit of the doubt and had therefore become disengaged early on. in other words, for them the film was as good as sunk a mere 10 minutes in.
portrayals of the family and the town life are very cliché and simplistic. the young daughter has a nightmare and the entire family comes to her side to insure her that everything is okay. the teenage boy's high school troubles are drawn in an equally simple manner - the bully is wooden and not realistically drawn. it's a small town and everyone gets along, it's the kind of thing you've seen in a million films, but here it seems as though cronenberg isn't even trying to add character to his characters and settings. i assumed that this was all going to be for effect and, to a certain extent, i was right.
after mortensen kills the two criminals in a justifiable act of self-defense and heroism ed harris comes from the past to settle an old score. mortensen feigns ignorance, but we all know the truth - mortensen has a shady past. what's most interesting about the story (which is based upon a graphic novel) is the way violence affects people and relationships. it's quite interesting to see mortensen's character change from a simple and nice to multi-faceted, dark and complex. sadly, cronenberg loses much of his audience in trying to establish mortensen as joe average early in the film. the characters and their relationships are drawn too simply and, conversely, the post-violence characters/relationships are too dark and complex. maria bello (who plays mortensen's wife) and mortensen change too much and neither is very sympathetic by film's end.
perhaps the best way to view the film is the way i did in retrospect: the film is a parable. these characters aren't supposed to breathe like they do in good dramas, they're supposed to be symbols for things in society. it's more a commentary on the role of violence in society than a portrait of a family forced to deal with the shady past of its patriarch. when viewed like this you don't have to think about the difficult elements of filmmaking like subtlety and character development. therefore, as a story it's quite good. but as a film, a few shots aside, it's less than stellar. C-.

9-27-05
Adventures Of Baron Munchausen - i don't know for sure, but i'd be willing to guess that andrew sarris is a fan of terry gilliam's. sarris is a leading writer in the field of cinema as an auteur movement, and as such he likes to see a director with a unique, identifiable and singular vision. gilliam certainly has that. brazil, 12 monkeys, adventures of baron munchausen and fear & loathing in las vegas all have similar themes and a unique visual style. he makes films about a rugged individual who is on the fringe of society. normally, though, this character (or group of characters - time bandits, and baron munchausen to an extent) is not a mcqueen type of outkast. normally these characters are on the fringe because of both an ideological difference and a slight insanity. hunter thompson is the perfect example of a gilliam character, but really all his characters (fictional or real) are like this. of course this makes gilliam the perfect candidate for the filmed adaptation of don quixote. my impression of gilliam in "lost in la mancha" is that he is a similar character himself. i get the impression that he's a producer's worst nightmare in many respects. he's gifted enough to want to fund, but enough of a disaster to make you hesitate. he's visionary, but not altogether realistic or practical.
but back to sarris - his primary shortcoming is that he gives too much credit to directors who have a singular vision and too little credit to directors like kubrick, wilder and wyler who don't seem to have unifying cinematic point of view/style. in gilliam's case it would be easy to give him a great deal of credit because he's carved out a unique style of his own. it's recognizable and imaginative. that said, he, in my opinion, has yet to make a masterpiece. he has a few good films, but nothing that is great. fear & loathing is the closest of his films, in my opinion. his set pieces are great, his humor is good (though not my taste), and he weaves a tapestry rather well. i certainly respect his body of work and his style, but it's not something that is particularly in line with my tastes. B-.

9-14-05
Dark Victory - the only other picture i've seen by goulding is nightmare alley and it had a similar emotional arc. they both start off interestingly enough only to become disarmingly prosaic, overly sentimental, and/or seemingly predictable; but, in the end, both are shockingly resonant. i'm not sure if this is a stroke of pure luck or if goulding has an uncanny (and unconventional) ability to disarm the audience's preconceptions only to turn them right on top of the audience later on. that is, goulding somehow brings your guard down in each instance by allowing you to think you know where the film is going and what you're going to feel in the end. i found myself very struck by the emotional power of the film's ending in spite of my earlier detachment from the emotional center of the film.
bette davis and george brent are quite good in the leading roles. i really don't see actresses of the same caliber as davis, stanwyck, bacall, k. hepburn, bergman, crawford, etc. these days. you could say meryl streep or glen close, some might throw in names like renee zellweger or nicole kidman, but contemporary great actresses aren't as great and aren't as many. it's odd, but it seems that women were getting better roles 40-70 years ago. bogart was so-so as an irish stable hand. his accent was poor and his character wasn't very well drawn. it was still an early role for him. the woman who played ann also did only a so-so job.
overall not the strongest film, but two performances and a great ending made it worth while. B+.

9-7-05
Sideways - one of the better films of 2004 because of its strong characterization and balance of comedy and drama. one telling characterization was what giamatti titled his book: the day after yesterday. when madsen hears this she says "you mean today." and giamatti reluctantly says "yeah." this is a crucial moment because he views everything in the context of its relation to the past and she has a more immediate world view, a more healthy one as well. in this same conversation they have a thinly veiled conversation about wine and what it means to each - he likes pinot because it's a thin-skinned grape which requires constant care and just the right conditions to thrive. she likes wine because it's a time capsule, but a living one. it's an artistic capturing of a time - the laborers, the weather, the grapes, the tastes of the time, etc., but it evolves with time and eventually peaks, like giamatti's 1961 bottle of wine. again their differences become clear over this - giamatti says he's waiting for the right occasion to open the bottle and madsen says that opening the bottle is the occasion. her philosophy is one of seizing life and his is one of waiting for it to come to him. in the end, he reverses this trend.
the dynamic between giamatti and church is reminiscent of planes trains and automobiles; and both are very good in their roles. it's smartly written, but never pompous. the characters are well drawn and well-acted, but never above the audience. one telling moment is when they're watching a highfalutin lecture on the wine making process and sandra oh turns to madsen and rolls her eyes and give a tired look. the four of them then proceed to the back room where oh and church make out and madsen and giamatti get to know each other better. they're children, all of them, but they're grown. they're all flawed, but they remain likable. A-.

8-20-05
Red Eye - the short, non-spoiler version is this: it's pretty good, check it out.
i was once told that it's a fact that horror films do better in times of war. my source on this isn't rock solid, but it makes enough sense so there it is. here is a horror/thriller that, like many horror films (invasion of the body snatchers, etc.), immerses its thrills in a cultural context. the plot follows a young hotel manager (mcadams) on her way back home after going to her grandmother's funeral. in the airport she meets charming cilliam murphy and they exchange niceties. after flight delays they board and find themselves sitting next to each other again. after the flight takes off murphy turns from mr. charming to airborne nightmare. he explains to her that her father (a dark-haired brian cox) will die if she doesn't remotely arrange for the director of homeland security (who is staying at her hotel) to be moved to another room. craven fills in some of the backstory with shots of a television broadcast introducing the director of h.s., and he comes off as a pupil of the school of real politick; in other words, his approach to security is to rule with an iron fist. when confronted with this ultimatum mcadams tells murphy she knows the director to be a kind, good man and that murphy shouldn't aid in his assassination. another subplot is that mcadams has trust issues because of a previous rape. in fact the best part of the film is when she tells murphy that the one thing she has been trying to convince herself of since it happened is that she'll never let it happen again. these elements (her rape, the target being the director of homeland security, and the setting - an airplane) all clearly make this a topical thriller.
what had me guessing, though, is what craven is trying to say with this piece. i don't think he is merely placing a thriller in a modern cultural context, i think he is trying to make a political statement. 1) mcadams says she'll never let herself be victimized again and she attacks her attacker. 2) mcadams stands up for the director of homeland security, saying he's a great guy, yet we know him to be Machiavellian. 3) in the end everyone survives and the good guys win, no sacrifice was necessary. craven invokes the memory of 9/11 and seems to fall in line with the administration, but leaves no martyr to strengthen the cause. why? he does, however, allow the actual assassins to escape. does he do this to reinforce the idea that the enemy is still out there? if so, this seems, again, to fall in line with the philosophy of the bush administration which uses fear as a device for control. i don't think craven is a republican, but the film does come off as slightly republican.
i enjoyed the thriller aspect of the film; it kept me interested and entertained throughout. i don't know how most will view the film, but i actually wanted the director of homeland security to be assassinated. not so much because i wanted to see mcadams fail in her quest, but more because i wanted to see murphy succeed in his. that and i didn't care at all for the director of homeland security.
interestingly, craven films mcadams at 3/4 (possibly indicating she has something to hide) through most of the first part of the film, whereas he films murphy head on and 3/4. it's interesting because it felt like it should have been the other way around. murphy, after all, was the one with something to hide. true, mcadams was hiding her past, but murphy was hiding the fact that he works for assassins - a somewhat larger secret. anyway, it's a minor point.
the very end was a complete throwaway, though you might be able to make some stretch of an argument that it was mcadams aligning herself with the proletariat and thus making her character less a symbol of a tool of the bush administration, and more a symbol of jane average making good. then again i could be reading FAR too much into this film. it made me think and it's fun enough to watch so... B-.

8-19-05
White Men Can't Jump - this came out when i was in jr. high and i remember being kinda pissed off by the title. in jr. high and high school i was a minority so seeing a popular movie title which belittles my race made me mad. i'm not saying that i suffered all that much as a result or that this is comparable to the plight of native americans or asians or blacks or middle easterners, but it still wasn't fun. i guarantee that people at my school would have raised hell if a film entitled "black people can't read/swim/fill-in-the-blank" did as well as this one did ($76 million at a time when that meant something, especially for a comedy). here's the thing though - it's a good film with a racial outlook vastly more complex than its title; and this is the nature of hollywood. often they'll take a film like this and market it as an urban comedy or they'll play up the action aspects of a film or...marketing isn't about giving an accurate portrayal of the film's themes or conflicts, rather it's about filling seats. but you know all this.
what you may not know is that "white men can't jump" could be the subject of a master's thesis on race and gender. it presents a vastly complex matrix of relations, mores and roles that belie its title. it has the potential, with the right viewer, to be as thoughtful as spike lee's jungle fever; and a hell of a lot more entertaining. this isn't to slight jungle fever, which is a fantastic film with a great stevie wonder soundtrack and a great performance from samuel jackson. rather, it's a compliment to white men can't jump.
harrelson plays snipes and others like malcolm x played whites - he knows they'll judge him by his appearance and he uses that to hustle them. harrelson and his puerto-rican girlfriend (rosie perez, in a career role) are the unemployed ones in financial trouble. snipes, meanwhile, has several jobs and his wife stays at home. he's saving to buy a house, harrelson and perez are saving to pay off mobsters. mobsters who, by the way, are complete fakes. after they get their money they pose harrelson on a mattress to look as if he's been killed while they take a polaroid, so that they can earn respect back home. there's the obvious point that harrelson and snipes need each other to hustle other players. a cynic would point out that the races only get along in order make money, but that would discount the amicable ending between harrelson and snipes; it would also neglect the relationship of harrelson and perez which, by film's end, looks to be back on the upswing.
there are still stereotypes in the film, but they're made fun of and generally overcome by the end of the film. harrelson is goofy, feckless with money and unable to dunk. by the end of the film those have either been ameliorated or eliminated. snipes is a braggart and showboat without compassion for anyone outside of himself, or, at best, anyone outside of his race. by the end of the film he's toned down and found some heart, but not in too mushy a way. perez makes good and goes on jeopardy and kicks some ass. she also does the right thing by putting her foot down with regards to harrelson and his gambling problems. throughout it all the film retains a great sense of humor (the opening sequence has great trash talking, the jimi hendrix conversation is great, snipes schooling harrelson ["listen to the woman"] at the end is priceless, etc.). A-.

7-31-05
Papillion - a remarkable prison film starring mcqueen and hoffman; goldsmith does the score and schaffner directs. with the exception of koyaanisqatsi every one of my favorite films has great characters. characters are more important than any other element of a film for me. for a film to be successful it has to have characters who are interesting, multi-faceted and compelling. this film oozes characters, beginning with mcqueen and hoffman. both turn in absolutely great performances here. it's not hoffman's best performance ever (midnight cowboy and the graduate probably tie for that honor), but it's high on the list of many great performances. this is probably mcqueen's best performance, though i haven't seen the sand pebbles (which is usually labeled his best).
it's a film the reminds me of "i am a fugitive from a chain gang" and "shawshank redemption." it takes place primarily inside of a french prison in the Caribbean and focuses on mcqueen's (who is wrongly jailed) struggle to gain freedom. in this way it's like many prison films. i really like films about prison and war. to me they feature the best and worst of humanity, the extremes of humanity and they do so in the most base circumstances. they strip away everything and reveal people for who they are. this film does that about as well as any other i can think of right now.
i saw schaffner's "patton" some years ago and don't remember much about it, but watching this film makes me think i need to revisit that one. schaffner's direction is exactly where it needs to be. they talk about drummers playing "in the pocket" and i think that that term could apply to schaffner's direction here. it doesn't mean that he has a lack of artistic flourish, rather it means that when those flourishes arise, they are perfectly timed and executed. schaffner's direction is always rooted in keeping the viewer engaged. he gives visual cues before something happens, he visually echoes the emotions of the characters and of the audience; and, at the same time, he doesn't bludgeon you. he shows you the edge of the cliff, but he doesn't push you over, as some are want to do.
i like direction that uses the medium of film in a creative way. most films are cut and covered in a fairly conservative, prosaic and typical fashion. they're cut and filmed in a way that is meant to be easy to read and leave as much to the acting and plot as possible. the same can be said for most scores - they're there enough to know they're there, but not to actually say anything. schaffner's direction and goldsmith's score, however are present. they make themselves known and it's never a bad thing. directors are often afraid of suffocating a film with their style, and sometimes rightfully so (because a lot of directors suck). schaffner, though, directed Papillion with confidence and style. he's never overbearing and his direction never asserts itself too much. likewise, goldsmith's score is present and assertive, but never overbearing or at all prone to detracting from the essential focus at the time (advancing the plot, establishing a character, etc.). B+.
"blame is for god and small children"

7-24-05
Charlie And The Chocolate Factory - in my opinion every single work of tim burton's is overrated, with the possible exception of planet of the apes, which generally got the panning it deserved. that's not to say his stuff isn't good - nightmare before christmas is good, batman is good, ed wood is good, pee-wee's big adventure is very good, but i don't think any of them are as good as public seems to think they are. it's interesting that this film is titled "charlie and the chocolate factory" and the original is titled "willy wonka and the chocolate factory." interesting because the former focuses much more heavily on charlie and this one much more heavily on willy wonka. let me get this part out of the way - the original is way better, this one shouldn't have been made, johnny depp is no gene wilder, the songs in this one didn't compare, visually it wasn't as good, it didn't flow as well, etc.
depp played wonka much weirder than wilder. i haven't read the book in twenty years so i don't remember what he was like in the book, but it's a moot point anyway. depp vs. wilder, it's no contest - wilder was more likable, more funny, more sinister, more dynamic, more interesting and more entertaining. wilder is a better actor and the character he created for wonka was just better, no contest. as a quick aside - there were all these really obnoxious little girls in the back of the theater who laughed at about 90% of the lines (funny or not) in the film. the most funny line in the entire film went something like this: wonka was describing why he setup the contest. he was getting his hair cut when he discovered a single silver hair. he held it to the light and said that that's when he realized he needed an heir. so he set out to find one through the golden ticket contest. i laughed and the entire theater was silent. wtf? ...hair/heir, i thought it was a good one. that was the best part of the movie. anyway, back to depp. he played wonka as an almost sassy social outcast. the social outcast part was fine, i think wilder's portrayal as an eccentric was better, but...anyway, the sassy part was odd. it really catered to the young female population, apparently.
visually the picture was intriguing. the stark, bluish-white exterior contrasted well with the colorful interior of the factory. this is something that burton does consistently well. however, i still feel that the original did a better job in this department. the colors were more vibrant throughout the film. whereas the remake lost some of it's vibrancy in some of the scenes.
the oompaloompas in the original were cool looking. in this one it was just one oompaloompa copied over and over again. it was retarded. i don't understand the choice at all. in a related note, the special effects in this version were surprisingly opaque. the original didn't have many effects, but the ones it did have (mike teevee floating being teleported, violet turning into a blueberry, etc.) were well-executed and believable enough. in this version, though, they looked like effects; they just looked too digital.
the songs, a highlight in the original, seemed an after thought in this version. the lyrics are less memorable and the music less timeless.
i started this review thinking that the film was average. after writing this review i've realized just how utterly mediocre it is. i did laugh a few times. i liked the kid who played charlie (though he was lost because of depp's suffocating presence) and i liked the visuals, but, overall, the picture just has too much to measure up against. C.

7-23-05
Island - spoilers... this film embodies some of the definitive characteristics of a worthwhile hollywood film. many deride hollywood cinema as sweets for the masses - empty films without character, artistic merit or thoughtful plots. though i acknowledge the great deal of truth in this assessment, i think it's a bit simplistic and elitist. first, what's so wrong with film as pure entertainment? i enjoy decasia, koyaanisqatsi and un chien andalou as much as the next guy, but i also feel the need for a balance in my cinema; that's where hollywood films find their worth. secondly, there are some fine examples (die hard, kill bill, matrix, terminator, etc.) of hollywood pictures that rise above the stereotype and actually combine "low" entertainment with "high" art. the island is one of those pictures. i don't mean to group it in the same category as the aforementioned, but it's a solid film with plenty of fodder for those in the audience who choose to reflect. i'm also not saying that the message, or questions raised, are as refined, cohesive or synthesized as something like foucault's "discipline and punish," but we are talking about a multi-million dollar film, so i think the standards should be adjusted accordingly.
the island takes place 15 years in the future (a bit too soon, if you ask me) where cloning has been perfected and turned into big business. johansson and mcgregor play clones secluded from our world in a compound that ensures the clones are in good health in case the original humans need a donor organ or the like. clones are spawned at the same age as the original human and are mentally unsophisticated as a result. essentially the clones are treated as products and the compound acts as a farm. in order to keep the clones under control a metanarrative is constructed. the details are murky, but essentially it involves an apocalyptic contamination which prevents the clones from wanting to leave the compound. sex and love aren't taught to the clones, close personal contact is prohibited, and everyone is monitored at all times. when one of the clones leaves to provide their counterparts with an organ transplant the rest of the people in the compound are told that that person has won the lottery. when someone wins the lottery they supposedly go to an island free of contamination - it explains the person's disappearance and gives the clones something to hope for. think thx-1138 and you'll have an excellent idea of the atmosphere, both visually and psychologically. indeed, the entire film plays like a hybrid of thx-1138, the matrix, a clockwork orange and blade runner. one advantage is has over blade runner and thx-1138, though, is the presence of comic relief; that, and it's not directed by george lucas, which is generally a good thing. i digress...
let me use that slight of lucas as a segue to my opinion of bay. i haven't seen the bad boys films, but i have to admit that i enjoy the rock and armageddon for what they are. pearl harbor was syrupy and contrived. so, going into this picture, i wasn't too sure what to expect. i know he can make a good picture and i know he can make a bad picture. also, i generally i don't like johansson. she's a decent enough actress and has the ability to be good looking, but her "best roles" have either left me uninspired (lost in translation) or uninterested (girl with a pearl earring, horse whisperer, love song for bobby long). in other words, i didn't go into the picture with strong expectations in either direction.
philosophically it's not as ripe as the matrix, but it certainly is ready to be intellectually harvested. right to life issues, the existence of a soul, nature vs. nurture, the issue of identity, politically implications of cloning technology, the nature of memory, etc. it's the kind of film that you really should watch with someone. i liked that the island is initially portrayed as a desired location, like heaven. but as the film progresses the compound where the clones live turns out to be the true island; and in this sense it is an inversion of heaven and hell. the clones' compound is like the garden of eden with the head scientist as god. but it's inverted because god is evil and the clones are pure (remember, though they appear to be older, they're only 2-3 years old in most cases). what makes it even better is the message that curiosity (traditionally seen as sinful - pandora, "curiosity killed the cat," the garden of eden story, etc.) is something to be embraced - it ends up setting mcgregor and johansson free.
late in the film ewan mcgregor confronts his outside version and there's a standoff between the two of them and the person hired (played by Djimon Hounsou) to contain the mcgregor/johansson escape. ewan vs. ewan had me thinking about the nature of identity. each version competes to convince hounsou that he is the real version of mcgregor's character. we live in a world where the original has essentially lost its worth. every cd is equally important. with paintings we still value the original, but more and more we value the copy as much as the original because there isn't any practical difference between the two. will this trend continue to the point where a human clone has the same value as the original? if so, what's wrong with that? equal, but different? questions for the ages, but the interesting thing is that the film lends itself to these questions and interpretations - something many blockbusters don't do.
the minor stuff: the set design was quite good and the special effects were transparent. i didn't like the large number of product placements (from beer to cars to video game platforms to credit cards), but i guess that's what i meant when i said that this film embodies the definitive characteristics of a hollywood film.
when i watch a film i ask to be entertained, educated or otherwise moved on some level. when i watch a hollywood film i expect to be only entertained. occasionally a film like this comes along which has characters i can sympathize with (hounsou, mcgregor and johansson), an engaging plot, a message, the potential for intellectual readings, some comic relief (not completely reliant upon buscemi, by the way), and solid technical attributes. sure it's derivative at times and a little too long, but, from what i've seen, this is the best film of the year. B+.

7-13-05
Z Channel: A Magnificent Obsession - "i know that i know nothing" - socrates.
watching this film, and seeing a sampling of the great diversity of films that the z channel brought to its subscribers, cements this idea as well as anything. not to be conceited or anything, but people sometimes tell me that i know a lot about film and that i should parlay that into some sort of career. i always shoot back with: "i really don't know that much about film." they think it's humility, but it's really a mark of how much i know about film: enough to know that i know nothing.
the Z channel was the first paid channel in the nation (1974), the first movie cable channel. it was only available in LA and, at its height, it had only 100,000 subscribers, but its impact on cable and film is immeasurable. i'm lucky enough to have a vague memory of its existence. my dad was a subscriber, he got the monthly programs and he still talks about the channel to this day. this documentary addresses the rise and fall of the z channel, its impact and its program director - jerry harvey.
by 1982 the z channel had 80K subscribers in LA while HBO and showtime, which were fighting to get a decent subscriber base, had only 14K and 7K respectively. the z channel offered an eclectic selection of programming - the artsy fartsy, the neglected, the trashy t&a pics, etc.; they had it all. their programming was unlike anything i know of today because it gave such a wide view of "film" as to include classic american films like midnight cowboy or chinatown, as well as foreign classics by bergman and bertolucci and kurosawa, as well as late nite fare such as the emmanuelle films, and lost films like "bad timing," and cult classics, and blockbusters like "the empire strikes back," and over-looked masterpieces, and directors' cuts of otherwise watered-down pictures like heaven's gate and once upon a time in america. in this way jerry harvey and his staff encapsulated just about everything that cinema has to offer.
the documentary pieces together interviews with all sorts of industry folk - film critics like f.x. feeney, filmmakers like tarantino, altman, zsigmond, jarmusch, etc., as well as friends and co-workers of jerry harvey. one of the assistant programmers was actually a ucla student who worked at videotheque (where jerry discovered him) - a video store in westwood which my dad and i used to visit somewhat frequently. the documentary also splices in segments of the films that the z channel showed.
watching quentin tarantino talk about the impact z channel had on him was pretty fun. actually, hearing him talk about film in general is fun. it's a lot like seeing magic johnson talk about basketball - they both have a childlike enthusiasm for their respective loves and it translates very clearly in the way they talk about them. of course it helps that each are so gifted and knowledgeable that you can ride their enthusiasm without second-guessing their interpretation of a given item. it's one thing to be enthusiastic about a film like fantastic four, it's another to be excited about a film like the good, the bad, and ugly and be able to discuss it in a very impassioned, yet informed way.
it's impossible to guage the impact that the z channel had. clearly it had an impact on my father, who has said that the z channel kept his love alive for the many years between college and true cable/vhs. naturally, that likely means it had a residual effect on me. beyond the everyday nobodies like my dad and i, the z channel helped garner james woods an academy award nomination for his role in salvador (at least according to him). the film, which was in and out of theaters very quickly, was rediscovered by z channel subscribers because harvey pushed for a critic to interview woods at the same time that the z channel magazine was putting salvador on the front page and replaying the picture on tv. this, woods says, was the impetus behind his nomination for a best actor award that year.
sadly, the z channel didn't last because hbo and show time had more money to throw around, jerry harvey died, and they chose to bring on sports in order to bolster revenue a bit...which turned out to be a bad business/artisitc decision. harvey, who battled depression throughout his life, killed his wife and himself in the mid-80s and the z channel folded within a year. directed by the daughter of john cassavetes. B+

7-12-05
Bad Boy Bubby - a really fun, offbeat, surprising picture. it's starts off as a very dark, very grim picture complete with incest, creepy sets, cat torture and the like. the story is about 35 year old bubby who has lived in his mother's dingy apartment his entire life. she's abusive and concocts a story that it's impossible to go outside the front door without a gas mask. clearly it's a fucked up set of circumstances for bubby. without going too much into the plot, bubby leaves the apartment and meets many colorful characters along the way. once he leaves the apartment the tone of the picture is much more on the humorous side. because bubby's life experience is so limited he often regurgitates things he's heard earlier in the film in response to a new experience. it makes for a funny effect and a possible commentary on the derivative nature of existence for all of us.
the film was a cult classic in norway and australia, but is basically unknown elsewhere. it's one of those films that has some potentially offensive elements and those elements are blown out of proportion and that kills small films like this. for people willing to give it a chance, though, i think it's a fairly rewarding picture. one of the more interesting technical elements of the film is the sound design which is completely relative to bubby. using binaural microphones placed on nicholas hope's (bubby) head the sound mixers were able to get a mix that was completely subjective. rather than mixing in several tracks, they had only one track with all the ambient elements and voice tracks included. it's a pretty interesting system because as bubby turns his head the sound mix spins with him so it places you with him in a way that few films do. the film also used a different cinematographer for each new scene/set. despite this the film doesn't seem to vary too radically visually. what it does do, though, is give each scene a slightly different look which makes sense since, for bubby, every new scene is a new experience.
it's not a film for the squeamish, but it's not a "henry: portrait of a serial killer" type of movie either. yes the imagery can be intense, but it's got such a different tone to it that those images don't have the same impact that they might in a different context. cult classic. B+.

6-10-05
Hoop Dreams - i suppose it's a question you have to ask, but it's really impossible to answer...what is the best film of 1994 - pulp fiction or hoop dreams? i give the edge to pulp fiction because it's influenced culture more, is more quotable and has stood up to more viewings. that said, hoop dreams moves me to tears every time i see it because it reaches a level of humanity that only about a dozen films ever have.
with the kid stays in the picture and tarnation i remarked that judging the film has to be somewhat separated from judging the subject. this film not only makes that task impossible, it makes it unnecessary. the film is so well done and the subjects are so sympathetic that my feelings for them merged into one. james' light, but present, directorial touch makes the documentary a film, but never sullies the pure nature of the form. he slows time, develops stories, builds drama and enhances reality, but it never comes off as contrived, didactic or disingenuous. he deftly weaves together the stories of the two boys, their parents, friends, coaches, economic realities, and social circumstances into one tapestry of american inner-city life that really is as good as any two or three films put together (think menace II society meets aka don bonus meets he got game).
on 11-17-04 i wrote: "there's a good chance that hoop dreams is going to come to dvd thanks to criterion. i want that film on dvd probably more than anything else i can think of." when i bought this film on dvd i half-jokingly remarked that i could die a happy person. that said, this isn't my favorite film of all-time. it's probably in the top ten, but it'll always hold a special place in a my heart because synthesizes so many of my interests in such a profound, entertaining, and emotional way. it combines the best and worst of sports, family, politics, and society in one work that, from a filmmaking perspective, has very few flaws. there's certainly an opinion behind the film - you can tell in the way it is edited more than anything else. unlike wiseman's work, though, the film doesn't necessarily present a thesis on the workings/failings of a system. yes, there is a filmmaker's point of view, but i don't think that james makes the same type of docu-essay that wiseman did with something like "high school" or "hospital." besides, only the most pessimistic or heartless viewer could watch this film and fault it for any sentimentality or supposedly leftist viewpoint.
lastly, if the 170 minute runtime keeps you away from the film then you probably don't deserve to have this kind of filmgoing experience anyway. if that is the case you're probably better off wasting four hours reading a danielle steele novel or something. A+.

6-5-05
Tarnation - experimental documentary that reminds me of a cross between the experimentation of decasia, the music and lost childhood themes of boards of canada and a "normal" personal documentary like sherman's march. that said, in many ways the film is more a film than a documentary because of its stylistic impressions which convey mood more than story and because of its obvious creation of scenes such as the final image of the filmmaker laying his head next to his mother's. this, though, has been a question in documentary cinema since its beginning - with nanook of the north during the filming of which flaherty asked nanook to alter his everyday routine for the sake of the film. flaherty did this to an even greater extent in man of aran which was more a recreation of fact mixed with myth, than a documentary.
what's important isn't the definition of the film's genre, rather it's the impact of said film; and tarnation carries plenty of impact. the narrative takes us back to the meeting of the filmmaker's grandparents, walks us through their marriage, the birth of his mother, his birth, his father leaving without knowing of him, his mother's rape and his many troubles with mental illness. during this portion of the film text on the screen gives us the history in a third person point of view while using pictures, video and music to match the plot. it's a harrowing and intense piece of filmmaking and it's one that you don't see in documentary and usually don't like to see in a conventionally narrated picture because it might come off as lazy or simple. but in this case it works because we need to get the history to understand the present and the only way this history can be recapped is if someone tells it to us. generally documentaries will try to fill in this sort of information through interviews and intertitles, but i felt this method worked rather well and was more intense than the conventional.
when people say a film is a "human" portrait, i'm not quite sure what they mean. there are a lot of attributes that seem uniquely human, and many of them aren't very flattering. usually, though, the adjective has a positive connotation. we think of a human portrait as an emotional, sensitive, multi-faceted, sympathetic look at an individual. i think that's what this film is. that said, jonathan caouette isn't the most sympathetic of filmmakers/subjects, but given the history he shows in this picture, it's not easy to to slight him for who he is and what he's done. in some ways i thought him weak, confused, self-indulgent or too prone to self-pity. however, he is, ultimately, the epitome of humanity - flawed, disturbed, selfish, ugly, beautiful, kind, and (nonsensically) hopeful. B+.
p.s. a pretty good soundtrack featuring (among others) iron & wine, low and magnetic fields.

6-1-05
Opposite Of Sex - christina ricci plays a jaded sixteen year old who narrates this dark, postmodern comedy. plotwise it's a little bit twisted and difficult to summarize succinctly here. the broad strokes have ricci leaving her house, moving in with her gay half-brother, stealing his lover, getting pregnant, and using a couple other guys along the way. meanwhile lisa kudrow (in a surprisingly good performance) plays the always-just-a-friend of the gay half-brother who tags along while he tries to help ricci and get back his lover.
the plot, though, is really secondary to the method of the film. it's interesting because ricci, while filling in the blanks with her voice-over, will add pithy comments and remark on how sappy the story is becoming or tell the audience to notice certain things because they'll be important to remember later in the film. most of her comments are snide or sarcastic and this creates a blase, or disinterested, tone. to me it invalidated the (few) impactful moments of the film because it gets the audience in an almost antagonistic mood. perhaps the two best examples come when we think that ricci may be dead. in the first example we hear a gunshot off camera and slowly pan towards her and the man who struggled over a pistol. they're both lying still and he is on top of her. both are motionless until his arm moves slowly, but it turns out that it's her arm moving his arm because she's under him. ricci says something like "bet you thought i was dead, huh. i can't die, though, i'm the narrator - remember? try to keep up." i actually didn't fall for it, but it created an author versus audience type of dynamic which i carried throughout the rest of the film. it happens again later after she's given birth. there are complications and we see her brother and friends grieving over her death. i did fall for it this time, but the tone was different. she says "bet you thought i couldn't die, huh. well look how sad all these people are...and i bet you may even have started to like me a bit in spite of my bitchy antics." after a bit of this it turns out she isn't dead, she was just fucking with us. in this instance i believed that she was dead, but i didn't care like she thought i might. she was a worthless manipulator. sure she's young, but i never warmed up to her, so in both instances the postmodern manipulation backfired - once because i didn't fall for it and once because i didn't care.
at the beginning of the film she exclaims "this isn't going to be the kind of film where i grow a heart of gold in the end, or say 'i learned a lot that summer,' so if that's what you're looking for you won't like this movie..." but in the end she doubles back on this. it's clear she has learned something and she says "i won't say that i grew a heart of gold, but i will say this: i sure learned a lot that summer." she says it sarcastically, yes, but it still contributed to the feeling that she, and the filmmakers, wanted to have it both ways. they want to entertain you and claim that this film is different, but it really isn't - it has many of the same conclusions that those kinds coming-of-age films always have.
i'm not sure if that makes the film better or worse. it's worse because the film takes a holier-than-thou approach to the genre, but still sells out in the end. and it's better because it acknowledges what the genre is about and makes fun of it. i can say that it didn't work for me, but i can see it working for others. it's not a film that i particularly enjoyed, but it'll stick with me longer than a slightly more enjoyable genre picture.
christina ricci is consistently in some of the more interesting independent-type pictures. C+.

5-17-05
Crash - short cuts and magnolia-esque in its storytelling, cast-type, and ending, but nowhere near the tour-de-force that magnolia is. it begins just after a car crash and this, along with mark isham's (who also did short cuts) ethereal score, sets the dream-like tone for the rest of the picture; to view the film as a realistic set of events would mean a less enjoyable experience. the film ends with another car crash as the camera tracks along the street and eventually ascends to give larger meaning to the picture. it's certainly an ambitious film, but one that falls short several times.
matt dillion and don cheadle were stand-outs in the packed cast, but matt dillion's character was one of the least well-drawn in the film. it was either too easy to hate him or too easy to forgive him. either way it came off as simple, lazy or cliché. already the film is in imdb.com's top #250 (though i'm sure it won't last) and this is testament to the ease with which some people are manipulated. clearly this film lacks subtlety from time to time, and yet people were sucked in. all this isn't to say that the picture was without redeeming qualities, it's just that the picture is too neat and when dealing with a subject matter as unsavory, complex and faceted as racism, neat shouldn't be the desired effect. on the positive side were some good performances, a good, complementary score and some good dialogue. paul haggis also wrote million dollar baby. C+.

4-10-05
Born Rich - sort of a documentary version of tart, which is a rich version of kids. the film documents the lives and views of about 15 insanely rich kids (aged 18-22). it's made by an heir to the johnson & johnson fortune. three of the kids (the filmmaker and two others) demonstrate any semblance of introspection or perspective and the rest demonstrate varying degrees of denial, ignorance, stupidity or solipsism. one euro-trash rich kid is very eloquent and well-read, so much so that he is able to justify his pathetic world view. he derives pleasure from such cultured endeavors as choosing exactly what he wants his suit to look like. he calls the encyclopedia britannica for the masses "total crap" and derides bill clinton's suit choices as simple and too proletarian. trump's daughter derives pride from being part of a family that lifted itself out of the gutter. she recalls a moment when she was young when her father, donald trump, pointed at a homeless man and said "that man is $8 billion richer than i am." later in life she understood the great gravity of this statement - trump was in such debt at the time that presumably he had negative $8 billion. of course she and her father overlook the fact that the they have a roof over their heads, cars, food and resources far beyond that of the homeless man. it's a simple-minded assessment to plainly state that a person without money is richer than donald trump when he was in debt. like i said, though, there are a few redeeming people in the film. the filmmaker (johnson) at least asks the question: what effect has this amazing degree of wealth had on my life and the life of those like me? a couple of his friends are somewhat introspective and have dealt with the wealth in relatively healthy ways, but the vast majority are simple and solipsistic. normally that's obnoxious and repulsive, but somewhat forgivable, but when you have the resources of education and comfort that these kids have, it is simply unacceptable.
the camerawork (done by the boyfriend who is part of the focus in "always a bridesmaid") is amateurish, but the content of this film cannot be matched or beaten. B.

4-8-05
Night And The City - this is a great film. it stars richard widmark as a "two bit hustler" who's always on the brink of something big; and it's directed by jules dassin (rififi, thieves' highway), who is rapidly rising in my book. widmark's latest scheme would have him running all the wrestling in london if he could just get the money and talent in place without allowing the whole thing to fall apart in the process.
widmark is great in the role. his big forehead and toothy smile add to his character's seedy methodology and personality. on one level the film is about a desperate man with great talent, but without a proper trade. on another level it's about the struggle between art, entertainment and money. the art is represented by old-school wrestler gregorious the great (zbyszko), the entertainment is represented by the new school wrestler "the strangler (mazurki)," and pitting the two against each other is widmark - the capitalistic promoter. which brings me to the score... there are two versions of the film - one is a british cut and the other is american. franz waxman scores the american cut and that's the one that i saw and dassin approved. the other is done by some european guy named frankel who was fairly prolific at the time. waxman's score is big, bold, powerful and dynamic. frankel's is much more subdued, small and sometimes almost whimsical or mysterious. frankel chooses to not score such scenes as the final chase which gives the film a more docu-drama feel to it - like kansas city confidential or he walked by night. in this chase scene waxman uses fast, repetitive brass to indicate the urgency of the situation, followed by deep, slower brass to indicate the seemingly impending capture. i think that waxman's score is better for the film since it lends the film a larger meaning which is fitting when you consider the art vs. entertainment motif.
also during that chase sequence we see widmark descending several sets of staircases, which obviously indicates the character's descent...the chase also occurs on the outskirts of town which further indicates widmark's exile. one of the more clever shots, though, is when widmark is actually ascending a staircase later in the pursuit. dassin does a brilliant, but simple thing. while widmark ascends the staircase from right to left, dassin slowly turns the camera counterclockwise by 90 degrees so that it looks like widmark is looking down at the ground and is going down the stairs, rather than up.

from this: to this: 
the film is also filled with interesting, vibrant secondary characters from phil, the club owner, and his wife who tries to use widmark to get away from her husband, to gregorious the great and his sellout son. it's a fun film to watch, but it's also full of typically fateful noir themes. actually, it's fun to watch in part because it's so fateful, not in spite of that fact. when the club owner's wife leaves him she tells him not to worry - "a week will go by and then a month..." the implication being that time treads on and he'll have gotten over her. he replies by saying something like: "no, you'll come back and i'll want to take you back." as if he knows he shouldn't, but knows that he'll have to because he needs her despite his better judgment.
there are some slower moments, but overall the picture has a good flow to it which is buoyed by a solid, deep cast, a vibrant score and a compelling visual style. B++.

3-28-05
Destry Rides Again - one of the things that made far country such a strong film is its abundance of interesting secondary characters. i think that the same is true for this film. mischa auer plays a russian immigrant/deputy who provides comic relief and some unique dialogue. charles winniger plays the town drunk turned sheriff and is, more or less, a poor man's walter brennan. samuel hinds plays the corrupted tobacco chewing mayor/judge of the town. he was also in scarlet street and call northside 777. marlene dietrich is super hot, but not as sexy as lauren bacall in to have and have not. she plays a saloon owner who is also a singer/dancer/poker player and basically one of the guys. in one extended sequence she gets in a huge brawl with the wife of mischa auer because she won auer's pants in a game of poker. you get the idea. jimmy stewart is as young here as i've ever seen him (it came out the same year as mr. smith goes to washington). he plays a deputy who sticks to the rules and likes to keep guns out of the equation. his character reminded me of a more capable anthony perkins in tin star. stewart, though, can get tough when he needs to - and he does in the end.
one interesting element of the film is that stewart and dietrich start at opposite ends of the spectrum - she's a swashbuckling hellraiser and he's a calm peacemaker (how's that for a turn?). as the film progresses each move towards the other's original position until they have swapped roles. he leads the charge on the saloon to take the bad guys down, guns blazing. and she leads the women of the town, armed with garden tools, to the same saloon to restore peace - without guns. in this way it turns the usual roles on their head.
the film is fun and well rounded and stands out, to me anyway, as one of the better films of a very strong year (1939) for hollywood. A-.
Call Northside 777 - based on real life events, the story follows a newspaper reporter (stewart) who seeks to find the truth behind an 11 year old murder case. the wrongly accused's mother puts out an ad for a reward of $5000 for any information leading to the actual murderer in her son's case. stewart is skeptical at first, but pursues the case at his editor's behest.
the film has a realistic look to it, in part because of hathaway using real locations (the prison, in particular, was impressive). in fact, imdb.com says it was the first film to be shot on location in chicago. the film also uses the actual inventor of the lie detector test during the filming of the scene where the wrongly accused man takes the test. there's another scene in the film which involves a primitive photo fax machine which is pretty nifty even looking back on it now. any time a film shows the process of something like that it makes it more realistic, and interesting, for me. mann does this in his heist films and i think they benefit from it.
stewart worked with three major directors (capra, mann and hitchcock) and had (at least) three major personalities. it's a tough call to say who the greatest american actor is, but i think you have to take a hard look at stewart as one of the best. bogart, of course, belongs there as well.
call northside 777 falls into the docu-noir genre along with films like he walked by night and kansas city confidential which take real life cases and dramatically recreate them. toward the end call northside plunges into the noir aesthetic, but it only does this when stewart is forced underground to look for a key witness. during these scenes the cinematography is quite good - ceilings look lower because only the bottom 6.5 feet of a room are lighted, shadows are heavy, boris (the witness' boyfriend) is shown only in slivers of light, etc. it's your typical noir stuff and that's a good thing. the end of the film is typical noir in that "justice" is served, but atypical in that most noir follows the criminal as a sympathetic character; in this film the sympathetic character starts as a wrongly accused criminal and is set free in the end. in this sense it's a happy ending which, again, is atypical of much film noir. though the ending is a good one, it is not saccharine or overdone. hathaway plays it fairly straight and lets the audience fill in the emotional blanks rather than having the music swell and ending with a crane shot. worth watching if you're a stewart or film noir fan. i'm both. B+.

3-19-05
Hostage - a film that certainly was made for bruce willis. there are so many elements that reference his career, especially the die hard films - from set pieces like the fountain amongst a fiery shit storm to the estranged family life. but the film is plenty more than just a willis vehicle. the opening sequence reminded me of the first sequence in Assault on Precinct 13 in its ability to set a strong tone for the rest of the film. and, really, it's a pretty apt comparison because there are more similar elements between the two films. both are directed by frenchmen directing their first american picture. both films feature characters who have to deal with an early mistake throughout the rest of the film. and both films were surprisingly refreshing compared to the usual hollywood fare (xxx, bruckheimer, etc.).
i'm going to write about the opening sequence because that's all i really needed to see to know how i was going to feel about the film. it begins with a close-up of a perp who is holding two people hostage in a locked up house and the camera pulls out to reveal the police presence and the los angeles skyline. then we see willis - scruffy, bearded, sweaty, lying down with a cellphone in one hand and a comb at his beard in his other. it's a comic moment that relieves a bit of the tension already created by the few earlier shots. willis' lightly comic, lackadaisical demeanor in this sequence is just perfect - he exudes confidence and feeds off the success of his previous film characters (john mcclaine, butch, etc.) here while adding a new, over-the-hill, wrinkle to it. but the situation quickly grows out of control and the hostage taker spirals out of control and resolves to kill his hostages. willis runs from the rooftop where he was perched and tries to intervene, but by the time he makes it to the house it's too late - the deed is done. it's not just what happens or willis' performance, it's the way siri captures and presents it all. he cuts to the hostages briefly to make sure we know what is at stake, he's willing to show the brutality of the kidnapper (who hits a young boy with a telephone), he employs comic relief in a tasteful way, and the slo-motion sequence wherein willis makes a dash to save the hostages is well-filmed. he uses a few different camera angles including one where the camera is attached to willis' chest and is pointed towards his face. it's one of my favorite types of shots, but it must be used in the right situation and in a measured way (think of how aronofsky uses it in pi).
i'm not going to say the film is perfect, but it restores your confidence in hollywood's ability to entertain in an artful and intelligent manner. worth checking out. B.

2-13-05
In Good Company- let me start the review by getting two things cleared up: scarlett johansson is decent looking, but not hot; and she's not hollywood's hot new talent. she's a serviceable actress who uses her lips too much, and that's about it. onto the review. the film has two major focuses: the indictment of corporate american culture and generational differences. that said, the film revolves around topher grace more than anything else. the critique of corporate america was fairly prosaic - a sanitized version of anything resembling a real assault on the fundamental flaws of corporate thinking. it did brush up against some of the more obvious weak points of corporate america, and it usually did so to comic effect, which is about as much as you can expect from a film of this type. the exploration of generational differences also lacked great depth, but did get the mental wheels turning a bit and provided even more laughs. quaid and grace were both good in their roles and they had a chemistry that exceeded some of the direction. that is, the director (weitz) had more of a good thing than he knew and under-edited as a result. weitz, though, did use music fairly well. byrne's opening track to his newest album opens the film and sets the somewhat somber tone of the picture rather well. it's not that the film is somber or maudlin overall, but it certainly does explore some darker regions of grace's psyche - his failed marriage, his sense of inertia, his lack of a real home, etc. it's not a great film, but it has some touching moments, is consistently humorous and is, overall, well-constructed. B-.

2-9-05
Aviator - though i wouldn't call it a full redemption for scorsese, this film is a step in right direction for him.
first the man: eccentric is too obvious a word, but it fits. he was gifted, but disturbed, had great ideas and great ambition, but sometimes too much power. luckily he had enough money to help him through his many mistakes. certainly worth making a movie about since he was both great and interesting. it's really that simple.
the oscars: this is going to be scorsese best shot at an oscar since everyone knows how important he is by now and they know he deserves one. million dollar baby is better overall and has better performances, but aviator could pull it out because the academy likes epics and knows it owes scorsese. dicaprio was good, but he wasn't as good as eastwood and eastwood wasn't as good as foxx so sorry leo, but it ain't happening this year. cate blanchett over-acted as katherine hepburn, hopefully virginia madsen pulls it out instead. i like alan alda, and he was good in this picture, but morgan freeman and thomas church were better; hell even alec baldwin was better and he didn't even get nominated. screenplay...it could win here, but eternal sunshine was more ambitious, more original and was better so, really, it should win here. cinematography...the cinematography was probably the strongest point of the film - scorsese made everything in the first half of the film seem big - sweeping crane shots, lots of movement, etc. to make the man and the picture seem big. later the camera settles down as the man begins his mental descent. colors were used well and in (mostly) subtle ways to enhance the feel of a scene. he'd drop some color out of a sequence to indicate an emotional drain, or amplify the color to emphasize the beginning of a friendship. well done in this category. the only other film in this category that i've seen is house of flying daggers which has good cinematography, but it was just an imitation of "hero." editing: million dollar baby has it here, it's a film that's more ripe for this category and it's executed well, as i state below. art direction: the sets were grand, though not as impressive as those in gangs of new york. lemony snicket's did a bit more for me, but aviator will probably win here. the same goes for costume design. sound: the sound of the spruce goose was the only thing that struck me as impressive. i didn't notice any great layering or inventive use of sound, it'll probably go to ray. the music, however, was quite good and was a good part of the reason that i was able to be engaged by the film. it's not a fantastic film, but it's an oscar friendly one. it's a good story about a very interesting guy, but it's not best picture material. B.

2-4-05
Million Dollar Baby - i think i'm getting pretty cynical in my old age music, because i had to fight the urge within me to deflate the film while i was watching it. i kept thinking about other films that have done it better, about how elements of this film were derivative, about how it's got everything that the academy looks for (an underdog, some death, a retard, some triumph, some defeat...), etc. but in between my cynical inner thoughts were moments of being mostly moved and/or impressed by the film in one way or another. it really isn't a staggering film, and in a better year it wouldn't have garnered the best picture/director nominations, but this is 2004 and so it deserves it...and it may even deserve to win (i haven't seen finding neverland or the aviator yet).
the first element of the film that struck me was the narrative. morgan freeman really is axis on which the film turns. his character is not only the narrator and primary observer, but is also a cross between swank and eastwood's characters. as is usually the case with him, freeman turns in a great performance and could definitely take home an oscar for best supporting actor.
the bigger cinch for the film, though, is the editing oscar. sure, ray, was well-edited and the way hackford told the story of ray's early life in segmented flashbacks was nice, but million dollar baby's editing did even more. the montages were just as good and it had going for it the fact that it had fight scenes which immediately raise the bar for editing. that said, i felt that the fight scenes were one of the weak points of the film. when compared the fight scene in the set-up (1949) the fight scenes in this film are downright primitive. another element of the fight scenes which bothered me was something that all boxing movies tend to do - they depict a movie style boxing match. there is very little actual boxing or strategy, there is just fighting and slugging. no one plays defense, or wears down their opponent, they merely knock them out with an unwieldy right hook. anyone who knows anything about boxing knows that this is uncommon. most boxing films are good about getting the training and "talk" of boxing correct, but when it comes to filming the actual fight, they tend to do a fairly inaccurate job, and this film is no exception. then again the academys aren't about determining the best, rather they determine the best of the most popular.
really, though, the film isn't about boxing, it's about telling a compelling story with round, engaging characters; and here it is unequivocally successful. eastwood, freeman and swank all do excellent jobs playing their characters in believable and sympathetic ways. it's not always easy to like eastwood, but through of his sense of humor and reluctant, yet heartfelt interaction with swank the audience warms up to him. freeman and swank play less difficult roles in that they are liked by the audience throughout. swank's role is probably more trying, though, because she plays the widest range of emotions. in my review of eternal sunshine i said: "jim carrey had his best performance, but kate winslet was just as good, in a more mercurial role." and that's why she was nominated and he wasn't. i think that this is the same reason that swank will win and eastwood will not. her role covers a wider range of emotions and is likable throughout, and likable characters generally get the nod. one exception i can think of off the top of my head is rod steiger who wasn't always likable in "in the heat of the night," yet he won best actor that year (1967), despite being up against some very stiff competition (beatty, hoffman, tracy, newman).
ultimately it's a very fine picture. it's moving, it's funny, it's got some exciting moments, eastwood gets his digs in on catholicism and does a little pandering to the oscar audience. but the difference between eastwood and scorsese, late in their careers, is that eastwood panders with his heart and scorsese panders with his mind. he's a great filmmaker, but the guy does everything with his head and nothing with his gut or his heart anymore. man he bugs me. B+.

1-22-05
Limbo - sometimes sayles reminds me of altman. part of this may be because they're both highly regarded independent american directors, but this film was more altmanian (?) because, in the beginning, it juggles several different character lines. after about half an hour the film settles into three main characters and we mostly follow them through to the end. there's a great degree of symbolism in the film which makes it all the more engaging and interesting. the film as a whole takes on the feeling of a parable. sayles makes the film bigger in a couple, fairly obvious, ways. the film takes place in alaska and it opens with a voice-over narrative on the fishing industry of the region. the narrator discusses the beauties of the area and talks about the salmon runs that make the area thrive. as the credit sequence ends we see that the narrator is in fact a factory worker responsible for processing the salmon after they've been caught. in this way sayles immediately draws a wide picture and brings us into the personal reality of this larger image. he does this throughout by integrating symbols relating to salmon and correlating them to the characters that the film follows. there is also a peripheral set of characters who are in the business of developing alaska - this serves as a way of again making the story larger than just the three main characters.
in the first 30 minutes when characters are being established the editing is quick and fragmented. sayles will drop out of a scene with the sound blaring or, seemingly, in the middle of a cinematic thought. i thought of this primarily as a way of strengthening the limbo theme...it's like running from one end of a see-saw to the other, never really committed to either side. it was an interesting method, but not altogether aesthetically pleasing. another minor quibble i had with the first portion of the film was that there seemed to be an excessive amount of exposition. there's really no way around it since there's a lot of backstory to be told, but i found sayles' storytelling in this regard a bit simple.
after about 30 minutes i didn't think that there was any way i was going to bond with the female lead in the film, but, through a combination of good acting and a sympathetic male counterpart, i found myself more bonded to her than i thought. the other major characters were more sympathetic and i didn't have a problem understanding them at all.
i think that this is my favorite sayles film so far. as for the ending...B+.

1-12-05
Far Country - may be the best stewart/mann collaboration, and that's saying a lot. i think that winchester '73 is generally more highly regarded, but i like this one better because i think it's got a more round cast than winchester '73. the plot follows stewart and brennan who are taking a herd of cattle into the yukon region in the late winter/early spring. they figure on making a bundle on the cattle and retiring in utah afterwards, but stewart's strong-willed personality gets them in trouble along the way with john mcintire (who plays a sheriff and selfish entrepreneur).
j.c flippen, walter brennan, ruth roman, john mcintire and corinne calvet are all fantastic in supporting roles; and of course stewart is fantastic in the lead. flippen plays a drunk, as usual, and, as usual, does a great job of being sympathetic without being overly pathetic. walter brennan plays stewart's sidekick and their onscreen relationship is fantastic. brennan, along with calvet, act as stewart's conscience. stewart is the type who does the right thing only when it benefits him. after witnessing a robbery he shoots one of the bandits and remarks later that he killed the bandit because he shot at him, rather than because he was a thief. such is the essence of stewart's solipsistic character. unlike the characters of brennan and calvet, the characters of roman and mcintire represent stewart's darker potential. they're both utterly selfish, capable and capitalistic. i found myself respecting the capability of these two characters, but liking the less capable, but more moral, characters of calvet and brennan.
brennan and stewart are almost like an old couple. they plan on retiring in utah together and stewart always carries a bell on his horse which was given to him by brennan before the film picks up their story. this bell was to be placed on the front door of their future home in utah, and as such it becomes a symbol of the hope that stewart carries with him despite his cold exterior. it's a great symbol and the one that mann ends the film with.
as is true with most westerns, the setting itself is a great vehicle for the themes of the story. far country takes place on the extreme frontier - alaska - during a gold rush; it's a great setting because the law is in its nascent stages and money is plentiful, or, as one character puts it: "gold means stealing, and stealing leads to murder." among all this is stewart who just wants to stroll through life without having to touch, or be touched by, the rest of the world. in the end he comes to terms with the reality of the world. what's strange, though, is that things aren't completely cut and dry. yes, he learns that he must be a part of the environment.... in the final sequence he kills mcintire, the film ends on the ringing bell, and he is standing next to calvet (the female embodiment of his conscience)...but at the same time his association with brennan is what gets him shot. that is, if stewart had gone on his own he probably would have been free and clear. perhaps this makes stewart's decision to change his philosophy all the more powerful. A.

1-7-05
How Arnold Won The West - overall it's an entertaining, informative and fairly cohesive look at california's recall of governor davis, and subsequent election of arnold schwarzenegger, in 2003. i think it's important to note that alex cooke is a british filmmaker and she definitely approaches the film as an outsider. as a californian this can sometimes be frustrating because there is some mild america-bashing (which i understand, but wish would come another american) and she sometimes paints a stereotypical picture of californians. also, i think that the film went a bit far in painting arnold as visionless and his campaign as reclusive. cooke makes a big point of showing the campaign as a PR/marketing campaign more than a political one. she points out (rightly) that arnold's campaign was extraordinarily inaccessible to most reporters and ducked many of the tougher, or more specific, questions. arnold did do a lot of "i'll have more specific plans when i get there" type of dodging and she was certainly right to call him on it. but, to be fair, there were deleted scenes (available on the dvd) that showed arnold on the campaign trail taking unrehearsed questions from people in the crowd. also, not included on the dvd, were the specific programs and policy decisions he proposed during the debate. cooke included that debate footage which bolstered her view that the recall/election situation was a circus - like him and huffington going back and forth - but she left out the substantive material that she claimed arnold lacked. i found this to be dishonest and misleading to anyone who isn't as versed on the subject as i happen to be.
all that said, the film does a good job of espousing a fairly informed and right(as in correct)-minded opinion of the recall. sure it leaves out some of the more balancing information, but i've come to expect that from documentaries of this sort. cooke gets a pretty good sampling of opinions, so the truth is in there, it's just that sometimes it's buried a bit by her opinion as manifested in the amount of time she'll give to certain footage. it's sort of a poor english man's version of fahrenheit 9/11 in california and as such should be viewed more as a documentary essay than as fact. B.

1-5-5
My Architect: A Son's Journey - documentary that follows one man's quest to discover more about his famous architect father, Louis Kahn. taking a wide view of the picture you have all the right pieces for a great film - it's got a good internal drama (kahn had three families), it has a bit of mystery, it's a point of view picture somewhat similar to the jaundiced eye or capturing the friedmans, and it captures the left brain with the architecture subplot. one of the more impressive aspects of the documentary is its good editing. simple interviews with louis kahn's friends and family are cut in a less traditional documentary fashion. normally in documentaries, there is one camera and edits are made to show the back and forth of a conversation without too much panning. other times the camera will be fixed on an interviewee for an extended period of time which often makes for a dry filmgoing experience. in fog of war morris intercuts historical footage to make things more interesting and flesh out, or comment on, what mcnamara is discussing. in this film the filmmaker (kahn jr.) sometimes does the same thing and, more frequently, intercuts extra coverage into a conversation. that is, he'll be talking with an interviewee about his father's other family and he'll cut in footage of a long shot of them talking about something completely different. since it's a long shot you can't tell that they're talking about something different, and it breaks up the pacing of the film a bit. then he'll cut in a reaction shot to something the person is saying, but it won't necessarily be a real-time reaction...he just makes it seem that way through editing. this is done all the time in news programs where they have two cameras, but in this case there was only one camera. it's a small thing, but he did it well and it contributed a great deal to the flow of the picture.
beyond the (large) human element of the film was the added benefit of getting to learn about kahn's architecture. though i didn't like all of kahn's buildings (although the national assembly building in bangladesh is fucking brilliant), it did make me want to learn more about architecture. i saw a documentary on the work of i.m. pei and, though it was very interesting, it was this film and kahn's work that made me realized how great architecture is. the moving shots inside the building in dacca made me see architecture as a living art - as you move the art of the building changes and it also changes over time - as the building ages and as buildings around it change. film, music and now architecture are my favorite art forms. B+

12-31-04
Tin Star - films like these are why i watch 523 movies a year. i bought this film having never heard a thing about it. the reason? anthony mann. henry fonda and anthony perkins were just icing on the cake. anthony mann's 1950s westerns are consistently great and he has cracked into that select category of directors whose work i would like to explore completely. there are some directors who are mildly interesting, but there aren't very many who inspire me to want to see every single thing they have done.
from the opening to the closing this film is fantastic. i love films that just jump right into it; mann does this in bend of the river, far country and winchester 73 as well. this one begins with fonda towing a second horse with a dead man laid out on the horse's back. immediately we are drawn into the film. who is the dead man? who is fonda? what happened and what is going to happen? that's how you open a film. fonda, as it turns out, is an ex-sheriff turned bounty hunter who has come to town to claim his reward from the green sheriff played by anthony perkins. it occurred to me that either one of these guys could have played the other at some point in their career. perkins can be dark (psycho) and can be the everyman (trial, tin star) and so can fonda (in my darling clementine he does both, in tin star he plays a darker character and in grapes of wrath he plays the everyman).
mann's direction isn't particularly striking, rather it emphasizes characterization, writing and storytelling. this isn't a bad thing at all - some of the best directed films aren't particularly stylized. A-.

12-30-04
Thriller: A Cruel Picture - one of the few swedish pictures to actually be banned in that country, and that's about all this film has going for it. i don't know what it was about the 70s that caused these sorts of films to be made...i spit on your grave, last house on the left, thriller, etc. all female revenge films that are known more for their shock value than anything else. this one is more explicit than those other ones i listed, but that doesn't make it any more effective. one of the more memorable moments was seeing the scalpel pierce a woman's eye...reminiscent of un chien andalou or zombi, but better than either because the filmmakers actually used a real corpse to get the full effect. the revenge rampage portion of the film fell really short and the artistic merits of this picture didn't approach that of last house on the left. the pimp character constantly appears at a desk in front of a typewriter which got me thinking about the film on another level - the pimp as the author and what ramifications that might have for the rest of the film. i couldn't really get it to work out symbolically and i don't think the correlation was really made, but i did give the film the benefit of the doubt...for a while. not really worth your time unless you're really into this stuff. if you're at all curious be fore-warned - it's extremely explicit. C-.

12-28-04
Kanto Wanderer - seijun suzuki (branded to kill, tokyo drifter, tattooed life) has yet to disappoint me - his direction consistently pushes the envelope, his stories are always interesting on some level, and his visual storytelling can be about as inventive and expressionistic as you're likely to see. the story is shakespearean in that it's serpentine and involves a lot of subplot. katsura, the main character, is played by a sort of poor man's tatsuya nakadai in akira kobayashi. this isn't to slight his performance - quite the contrary, his performance was very good which is exactly why i compared him to nakadai. there are so many visual flourishes throughout he film that recalling them all here would be lengthy and impossible (because of my memory), but suffice it to say that suzuki is at top form here. his later films (branded to kill, tokyo drifter) are more ambitious in their direction (he toys with space and time more), but this film strikes a balance between the experimental, the artistic, the expressionistic and the classical. he's able to do things that most wouldn't even attempt (like splitting the screen with a fuzzy amber line, or using spotlights during a fight, or changing the background lighting in certain scenes) in such a way that it adds to the film's depth and feel, rather than detracting from it because it comes off as too pedantic or avant-garde. naturally this is a judgment call, but in my judgment he's able to pull it off without it coming off as forced or experimental for the sake of experimentation (not that that doesn't have its place, because it does). of course the film is more than just a visual tour de force, it's also a tale of a bygone age. katsura is a youngish yakuza who prefers the old yakuza code, but the world around him has changed. gambling and women are in and honor is lost. like a kurosawa film, it's a world replete with amateurs and bottom dwellers. B++.

12-18-04
Circle Of Iron - filmed parable about a man seeking Zetan (christopher lee) who holds a book which is reputed to hold the answers to life's questions. along the way he must face several trials and he runs into all sorts of colorful characters (david carradine in four roles, eli wallach, and others). the acting and the fight sequences were weak points, but the story functions well to encapsulate bruce lee's philosophy of no way as the way. perhaps that requires some background - the film was made posthumously, but was originally conceived by lee. much of bruce lee's later years were spent on developing a martial arts style (and life philosophy) that centered around the idea of embracing not one style (in kung-fu: crane, snake, etc., in life: buddhism, christianity, etc.), but all styles. beyond this the film is rather good looking and always engaging. it may have aged a bit, but it's still worth watching if you're into this kinda thing. B.

12-16-04
I'll Sleep When I'm Dead - uninspired, uninteresting and slowly paced film from the same guy who did get carter and croupier. clive owen gets more roles than his talent merits. one interesting thing about the film is that hodges chooses to skip over moments that would be covered by most directors. when owen comes back home to see his dead brother, for example, his mother has to break the news to him. her doing this is skipped and the edit goes from owen coming into the front door to him opening the bathroom door where his brother committed suicide. why hodges chose to not include the news being broken is unclear. another example is when owen shaves his beard and gets a haircut to symbolize his return to his old gangster ways. this would normally be an important scene, but is edited out by showing the barber's sheet going over owen's body before and then immediately being lifted to reveal a clean cut owen. these decisions are odd considering using time for moments like these seem warranted, especially relative to the time he wastes in the first part of the film - the first hour should have been edited down to about 20-30 minutes. just not a very well-done or interesting film overall. C-.

12-5-04
Enduring Love - fairly entertaining and thoughtful picture about the nature of love, regret, and insane englishmen. the opening scene was an attention grabber for me in part because of the potential for metaphorical readings. it features a couple in a large field who suddenly see a red hot-air balloon which is out of control and has a boy in the basket. the couple, and several other bystanders, run to grab the balloon and free the boy but a gust of wind sends the balloon flying just as it appears they have stopped the balloon enough to save the boy. as the balloon ascends the bystanders hold on, but quickly figure out that they had better let go while they still can. all, but one, do just that and survive. the one who holds on falls a few seconds later and dies. the boy eventually figures out how to release the hot-air from the balloon and lands safely a few miles away.
what follows is a fairly simple meditation on the nature of love (is it real and spiritual, or just the next phase of evolution?) and an examination of one man's inability to forgive himself for letting go of the balloon. rhys ifans plays a psycho stalker who was among the bystanders who lived through the event. he becomes obsessed with the main character and is a personification of the guilt and regret the main character feels after the incident. it's a pretty good film with a pretty good idea. it would have been nice if the filmmakers were able to create a situation that was a little more regretful. that is, sure the guy let go, but there's really not much of a chance that him holding on would have brought the balloon down fast enough to save the man who fell to his death. this is a minor quibble, but it did detract from my fully empathizing with his guilt. B.

11-29-04
Shane - definitely one of my favorite westerns of all-time. it's a very traditional film in a lot of ways, but westerns usually are. i think that in our pc times films like this may be shunned a bit by academics because of the way they portray certain roles, but academia is often about making mountains out of mole hills. there are several reasons that i like this one so much, but i think that the biggest is that it's told from the perspective of a young boy. i first watched this when i was probably about joey's age and i've always had an empathy with young kids in films. i remember watching untouchables for the first time with my dad when i was pretty young. there's a famous scene wherein a baby carriage is rolling down a bunch of stairs in slow motion. i sorta freaked out because i didn't want the baby to be hurt and i think i've always been like that with movies. telling the story in this way definitely gives the film a greater degree of emotional latitude and it also serves as a pretty great plot device. kids are great devices in films because they ask the questions that the audience might want to ask. explaining things to kids is a great way to get exposition out of the way or telling the audience basic things about a character that might normally remain unknown.
victor young's score is best described as obvious; that said, it works absolutely. we know immediately when trouble is coming, we know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. stevens also knows when to let the action and onscreen sound do the work. the picture's sound is really well layered and is pretty ahead of its time in this regard. nowadays every picture has a huge sound crew working on separating all the different channels of ambient and action sounds, but that wasn't true in 1953.
i'm not sure when cinemascope became the norm, but i know it wasn't this early - and that's a shame because this picture would have filled a 1.85 or 2.35:1 aspect ratio rather nicely. as is the cinematography is great. the colors are vibrant and lush, completely appropriate for the potential of the west, plus the expansive landscapes are beautiful. stevens does an equally nice job with his interiors. the bar room brawl (one of the best i've ever seen) is shot amazingly well and edited together masterfully. stevens puts the camera under stairs and behind posts and people to give you the feeling that you're actually there. he switches up the distances at which the fight is taking place to give a better feel for space and movement; it's great stuff.
this film is clearly a classic and, i think, well-deserved of its reputation. A.

11-27-04
From Here To Eternity - the reason i put this film to the top of my netflix queue is that i saw donna reed beat out thelma ritter in the best supporting actress category that year. by the time i got the film i had completely forgotten that this was the reason so i didn't go into this film with that on my mind. that said, reed turned in probably the best performance of the film, but ritter's performance in pickup on south street was better - more unique, more memorable, had just as much range and was just plain better; and so goes the film... looking over the multiple nominations (picture, director, sound, editing, cinematography, screenplay, sup. actor/actress (won), score, actor/actor/actress, costume design (lost)) that this film garnered i can't help but think it was a weak year. in fact, shane and stalag 17 should have cleaned up, but i guess patriotism was running high at the time so "from here to eternity" was the big winner.
the first half of the film does a good job of balancing the various storylines, and thus keeping the viewer engaged. unfortunately the second half gets a bit bogged down in sentimentality and then patriotism. the film never really won me over - clift's cool hand luke type of character just didn't inspire me and lancaster was good, but not great. i can see why this film won for best picture, but in retrospect i think many would admit it's not as good as stalag 17 or shane. C+.

11-26-04
Wrong Man - hitchcock's most emotionally moving film. just a couple days ago (11/22) i was discussing the relative merits of hitchcock - he said hitch was the greatest of all-time and i contended that he was certainly great, but not the greatest. i prefer kubrick's big three (paths of glory, killing and dr. strangelove) to anything hitchcock has ever done; i prefer kurosawa's storytelling and personal philosophy to hitchcock's work; john ford and orson welles were probably better technicians than hitchcock; griffith did more for film than hitchcock....etc. my major point during the discussion was that hitchcock's films rarely, if ever, moved me the way that p.t. anderson does in every film of his, or the way that kubrick does, or the way that kurosawa does. sure hitchcock is an entertaining director and his longevity is nearly unmatched, and he worked in television as well as in film, but his films never really captured my heart. the wrong man, though, did that. as many great leading men as hitchcock has had during his career, none of them has made the emotional impact that fonda did in this film. it's a simple story of mistaken identity and fonda plays the everyman who gets caught up in a series of unfortunate breaks. it still has the hitchcock signature, but it's not a prototypical hitchcock film. i'm beginning to see that what i thought was the typical hitchcock film, isn't really all that typical - especially of his earlier films. i guess that i knew him most for his 50s and 60s pictures; the big stuff like birds, strangers on a train, psycho, north by northwest, vertigo, and rear window.
hitchcock doesn't play games with this film, there's no artifice, no cameo, no jokes; in this way it's rather un-hitchcockean. however he does impart to the viewer fonda's sense of paranoia and claustrophobia in a typical hitchcockean way. also, when we see the real criminal for the first time there is a classic double exposure overlay that hitchcock uses to make the point. in these ways we see hitch being himself, but in a different suit, as it were. it's not an amazing technical film, but in a way it's hitchcock's most human, and that's why i liked it so much. B+.

11-23-04
El Hijo De La Novia (Son Of The Bride) - here's another film i'm not likely to see ever again, but that's not because it's not good. it's pretty similar to the barbarian invasions in tone and theme. it's the kind of film you've seen plenty of times before, especially if you're a middle-aged woman, but the film is able to go beyond that convention a bit. it's a bit more stylish, a bit more well-drawn, it's got better acting, better comic relief and it doesn't ever have that "made for lifetime" feel to it; in other words, it's genuine. even though it's a middle-aged type of film it's a film that most anyone can relate to because the feelings and experiences aren't entirely specific. sure there are moments of parental regret which are no doubt more heartfelt by those who have had such regret, but everyone can relate the other side of that equation in some way and the film allows for that by developing the child's character. i think that that's part of the film's strength - it has a good cast of well-developed characters and the writing is such that it's open to interpretation. if you see the old couple and think about your great grandmother who had alzheimer's (as i did), then you feel that portion of the story, or if you see the old couple as what could have been with your parents (as melanie probably did), then you empathize with that portion of the story; and the film does down the line like that with all the different relationships. best of all, though, is that the film didn't take itself to seriously. the film never grew too maudlin or depressing, it had a sense of humor and balance that is present in life, but not always in dramatic pictures. B+.

11-22-04
Stage Fright - another hitchcock down. they're starting to blend together a bit, but this one is one of the better films of his that i've seen during this recent run of his films. it stars wyman and dietrich, who are both top notch. i think that if i were a woman i would want hitchcock to direct me, not only because he's one of the true geniuses of film, but because his women always turn out good performances, look good and are often different from the norm in some way. thinking of hedren in the birds or novak in vertigo or wyman/dietrich in this film or kelly in dial m for murder or...the list goes on. all of those performances are good and in all of them the woman is multi-faceted. sometimes she's not entirely sympathetic (kelly, dietrich) sometimes she exudes an outward weakness, but an inner strength (wyman), sometimes she's mysterious and sexy (hedren) or sometimes she changes in the middle of the film (novak). it's odd that hitchcock directed so many great women considering his clear 'issues' with females.
hitchcock is a fan of curtains. he uses them, usually, to add to the mystery, the feeling of being watched, the claustrophobia, etc. this film begins with a curtain being raised over the city, which indicates the film as a production - it denotes a certain separation right off the bat. (he also used curtains memorably in rope and dial m for murder) then the film jumps right into the action - a moving car, a man (todd), a woman (wyman), some mysterious talk and then comes the flashback. the man tells a story of why he's on the run and why he needs wyman's help. the film's mystery unfolds from there. it's a pretty good ride, with some side humor and distractions.
alastair sim plays wyman's father and he almost steals the show from wyman and dietrich. he plays scrooge in the 1951 version of a christmas carol, which i will now have to rent and watch again. B+. p.s. check out the woman behind the shooting gallery stand, she's a hoot.
Suspicion - another solid one from hitchcock. this one uses shadows really well (again), but this time he uses them more to show the dementia of the character (fontaine) than to give the impression of sinister goings-on. hitchcock plays will belief and skepticism quite a bit. in stage fright wyman was the ultimate believer, until the very end where she saw todd's true character. in this film, fontaine is closer to the other end of the spectrum - she wants to believe that cary grant is a good guy, but she steadily begins to see signs the point to him being a swindler and possibly a murderer. she (and we) has to deal with the thought of her husband as a bad person. is she being paranoid or are her suspicions well-founded and factual? just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you. B.

11-19-04
Foreign Correspondent - i have to be immodest for a second here...from the opening credits i suspected this was hitchcock's first american film. i've never seen this one before and don't know enough about hitchcock to have any past knowledge, but it was evident from the "patriotic" (in quotes because it seemed out of character for hitchcock) tone that this was his first american film. actually i was wrong, it's his second, but his first (rebecca) starred sir laurence olivier, was based upon a british novel and came out the same year so that one only half counts. really all this demonstrates (beyond my amazing talent for this sort of thing) though, is that this film is anything but the type of inventive and engaging film that hitchcock is known for making. it has elements of other hitchcock films, from notorious to the 39 steps, but it just doesn't measure up. joel mccrea went on to do sullivan's travels next year and he was infinitely better in that infinitely better film. this one's a rare dud from hitchcock. C-.

11-18-04
Gold Rush (1942 re-release version) - mostly interesting because of how it differs from the longer, silent 1925 version. in 1942 chaplin re-released gold rush with a soundtrack and narration (by him) in order to fill in the blanks and move the action along. what results is a sort of hacked version of a classic. i've only seen the 1925 version once, but this one's 20+ minutes shorter so you know there's a lot of plot and comedy bits missing. it's amazing how you can take narration or certain elements for granted in a film that doesn't have an alternate version. but once you start thinking about a film like this without narration and without sound effects, it becomes clear how much directors can subtract from a film through addition of these elements. in almost every case chaplin's narration does little to further the comedy, instead it's a way of (mostly) filling in the blanks left by the massive editing he did for this version. it's sort of a shame, but it's also endlessly interesting to compare the two. if i had more time i'd compare the two and see what he added, left out, and changed. it would make for a pretty great paper on the influence of the sound era on the silent film form. B-.

11-16-04
Citizen Kane - it's the most important film in the history of cinema, and it's the film by which all other films will be measured. that doesn't necessarily make it the best film of all-time, but it certainly is up there. if you can't watch the film and respect it then you're not a cinephile, and though i hate saying things like that, it's true. it's impossible to deny the impact of the film. it did many things first, many others best, and it combined so many techniques that had been done before in one, cohesive master opus. toland's use of deep focus is beyond anything i've ever seen and it's remarkably transparent. during roger ebert's commentary he makes the point that this film is a special effects film. hearing this took me aback at first, but when you see the seamless nature of the dissolves, the edits, the deep focus and all that went behind making the picture as big and great as it is, then you can't deny his point.
welles and toland expanded the use of the camera as much as anyone before them, so far as i know. much of this is due to the extraordinary (both in its range of employment and as a technical achievement) use of deep focus. the deep focus is used as a visual device, to complement the well thought out compositions, to strengthen themes or dramatic elements visually, and much more. in other words, it's not just a great technical achievement by toland, it's also a perfectly complementing element of the entire film. there's nothing worse than seeing a director, or other technician, with a great idea but no appropriate outlet for it. this is not a problem for welles or toland - the technical achievements serve the film rather than vise versa.
acting is uniformly excellent. welles is fantastic in the hardest role in the film, but, really, everyone does a great job. bernard herrmann's score (his first) is very good, but not his best. i watched the film with commentary so i can't really say i got to listen to it all that much.
ebert's commentary was pretty good. he talked mostly about the technique of the film, the use of certain shots and lab techniques to bring about certain looks, or the use of matte paintings to make the film appear bigger than the budget allowed. a very good commentary track, but not brilliant.
i don't know that i have any really well-based criticism of the film. i've seen it maybe five or six times and i've always seen it differently each time, and that's a testament to the depth of the film. i think my only reason for not loving the film is that i feel as though the story should have more of an impact than it does. the film does have humanity and heart, but it's not a film that demands its viewer feel. sure there is an undercurrent of sympathy for kane and the story, especially with the infamous ending, but the film doesn't ever stray into that area of my heart that films like cool hand luke, the graduate or others do. at the same time i can't really fault the film, or welles, for this fact. i think that, to a certain extent, welles knew this was going to be the case. i don't think he wanted the audience to be heartbroken by the story. sad, maybe, but not heartbroken or seriously emotionally invested. some of the reason i think this is because the film is so immense and immensely cinematic. the film is always above us, as is kane. it's such a piece of cinema that it almost separates itself from its audience. it's the anti-cinema verite, and thus asks you less to feel and more to think. so that's why i don't think it'll crack my top ten any time soon, but i'll always recognize is for a true artistic masterpiece. A.
bernard herrmann, orson welles, gregg toland, agnes moorehead, robert wise, alan ladd, joseph cotten....
Ray - from the director of "proof of life" comes...maybe that's not the best way to start a review of a film i actually liked. okay...
biopics are a difficult lot. stone's "doors" was okay, mann's "ali" was unimpressive, harris' "pollock" was stock...the problem with biopics is that capturing a real person's life in an honest way, and finding someone decent to portray them, is usually just too hard. that brings me to jamie foxx. i basically said in my review of collateral that jamie foxx was officially a good actor, and this film will make others realize this. on npr the other day they had a film "expert" who was talking about the possibility of foxx winning an academy award. he said that foxx looked good, but didn't sing his own stuff and that best actor/actress nominees in the past haven't won when they lip-synched through the singing. he cited natalie wood in west side story who didn't win because she didn't sing herself. i think the major difference between past performances and this one is that ray charles is a real person and he was still alive during the filming of the movie. in other words, i don't think you can fault foxx's performance at all. plus he's got the public sympathy and the cripple card (think rain man, my left foot, etc.) so i'd bet on foxx, barring something great in the next couple months. regina king also turns in a good, powerful performance.
the film created several pretty inspiring moments. there was one scene in which charles had to fill twenty more minutes to complete his part of a contract. on the fly he creates another hit song. i don't know if it was a film contrivance or a reality, but it felt more like the former. at the same time it was one i was willing to roll with because it felt like charles really was that much of a genius. another similar scene came when his mistress broke us with him, which immediately led to him writing "hit the road jack" in her presence. it felt like an amazingly inspired moment, to turn that pain into one of the most popular songs in his catalog, right there on the spot. again, this was probably more a film contrivance than a portrayal of fact, but it felt right enough to roll with it.
charles' music was contextualized by hackford in a more meaningful way than i expected, or have seen from similar films. every song has a story and hackford reinforces this idea with judicious cross-cutting between the performance of a song, and the aspect of charles' life that inspired it. it elevated the meaning of the music and broke up the obligatory performance sequences; a nice touch.
the film begins with charles in the 1950s, he's already blind and about to hit the road to find his first job. his formative years are retold in fragments as we follow him through his first few jobs. hackford employs a different film stock and look to signify the flashback. colors are brighter, but the film is more grainy, like 16mm film or something. i liked this technique of telling the story of his becoming blind and the death of his brother, more than starting chronologically. hackford shows us effect and then cause, and it works well. we get to know who charles is, and then why he's that way.
the film isn't entirely a hagiography either, and that's extremely important with films like this. we see charles, warts and all. we see his fight with drugs, his adultery, and we see the negative effects (on his family) of his obsession with music.
without a doubt, the worst part of the film is its ending. like ali, ray doesn't quite know how to end. in ali it's a freeze frame after the rumble in the jungle and the film is over. in ray it's a text epilogue accompanied by photos of the real ray charles. it basically says that for the next forty years ray charles kept making music and was a good guy. it comes off as a bit awkward and a little precious. i generally don't dig academy bait like this, but they did a good job with this one. ray charles' story is compelling and moving; the film didn't get in the way of that too much, and hammed it up a bit (within reason) when it got the opportunity. it's sometimes said that a script is so good that not even a good director could ruin it. the idea is that "good" directors sometimes interject themselves into a picture too much, thus ruining decent screenplays. in this case hackford demonstrated a decent sense for when to let the story tell itself. hopefully when they make a film about johnny cash it's equally well done. B+.

11-15-04
Dial M For Murder - in my review for the lady vanishes i mentioned hitchcock's penchant for confined spaces. that film took place almost entirely on a train, rope was all done in one apartment, lifeboat was done on a lifeboat drifting at sea, rear window took place in stewart's apartment, and this film takes place primarily in grace kelly and ray milland's home. my dad doesn't like rope because he thinks it's a filmed play, he's crazy. rope and dial m for murder are both based on plays, but are hardly as constrained as a play. hitchcock moves the camera remarkably well and uses his edits wisely. this film also has the distinction of being made as a 3D film. i was lucky enough to see it in the theater in 3D presentation a long time ago as part of a double bill with comin' at ya! it was so long ago though that i decided to count this viewing as my first time. milland is great as the suave, jealous husband who has planned the murder of his wife (kelly) down to the last detail. of course things never turn out quite as planned, but it's just as well because seeing milland recover on the fly is as entertaining as it was seeing him unfold his plan to the old college pal (dawson) he was blackmailing to commit the murder for him in the first place. it's a great yarn and hitchcock unfolds everything so neatly that i couldn't help but smile. this film doesn't usually get mentioned with his A-list titles (north by northwest, vertigo, psycho, birds...), but is just as entertaining as most of those. a really fun film. A--. p.s. this one has the best cameo from hitchcock. milland and dawson went to college together and recall the old days by looking at an old picture - hitchcock is in the picture sitting at the same table as milland and dawson. they go on to talk about one of their pals named "alfred." good stuff.

11-14-06
Pickup On South Street - a good film that could have been better. it's about a pickpocket (richard widmark) who unwittingly gets more than he bargained for when he picks the purse of a young woman. inside her wallet is secret government information which she was transferring from a communist agent to a communist leader.
fuller (steel helmet, naked kiss, etc.) isn't afraid to move the camera to make an emotional point. in this way the film is visually somewhat similar to the graduate. it's the kind of thing that only cinema can do and it's a shame that more directors don't do it. sweeping in on a character when something important happens, or moving around them when their view changes, etc. widmark is good, but thelma ritter, in a supporting role, does an even better job. she probably should have been nominated for a supporting actress award. nevermind, i just checked imdb.com and she was nominated. in that case, she probably should have won. her character is the most sympathetic and, next to widmark, the most complicated.
in this film fuller creates a world in which money rules all. through the first half of the film all decisions are made in the interest of self-preservation. ritter's character dimes out her bud (widmark) for less than $40. at the same time widmark is willing to deal with communists so long as it means finally getting the big score for which he's been looking. at the same time there is an element of professionalism amongst those in the underworld. widmark understands that ritter will sell him out, and doesn't begrudge her anything because of it. he remarks "after all she's gotta eat." there is a sense that this is what people do, and this is what they are and everything is understood. in this way fuller creates a world of archetypes who play out their hand to the best of their ability. widmark is faced with the opportunity to hand over the wallet that he's stolen earlier in the film without consequence, but he balks at the cops when they present him with the offer because he thinks they'll bite him in the ass even if he helps them. it recalls the old tale of the scorpion and the frog of which widmark must have been well aware. i really liked this element of the film because it fits well into the noir genre where everyone is selfish and things are totally dark. when the woman whose wallet is stolen finds widmark by going underground, she is instantly attracted to him and she tries to convince him that her love is genuine, but he figures she's playing an angle so he shuns her. he tries to squeeze her for some money in return for the valuable microfilm he stole from her, meanwhile she's being squeezed from the other side by the ex-boyfriend communist operative, who gave her the film to carry across town in the first place. ritter's character also shows weakness and sentimentality and she pays for it more dearly.
up to this point the film was great, but then things took a turn. widmark seemingly falls in love and hunts down the commies on his own. in the end the woman lives through a gunshot wound and widmark is the hero. it's an unsatisfying ending to a film with much darker, and therefore better, beginnings. i've said it before, but i'll repeat it again - i like my film noir to be truly noir, and this one didn't really do that. other than that the film is good, it's got plenty of good direction and the writing creates some nice dynamics between the characters, but i didn't like it as much as i could have. B.

11-11-04
Man Who Knew Bush - not the same kind of anti-bush documentary that you're used to. this one follows a distant relative of bush who tells of his one encounter with the president (while both men were drunk) and much more. he comments on the history of the family, of politics, of the schools bush attended, etc. he's a virtual fountain of knowledge and that alone was worth the 75 minutes. that said, the film is not very focused and many might be turned off by this fact. from a filmmaking perspective the film has an interesting style. berlin seems to have a knack for editing in little buffer shots and infixes, to borrow a linguistic term. during interviews, for example, he'll edit in a shot of the interviewee's hands, or something similar. it's good for pacing and feel as well as offering a more complete look at the person's physical mannerisms and character; a nice touch. B-. one interesting fact in the film was presented by a genealogist who said that the bush family are related (anywhere from 8th-12th cousin-relations) to 50% of the country. crazy.
Metallica: Some Kind Of Monster - i used to love metallica, but their last couple albums sucked and then there's the whole napster thing...so now i'm sort of ambivalent. if nothing else, this documentary humanizes a group of guys who have often been above the rest of us. it adds a new wrinkle to films like gimme shelter and don't look back, which followed the rolling stones and bob dylan, respectively. this film follows another giant rock group, but this time it's on their downswing and the camera makes its way into group therapy sessions. it's a pretty odd experience in that way, because so infrequently do we see rock stars at their most vulnerable. sinofsky and berlinger (brother's keeper) do an expectedly good job of telling the story, even to non-metallica fans; they give just the right amount of information, at just the right time. the film is a bit on the long side, especially for a documentary, but there's enough material here to justify it. i do think that the film has a good bit to offer to people who don't like metallica or aren't very interested in the usual music documentaries. the reason is that the film operates fairly well on the human drama level. by the end of the film i felt a little fed up with the group therapy footage, but that was more of a general response to therapy than it was to the film in particular. it'll get you in touch with your feelings. B-.

11-10-04
Last Seduction - john dahl is a sleeper director. his biggest film is joy ride which is a well done and entertaining picture, but not really indicative of his better work. rounders also sort of slipped under the radar. and his two best pictures (red rock west and last seduction) are virtually unknown despite having noteworthy actors and being damn good films. like red rock west, the last seduction is a neo-noir, or post-noir, or modern noir, or whatever you want to call it. it's a 90s color film that borrows heavily from noir conventions, we'll put it that way. fiorentino plays the femme fatale and, like in depalma's "femme fatale," the film revolves around her more than it does the patsy (ably played by bill paxton, er bill pullman). she does a great job in selling the character which is important because the ending is a bit of a hard sell and requires the audience to believe she is capable of what she does. dahl's greatest strength is his storytelling. his pacing is right where it needs to be in each picture, he unfolds each character in an even and natural way, the mystery is never too easy to unravel, but at the same time it's still believable. he doesn't generally write his own stuff, but his films are always well-written. they always have a natural unfolding about them, there aren't any lulls in his films, the mysterious aspects of the film are never too far in the distance, yet at the same time he is able to develop his characters and entertain the audience. this is the art of storytelling - balancing the different elements in an enjoyable, reasonable and naturalistic way; and this is what john dahl does so well in this picture. icing on the cake is the play on the film noir conventions, the well-matched soundtrack, the performances and the comic relief. B++.

11-8-04
Forgotten Silver - it's a fictional documentary directed by peter jackson. yes, most would call it a mockumentary, but that might be misleading since you probably first think of "this is spinal tap" when thinking of mockumentaries. this film does poke fun at documentaries and it does have a tongue in cheek aspect to it, but it's not the all out fake that spinal tap is. the film follows peter jackson as he retells his unearthing of some old reels of film that some old lady brought to his attention. these old reels, it turns out, were but a small sampling of the cinematic genius of the fictional filmmaker colin mckenzie. the rest of the mockumentary follows jackson as he researches the life and work of mckenzie. in order to sell the authenticity of the documentary, jackson enlisted the help of harvey weinstein, sam neill, and leonard maltin who offer up fairly convincing testimony to the lost genius of colin mckenzie. i went into the film knowing it was a fake, but i'm fairly confident that i would have been able to figure it out without the foreknowledge of its true purpose. there are a good number of decent clues in the film and knowing peter jackson and his sense of humor would have been enough for me to put things together. at the time of its release, however, there were several disappointed viewers who bought into the film and wrote into the television station to voice their displeasure after they discovered the truth. apparently jackson even got a few letters from supposed film majors who claimed to have known of mckenzie's work before they had seen the documentary. people are funny.
what amazed me about the film was its ability to create this fictional non-fiction which could inspire moments of both laughter and pathos. it was able to walk a fine line between all out parody and actual documentary that, frankly, boggles the mind. towards the end of the "documentary" we see "recovered" footage of mckenzie filming a scene as a war photographer. at one point he puts his camera on the ground to help a wounded soldier and is gunned down in the process. the scene is both funny and touching because, in an odd way, despite the satirical tone of the film, they have actually created a sympathetic character.
it's also a film that must have been infinitely enjoyable to make. there was so much "stock footage" that they had to create and they did that really well, using all sorts of different methods. sometimes they just filmed something in black and white and made it dirty or scratchy, and other times they used digital technology to create the desired effects...interesting and entertaining stuff. B+.
Primer - i don't know where to start with this film. it's definitely worth checking out. it's also a pretty tough film to watch in some ways. the film is constantly unfolding one step ahead of the viewer and that keeps things constantly interesting, but also a bit confusing. unfortunately the ending doesn't wrap things up into one nice bow, but i actually didn't mind that fact too much. the teaser is this: a film about a couple of engineers who are working on an unknown device which happens to have some unexpected consequences and far-reaching implications. the plot is, almost literally, infinitely fascinating and that's saying a lot. again, the downside to this is that one viewing really doesn't seem like enough because the film doesn't provide all the answers for you right away. visually the film is very indie. a lot of the film is yellow because of, i presume, underexposure and underlighting. the direction was mostly by the numbers and capable, but unremarkable. however, there were at least two occasions which rose above average. one was the turning point of the film, abe walks out onto the roof of a building and we are blinded by the sunlight briefly as he walks towards the edge to look down on aaron in the courtyard below. instantly i knew that the dynamic of the film had changed - we were outdoors, the camera looked directly into the light and the characters were on different levels. touches like this make a decent film better. a cerebral, compelling filmgoing experience. B+.

11-4-04
Trainspotting - this one falls into the "very good, but a bit overrated" category. boyle's direction is befitting of the subject matter - it's sometimes claustrophobic, sometimes naturalistic, sometimes flashy, sometimes overly stylish and always right where it needs to be. the writing, of course, is very good and has a very unique voice. boyle wears his influences on his sleeve - from a clockwork orange to taxi driver - but the film manages to not be entirely derivative. ironically, it spawned a wave of "brit-grit" films from lock stock and two smoking barrels to nil by mouth. none of them, though, were as good as this one, and that's why the film gets so much hype. the soundtrack, as an album, is great, but doesn't function quite as well as a soundtrack. that's not to say that it's not good, it just that the album is better than the music is when placed in the film. there are one or two clunkers in the film, but overall the film has solid musical choices. all the acting is spot on and whenever talk of a sequel, or prequel, comes up i get a little sick because replacing the actors would be a travesty. B+.

11-01-04
Koyaanisqatsi- extraordinarily powerful. i really don't feel like saying much about this film, i've probably said most of it before anyway, but do know that this film is amazing in every possible way. in terms of film scores there is the good, the bad and the ugly, the graduate and koyaanisqatsi which tower above everything else. there are other fantastic scores, yes, but those three are in their own league because music and image become one, inextricable, entity; and because in each case the music is extraordinarily good on its own. A+.

10-31-04
Pieces Of April - i'm trying to think of another thanksgiving film that's better than this one (besides the obvious "planes, trains and automobiles") and i can't do it. this film isn't amazing, but it is exactly as good as its capable of being. films like this are probably the future of "independent" cinema, for better or worse. it's got big studio backing (but a small budget - $300k), a few established actors and a good idea. stylistically it's an independent feature - it's shot using dv with a lot of handheld camera work and a jumpy editing style (at least during the introductions). all the music in the film (except for the final sequence) is diegetic. it got me thinking what the best soundtrack is to a bad film...this has a really good soundtrack (though you don't really notice it in the film), but the film is good so it doesn't count. morvern callar has a great soundtrack, but isn't a very good movie so that one's in the running....but i digress.
katie holmes does a decent acting job, but is outplayed by virtually everyone else in the film. that's generally the rule with independent features like this - since they are less concerned about the marketability of the film, they can afford to give up something in the looks department in exchange for superior talent. the film also benefits from a good balance of the comic and the serious. at just under 75 minutes the film is definitely on the short side, but i'm willing to pay just as much to see this as i would be to see "gangs of new york" which is twice as long, cost 100 times more to make, and wasn't as good. B.

10-30-04
Lost Weekend - there's a lot to say about this film. billy wilder, jane wyman and ray milland all did a great job with the film. wilder's storytelling is compelling and varies enough from other noir to make it interesting. the first flashback of the film doesn't occur until 30 minutes into the movie and then there are a few more as the film progresses. milland and wyman are great together. milland sells the role of an alcoholic as well as anyone this side of nicholas cage. wyman is great as the girlfriend who is torn apart by milland's addiction. her acting in the final sequence turns what, in other hands, might be contrived, into an inspired and inspiring moment. miklos rozsa's score is right where it needs to be, but that's not to say that it's old hat. in some ways it sounded to me like a definitive film noir score. i don't know how to really describe it...it has flows which convey the hope of the viewer, but ebbs that match the reality of the protagonist. it's also a fitting score because there's an almost star trek, psychedelic leitmotif that is used which works well with the alcoholism theme. john seitz's cinematography had some flourishes here and there, but it didn't blow me away. it's a good thing the film was in such capable hands since it's a story that easily could have turned to trite melodrama or, possibly worse, an unaffecting propaganda piece. as is, though, the film strikes a good balance and is able to convey rather accurately the allure and pitfalls of alcoholism. a very fine film. B+.

10-26-04
I Heart Huckabees - it's a fun film that sort of reminded me of an american version of "discreet charm of the bourgeoisie." first i want to mention that mark wahlberg may have been laughed at in the past, but when the guy gets a good role he nails it, and this film is no exception. it's easy to write him off as marky mark and just a good looking calvin klein model trying to crossover, but his work in this, boogie nights, three kings, and fear show he's better than he may get credit for. i think his biggest problem is taking shitty roles, but you can't blame a guy too much for that. the film is pretty light despite the potentially heavy subject matter. all the philosophy in the film has serious implications, but is used more as a comedic device than anything else. while i was watching it i tried to ask what russell wanted me to get from the film and i just didn't see it being a film about exploring different philosophical possibilities (like my dinner with andre or waking life). if one wanted then i'm sure one could glean something valuable from the different philosophies that are thrown about, but the film isn't really about presenting a cohesive philosophy of its own. there are surrealist elements to the film that make it fresh and different. the acting is also fresh and lively. there's no better way to describe the film than "fun." B.

10-22-04
Die Hard - i've watched this film over forty times and it's always been one of my favorites of all-time, but watching it this time was a unique experience. i'm in a very different mindset these days so i can't help but interpret everything in a different way. the dynamic between willis and bedelia was more vibrant and resonant than ever before. willis' bathroom soliloquy was more poignant, the laughs were more hearty, and the music was more stirring. in short, this time around may well have been the best viewing ever of this particular film. it's a film that begs to be watched repeatedly and earns it every time. it's a film that defines the very limit of the action/adventure genre, and maybe even cinema altogether. it's pretty difficult for me to overstate the place in my heart that this film holds. everything within the film is so seamless - the music (kamen is amazing, but so are mctiernan's choices - using the "aliens" piece at the very end, the incorporation of xmas music to help the setting, the bach, the beethoven, the run d.m.c.! just brilliant), the images (jan de bont's inspired camera movement and mctiernan's lively and unique (for the time) editing style), the performances (break out role for willis, yes, but also notable performances from bedelia, rickman, veljohnson, gleason and white) all come together in a perfect synthesis. and with al disarrio as the sfx supervisor you know that things on that front are going to be solid as well. there are some scenes where you can tell a process shot was used, but when you're not scrutinizing the film these effects are seamless and that's pretty remarkable considering it's a film from the 80s. i think that if you watch this film without having heard any hype about it (because hype always hinders a film) then you must like it. for me it's a film that i really can watch any time. many of my other top films (paths of glory, the graduate, the killing, koyaanisqatsi, boogie nights, etc.) require a particular mood, but this film doesn't. no matter what mood i'm in i can watch this film, and since i've seen it so many times it's like visiting an old friend. one of the best pieces of art of all-time. A+.

10-19-04
Forgotten - this film pulled a "dreamcatcher." it started off pretty cool and had a certain degree of potential, but then the aliens came into the picture and messed everything up. there are a few nice moments created and a few nice touches, but nothing good enough to save the picture from its second half. one of the nicer touches is that moore lays down throughout the film - sometimes on the ground, sometimes in her bed, but as the film progresses, and she gradually begins to discover the truth, we see more of her face when she is laying down. for example, early in the film she is laying in bed and her head is buried in a fluffy pillow so that we only see the left third of her face, later in the film she lays in bed and the pillow is less fluffy so we see about half of her face; at the very end of the film she is knocked to the ground and is laying her head on her arm so we are able to see all of her face. C.

10-16-04
Ju-On: The Grudge - spoilers. i went into this film thinking it was directed by the same guy who did ringu, i was wrong. this is done by someone different, but the films are remarkably similar. there's a lot about this film and the similarities between the two films to comment on and i'm not sure i'm going to get to it all, but here it goes...
the most obvious correlation between ringu and the grudge is that both are japanese horror films with american remakes. in the case of ringu the remake is directed by verbinski and is better than the original. in the case of the grudge the remake is directed by the same person and i've yet to see the american version (with sarah michelle gellar) so the jury is still out on that one. both have a fairly similar style, but then again so does "suicide club" which is another japanese horror picture that came out recently. it's interesting to see how different countries come out with a wave of good pictures of a certain type during a certain era. during the 80s there were several good spanish horror films, right now there seems to be a good number of iranian dramas coming out, in the 30s germany produced a good number of fine expressionist films, etc. there's a scene in ringu when the girl crawls out of the tv which is really creepy and part of its success comes from the way the girl is crawling - very low to the ground, inhuman, almost spiderlike. this film uses the exact same scare tactic, but in this film the woman is crawling down the stairs. actually, this was done even earlier in the uncut version of the exorcist. the grudge steals another technique from ringu - when some of the characters are seen on security cameras or have their pictures taken, their image is distorted. i suppose it's been done before ringu, but i was working off the premise that these were directed by the same guy. the rest of the film is just about equally derivative. there are all sorts of individual shots and scenes that may not have been taken directly from previous films, but, to use a euphemism, are part of the established horror film lexicon. in this sense the film was a disappointment - individual shots throughout and the ending in particular were all in films you've probably seen if you've seen a good sampling of horror stuff. like i said before, it's not that the director is directly ripping off a shot from this or that film, but a lot of it was stuff that had already been done before; and when i go to see an independent japanese horror film i go hoping for something outside of the mainstream.
this isn't to say that the film is bad or doesn't have its strengths. there are several genuinely creepy moments within the film. shimizu is able to create a feeling of claustrophobia throughout the film and periodically cashes in on this to good effect. unfortunately sometimes the execution feels a bit reserved, other times it falls into the "been there done that" category which i talked about earlier, and sometimes elements of the film are simply lost in translation. there were a few moments when the crowd in the theater (it was a pretty healthy contingent considering the film has been out for a while and it was a 10:40 show) laughed at something that wasn't supposed to be funny.
as the film wore on i realized it wasn't going to blow me away and it wasn't going to leave me as terrified as i had hoped. so i naturally started thinking of the film on levels beyond the visceral terror. in a way the film could be construed as a social commentary, and this is one reason why i'm especially eager to see what changes are made to the american version. the film begins with a sadistic father slaying his wife, his cat, and, presumably, his son. as a result the house becomes haunted and the family which inhabits the space afterward starts getting picked off by ghosts one by one. each person who gets involved with the family or with the case surrounding their deaths also gets picked off one by one. there are strong elements of isolationism (people hiding in their rooms with windows covered, hiding under their sheets, etc.), but at the same time there seems to be an undercurrent against helping each other. let me explain - no one is spared in the film - the people who run are killed, the people who try to help others are killed, etc. typically in horror films there is some way out - either stay a virtuous virgin or take a stand against evil or know how to kill the zombies or whatever; but that's not true in this film. the social worker at the beginning of the film goes to the house to help with an elderly woman, but as a result of her good intentions several people die. a police officer who tries to burn down the house also is killed. his daughter, who goes to the house with her friends because they heard it's haunted, flees the house because she feels uncomfortable. her friends die at the house and, later, so she does too, despite having the presence of mind to get the hell out of there. in other words, it's a pretty pessimistic film. i thought there might have been commentary on the isolation within japanese society, but there is no alternative offered so i don't know how well that idea hold up.
overall the film had some moments, but wasn't as consistently entertaining or scary as it could have been. C+.

10-14-04
Where The River Flows North - earthy like "tree of wooden clogs," but the film's organic pulse is very much 'american.' in tree of wooden clogs the earthiness is intertwined with the philosophy of earth has provider. conversely, where the river flows presents an organic film about two people living off the land, but to them the earth is less a provider and more a symbol of freedom and individuality. in tree of wooden clogs the earth is the provider for all the sharecroppers of the village. in this scenario they are working the land for the land owner, but there is never any animosity with the land. they work the land lovingly and respect its ability to provide wood for shoes, strawberries for the market, etc. in where the river flows the land also owned by someone else, but rip torn's character has a less loving relationship with the land. it is still a provider, but only insofar as he can use it to his advantage. indeed, his plan is to harvest the land of 1000 year old pines and skip town with the profit. in this film the land, and the opportunities it presents, is more intertwined with motifs of freedom and individuality. essentially what i'm trying to get at here is that this film presents the land as a tool (both for rip torn's character and the government which wants to build a dam in the area), whereas tree of wooden clogs presents the land as a provider to be respected and loved. also, i think there is an argument to be made that this film presents the issue of land use in more individualized terms and tree of wooden clogs presents a more collectivist view of land use. acting is uniformly good and the story is told in an engaging, entertaining and emotive way. B+.

10-12-04
Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow - the first thing everyone will notice about this film is its cinematography, or, maybe, its lack thereof. after all, is it really cinematography if you're just filming characters on a green screen and applying lighting and sets in post-production? so we'll just say it's the "look" that people will notice, and for good reason. it's a lot different from anything you've seen or are likely to see any time soon. another thing your likely to notice fairly quickly is how fun the film is. i would have liked to dislike the film because the technique (cgi constructed everything, except the actors) seems a contradiction to the subject (1939 new york), but the fact is that the look fits and the writing is good enough to wrangle in even the more cynical viewers (such as myself). sure it's a derivative film - it borrows or references films/serials/comics like crazy, but it does it the same way indiana jones or pulp fiction did - with love and reverence instead of cultural piracy for profit. i don't think that law and paltrow had great chemistry, but the writing did a good job of creating a chemistry between them. there was a good sense of humor between them, a checkered past that was touched upon, but not played out too much, and they never had to kiss each other which is the big test for on screen chemistry. the film's pacing is also well done. it's not overly methodical, but action sequences are spaced pretty evenly and are well-executed. it gives you only enough time to think about the mystery driving the film in short intervals before another action sequence, a change in plot direction, or a character development occurs. as a result the film moves along well and stays interesting throughout. B.

10-10-04
Japanese Story - if not for the heavy, 40 minute longeur on which this film ends, it would have been pretty good. the first half of the film establishes the relationship between collette and the japanese man she is escorting around australia. at first they annoy each other, then they end up fucking; and it happens about that abruptly. that said, it wasn't this that derailed the picture. eventually collette discovers that her companion is married, but that doesn't affect their affair...they go on having a happy time until he dives into shallow water and dies. the film has a few things going for it: 1) toni collette isn't all that great looking, but she's a good actress and the chemistry with her and Gotaro Tsunashima is pretty good 2) it's not "lost in translation." there are some cute, charming moments between the two and that's when the film is at its best - when it's just them bonding and interacting. like i said before, the downside of the film is the last 40 minutes during which basically nothing happens and the director tries to cash a check that's bigger than the amount she's earned in the first half of the film. that is, the first