rbmoviereviewsdotcom Reviews

The Yakuza (1974)

The Start Of A Great Career

[3 May 2001]

The strongest point of this film is the writing. It's the first Paul Schrader script ever to be filmed, written with his brother Leonard (who also worked with Paul on Blue Collar & Mishima) and Robert Towne (Chinatown, Marathon Man, Bonnie & Clyde). It seems we have the best of both Schrader's here; Leonard really understands the Japanese culture and Paul is a very cerebral and thematic writer who almost always raises a number of interesting issues.

The film, which is very respectful of it's foreign culture and tries to be as true as possible to it, first and foremost shows the differences between American and Japanese culture. However, there are so many themes in this movie though that it becomes tiresome to list them. The key ones include honor, loyalty, burden, duty, friendship, love, loss, obligation, and the differences between the men of pre and post war Japan.

Although Robert Mitchum was approaching 60 when made the film, he still possessed enough of his trademark grace to be credible enough against much younger men in the action scenes. He always exudes so much casualness and weariness, but his work here shows he was obviously fired up by the material.

The other standout actor is Ken Takakura. He plays an honorable man that everyone respects, but his honor and old ways also often make him intolerable to anyone around him. He hides the deep wounds of his character behind his stone face, but that doesn't in any way prevent him from conveys that he's a miserable man from another age who lives by his code but not for anything. As he's the native that used to be in the Yakuza and Mitchum is the gaijin that doesn't have to follow their honor system (although as the movie progresses, he subscribes to their codes and honor system more and more), Takakura gets to do all the skilled swordplay. His fighting won't thrill those who want a lot of stunts, but is great if you enjoy the psychology and strategy of the craft.

The film is it has a drab, low budget kind of look, mainly as a way to maintain the mood and tone of the piece. Some of the scenes really bring the material to life, particularly through some excellent camera work, but sometimes the look is indifferent and the soundtrack seems to be trying too hard. Aside from staying true to the material and getting strong performances, I wouldn't say that Sydney Pollack has done a great job here. This is not the kind of movie you watch if you are looking for John Woo action though, and for the most part the flaws are overshadowed by the strength of the script and performances. 8/10

The Phantom of the Opera (1998)

Not in the class with 1987's Opera, but better than it gets credit for

[9 April 2001]

This is not a remake; it's a reconceptualization. Thus, it should be expected to be true to the original only where the writers, Gerard Brach and Dario Argento, see fit. Many people are up in arms that the phantom's face isn't disfigured, but that is not the problem. The problem is Dario replaces the disfigurement with a raised by rats story, yet we get a Richard Gere type of suave, supposedly poetic phantom instead of an uneducated Christopher Lambert in Greystoke. What makes this worse is that a totally literate phantom still has almost no chance to utter any decent dialogue.

Virtually the entire movie takes place within the opera house, but this is in no way limiting or constricting to the look of the film because this is Dario Argento we are talking about. Argento creates a bizarre underworld in the depths of the opera house that is original, but at the same time evokes memories of Jeunet & Caro's City Of The Lost Children and Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. Dario's pays great attention to detail when it comes to the look he wants, but seemingly could care less whether the set is plausible in the real world. This is Dario's world; accept it or watch boring, visually stunted, formulaic directors rehash bad scripts in a conventional manner.

The movie often succeeds in being darkly comedic, and the characters are only meant to be viewed in the sense of what the represent in the real world. This is why the outside world isn't normal the two times we see it. Julie Taymor's ancient Rome is the only one that had cars and video games, but that doesn't stop most people from thinking Titus is a good flick. Both are bold visionary movies that are not trying to be realistic. You can make a valid argument that certain unrealistic aspects don't add anything to the movie and/or simply dislike them, but things like electricity in the opera house were deliberate decisions that intentionally make it implausible in the sense of the real world.

The weakness of the movie, as usual, lies in the script. The most annoying aspect is that Sands has the special powers at the outset, but they mysteriously disappear when he needs them most as if they were provided by the Witchblade. The dialogue is definitely worse than the usual English as a second language stuff we get from Dario. The secondary characters are used well though, societal parodies. Some of the funniest work Dario has even done comes when he mocks the vulgarity of the opera society. The main characters don't provide chuckles or really elicit our love or contempt; it's hard not to be ambivalent toward them. The leading men seem to chase Asia because they become addicted to her at first site. Asia essentially professes to have no concept of love, so her feelings toward them are mostly based on their last action. Instinct vs. duality is a worthwhile concept, but unfortunately the characters only seem drawn to each other because they are supposed to be. It eventually clicks, but not until the final segment of the film.

The strength of Argento's movie, as always, is the look. Some aspects were a little below his own top standard, but this was not the typical Dario movie. The improvements in sets, staging, and costuming help balance off the areas that are obviously going to be weaker given the type of movie. He successfully branched out with the sex related scenes, particularly where the men are haunted by their desire for Asia. Scenes like these gave it the art house feel that made up for it lacking the haunted house feel Dario wasn't going for.

I don't see where the movie would have looked any better with an overbloated American budget. The only thing lacking visually is the innovation we used to get from Dario. There aren't any shots/scenes that really stick out in terms of being shockingly different or original. The tongue being bitten out was the gory highlight, but that would normally be no better than the 4th part you'd mention. The gore is mainly close-ups. Argento & Stivaletti do them better than anyone, but they've overused the grinding/biting/ripping stuff here.

The film doesn't have the edge or create the suspense Dario's used to. That's mostly purposeful because I don't believe Dario intended to make a horror film. Sands is the cartoon avenger who kills off grotesque characters and sinners that we should only feel contempt for, so why should we be worried whether they get decapitated? That's why rats were a great choice of animal to raise Sands. They aren't fluffy little kittens that everyone supposedly likes and can't stand to see harmed; they are vermin. The people who try to steal from the phantom, sin in his presence (note that he saves the little girl, who then returns and tells the tale only to get slapped by an adult), or outright harm `his family' are considered lower than vermin. Of course, no one films animals and insects better than Argento's crew. Sometimes he gets better `performances' out of them than from humans.

Sands & Asia do a very good job considering the extremely limited material. Sands is able to exude the right amount of confidence by being much lower key than usual. Unfortunately, there is not credible material to give him a chance to be scarred inwardly; he just seems too content. Asia is active enough with her body to get over the bad dialogue, but she sometimes looks ridiculous `singing' and the audio dub during these scenes is occasionally atrocious.

The movie certainly has many problems and doesn't hold a candle to Opera. That said, I'd still rather watch this than most films because it offers a unique visual experience that very few directors have the ability and the balls to provide. 6/10

Career Opportunities (1991)

Should Have Been Excellent

[9 April 2001]

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** The first hour of this movie is so enjoyable. Frank Whaley, who also ruled in Swimming With Sharks, is hilarious as the loser who constantly makes up stories to try to make people believe he's important and actually has a life. What makes it work is that Whaley is sharp and a quick thinker, so he's successful to a point before it all comes crumbling down. The best example of this is the classic scene where he tries to get a high profile job at Target from John Candy. It's even better than the scene in Trainspotting where the junkie shoots up before he goes for the job interview (of course, as a whole that's a much better film). When it backfires and he has to settle for the prestigious job of overnight janitor, William Forsythe has him wearing the dirty uniform of the loser who previously held that position, Darrell, promising that he'll give him a new name patch if it by some chance works out.

In contrast to Whaley, who has been crapped on all his life, we have Jennifer Connelly as the woman who seemingly has it all. She's the most beautiful woman in this town, or any other for that matter, and she's filthy rich. What people don't know though is that High school was the highlight of her life, and now she's going through life aimlessly under the dictation of her abusive, controlling father. She occasionally has the guts to do something to get back at him. For instance, the great scene where her father tries to introduce her to his business associates so she takes her coat off in a seductive manner, goes over and kisses one on the lips, and then when the other puckers up expecting the highlight of his life, she offers him a handshake instead. The film really goes out of it's way to emphasize how gorgeous she is, but she follows up her strong performance in The Hot Spot by once again proving she's a lot more than just a pretty face. It's not a role that requires great depth or range, but even when she's saying or doing the opposite she has the grace and ability to convey what she wants without appearing to try. Also, although this is more something she's honed as the years have gone on, there's always an added feel to her dialogue because of her physical acting (something that seems to only be mentioned when done by the crooked nose types) and her paused delivery.

The bulk of the movie takes place in Target, with the stores goods being exploited for all the fun and silliness they are worth. Whaley is locked in because no first nighter gets a key, and apparently nobody checked the dressing rooms, where Connelly fell asleep debating whether she should get caught shoplifting to piss her dad off. They exchange a lot of great and extremely well delivered dialogue, with Connelly admitting how miserable her life is and backing Whaley into enough corners that he has to do the same. This part moves way too fast. Connelly went to school with Whaley her whole life, but never gave him the time of day since she was in and he wasn't. Within a few hours, knowing what any guy would most want to do with her, she still offers to grant him any wish to make up for how badly she's treated him over the years. Not only that, she's willing to use her $52,000 that she for some reason carries around in her purse so they can go away and start a new life together. Their chemistry is good and I realize everything had to happen before the store was unlocked the next morning, but the rest of the movie should have been devoted to getting to the point where them falling in love and going away together was `believable.' Unfortunately, the whole mood and tone of the movie changes for the very worst when the Mulroney brothers show up to rob the store.

The Mulroneys aren't as bumbling as the crooks in Home Alone, but there's nothing remotely funny about them and their presence in the movie is totally unnecessary. Whaley & Connelly try to outsmart them, but the outcome is never in doubt since the brothers are portrayed as the epitome of village idiots. Part of me loves the scene where Connelly rides the rocking horse to seduce Dermot, but this is the highlight of the whole portion and it still really added nothing to the movie. This whole section dumps the movie down with silly bumbling idiot and implied PG-13 sex gags. It not only provides far fewer laughs and removes the sweetness and cuteness of the story, but it fails to advance the plot in any way. It's such nonsense that the movie would actually be better if there were 20 minutes of commercials after the first hour and then they came back for the last few minutes.

The movie is not believable, but it doesn't try to be. Its purpose is to give hope to people who, whether they'll admit it or not, aren't in a good situation. It succeeds in doing this, and provides a lot of laughs along the way. It's probably better upon subsequent viewings because the comedy isn't based on jokes that are only funny once and you've already been so outraged by the Mulroney section that you either fast forward, turn the channel, or hang in there just to drool over Jennifer. Add this to the list of films that should have been great, but were undermined by the nonsensical nature of part of the script. 6/10

Felicia's Journey (1999)

Another Great Job By Egoyan

[7 April 2001]

Egoyan's presentation really sets the mood for the film. The music is particularly effective, and the look has a certain ominous feel even in the scenes where characters would normally be at peace with nature.

This movie was so riveting and engrossing because it kept building up by revealing more about the mysterious main characters. It goes about doing this in a manner that makes the film more interesting by opening up possibilities instead of closing them. As we get more of an idea of who these people are, the tension mounts because we can see the movie is leading to a major disaster, but we aren't sure what and when.

The flashbacks and transitions between the two main characters are so effective. The flashbacks slowly reveal what caused the characters current traumatized state (their main similarity is it's one parent, but they don't know of this similarity), while the transitions emphasize comparisons between the two.

Hoskins performance is really the key because he has most of the lines. He does an exceptional job, changing a little bit with each revelation about his character. By the end of the story, he's nothing like the guy that you thought he was at the very beginning, but the changes are totally credible. Although I mentioned he has most of the lines, the most impressive thing about his performance is the believability of the emotions he's portraying throughout this dialogue because his character is one that generally doesn't say what he's really thinking and feeling. On some occasions, his intense feeling is really obvious. In a lot of others though, it's buried beneath the skin as the point is the topic of conversation or the other persons actions have caused something to stew inside of him but his character is trying his best not to boil over.

Cassidy is highly impressive because she's able to convey the all the emotions without many lines, especially since all her lines are purposely delivered with the same unassuming nature and low key tone. As is one of the trademarks of characters in Egoyan's movies, she also has a dualism in her actions and words where we kind of believe more toward the opposite is actually true. We aren't really sure, but we can see that something is beneath the surface. It's hidden just enough so that the person she's with doesn't see it. Depth, subtlety, and what lies beneath are definitely the strengths of this movie and Egoyan's cinema in general.

The movie really stands out because you could see how easily it would have been another boring and predictable thriller had it been made in Hollywood. Hoskins would have been much more narrowly defined so he could be a clear-cut villain. The narrative would have been dumbed down and told in a more conventional style. The director would feel he had to insert some happy or comical moments that would only water down the intensity and weaken the portrayals of these characters. The temptation to totally leave the psychological level and have Hoskins chase Cassidy around his house with a sharp object at the end would have been too great. Luckily, it wasn't made in the land of the rehash, so it was a somewhat challenging movie that stayed true to its roots from start to finish.

Aside from leaving Canada, I don't see why people think this is so different from Egoyan's other famous films, Exotica & The Sweet Hereafter. The core ideas, style, and presentation are all here. Like those other two, this is an excellent film that's one of the years 10 best. 9/10

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)

The Most Powerful & Terrifying Serial Killer Movie Ever Made

[7 March 2001]

A harrowing account of a serial killer that kills to pass the time. This movie has no budget (supposedly $100,000) and no names (although Rooker went on to become a star), but that turned out to be kind of a good thing. There's no glitz or glamour here, no sensationalizing. It's just pure evil that McNaughton was able to make it seem real. That's what makes it so scary, the perverted heartlessness of it all. People die because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time, but it's not because of the "everyday dangers of life," it's because Henry decides that someone being nice to him or doing him a favor is going to die. The pinnacle of this is when Henry & Ottis fake car trouble so they can shoot the first person that stops to give them a hand.

The story is purposely one-dimensional; there is no need to muttle a story presented from the point of view of the killer who does not fear (or probably consider) reprimand by including a police investigation. There are really only 3 characters, Henry, Henry's cellmate turned roommate Ottis, and Ottis' sister Becky, who moves in with them after her marriage goes awry.

Becky likes Henry, but we really don't know why. It has been explained that she's fascinated in him killing his mother, but she obviously liked him before she found that out.

Ottis is a perverted loser that doesn't really have a mind of his own. He entertains himself by fantasizing over every woman he sees, even his own blood, but really is only happy if he can torment them. Although he's killed before, he's not the type of person that would have had the "brilliant idea" to take it one step further and kill people for `entertainment.' When Henry makes him an accomplice, it's not hard for Henry to convince him that killing is the thing to do.

Henry is a very complicated character. He seems like one of those people that could have been a good person, but he was ruined by his whore mother who would make him watch her turn tricks in their house even when his father was home. He's incredibly intense, unforgiving, and incapable of loving or being loved. That said, he isn't such a bad guy when he's not killing; he is pretty quiet and mainly keeps to himself. He certainly wouldn't seem like someone that was going to be that hard to coexist with until he killed you. He always sticks up for Becky when Ottis is having fun at her expense, so he's not totally oblivious of right and wrong. He has no remorse for what he does though, and basically does things because he can. He seems to be the way he is because his emotions are locked up inside him, only coming to the surface when he kills.

Henry & Ottis are not the meticulous serial killers we usually see in movies that know how to cover their trail so the police can't find them. They aren't smart enough to be, but they also have no conscious and no worries. Henry will snap a woman's neck, leave her on the side of the road, and never think about her again. He doesn't believe that he can be caught unless he kills to many people in the same area or uses the same gun more than once. As far as we know, the police aren't after him yet. There essentially no scenes that don't involve the three that live together. This works because it makes the actions of Henry and Ottis, who now spends his time when Becky isn't around (since she doesn't know they are going out murdering people) watching their violent murder of a family over and over again in slow motion, much more horrifying.

*spoiler*

The ending is perfect because there is no conclusion to this story. This character will go about business until he dies or is locked up, but either would introduce the element of justice. Of course, the real Henry was eventually caught and it's a damn good thing, but having that happen here would remove so much of the power by suddenly shifting the mood 180 degrees. This story is totally about Henry's lifeless and orderless world, so we cannot be left with even a glimmer of that hope.

This isn't meant for family viewing, but if you are going to watch a horror movie, this is one to check out because of its uniquely realistic presentation and an awesome performance by Michael Rooker. If any movie is scary, it's this one. It doesn't use cheap fake outs to generate a reaction, but nothing is more terrifying than considering that no matter where you are or how good your intentions are, a Henry could pop up and end you. It's horror in the truest sense of the word! 9/10

Santa Sangre (1989)

Incredibly unique, probably the best modern horror flick not directed by Dario Argento

[7 March 2001]

An artistic masterpiece. This movie is probably unlike any that's ever been made, both for the look and story (which actually spans many genres). It presents such a bizarre spectacle of visuals, which are incredible in their own right, but what truly makes them stand is there's so much emotion and tension in/created by them. It's really hard to describe this movie, maybe I just need to say it's an experience and leave it at that. Certainly it's totally engrossing and you'll react to what you are seeing one way or another. There's not a lot of talking (especially since a key character is a mute), but there doesn't need to be because the visuals are so atmospheric and powerful that they say it all. Alejandro Jodorowsky did an awesome job here. Rarely do you see such attention to detail. There's hardly a few wasted frame, and everything included in the director's version, no matter how unconventional, grotesque, or "explicit," needs to be there (so, as always, avoid chastized versions). The film is certainly not for everyone (not for adults with no taste that want more regurgitated happy Hollywood movies or people that aren't mature enough for unrated movies), but it's an experience that will stay with you for years. Recently, The (brainless) Cell seems to have lifted from Santa Sangre, but it had the visual aspect (in portions) without doing much of anything with them or the rest of the movie, so it doesn't hold a candle to this classic. 10/10

Home Movies (1979)

A different side of De Palma

[26 January 2001]

This film is totally unlike anything I've ever seen from De Palma. It's a dysfunctional family comedy filmed with purposely shoddy production to get over the premise that we are really watching a home movie shot by the main character.

Kirk Douglas plays The Maestro, a film instructor who starts his new class off by showing his recent failure to make Keith Gordon the star of his own movie. Gordon is one of those people who exist without anyone really knowing it. He doesn't appear to have any friends and his family doesn't give him the time of day. His father (the late Vincent Gardenia) is a quack doctor who cheats on his wife with his nurse (and probably his female patients). His mother (Mary Davenport) is too concerned about this, continually wavering on whether to divorce him or accept all the blame for not being able to satisfy him. The rest of the time, she's interested in what her good son that she's so proud of even though she doesn't understand him in the least is up to. Gerrit Graham is an elitist who essentially lives and teaches naturalism and sexism at Now College. He'd rather plant his seed in the ground than in Nancy Allen, but since it's not possible for man to do that yet, he decides he'll marry her if he can convert her to his ways. Allen is an interesting choice for him to try to convert because she's a whore who drinks, smokes, and eats evil fast food. She totally worships him so she attempts to give it all up for a life with him that's, all things considered, less of a life than she had before because a woman in his world essentially can't do anything.

Since Gordon's life is an utter bore, Douglas gets him to film things that the average Joe would pay to see. Thus, Gordon decides to try to catch his father in the act to help his mom get the divorce and to steal Allen away from his brother, who has always been the center of attention and one that won in the past, by convincing her that she's fine as she is.

The movie is absurd, but generally in a way that's humorous without going overboard. It's definitely somewhat farcical in its look at filmmaking by the inexperienced and this quirky family.

Graham does an excellent job of playing his wacky character that considers himself to be of the utmost knowledge, but can't convey his points in a way where anyone understands them (he explains with lines like those who know know). What makes it even funnier is that he's held in such high regard, yet his disciples consist of about 5 rejects that just pretend to understand and buy into his philosophies to his tirades and/or being verbally berated.

Allen has a tougher role than in her other films with De Palma, as she tries to be a good girl but she's constantly being tempted, so she gets to have some interesting personality shifts. She's been in better films, but this is the one where she really stands out as someone that could really act.

The thing with the style is De Palma seems to waver between whether he wants us to believe it's all a home movie or not. At some points we see Gordon going under cover in a Soul Man kind of outfit to spy on his father, but most of the time it's obvious that Gordon isn't filming and, based on the camera angles, not believable that anyone else could be without being seen. To make things more bizarre, Douglas just appears out of nowhere, even popping up in a tree at one point while Gordon is failing to catch his dad in action. The only true breaks in the style are a few dreamy shots of Allen that make her look really beautiful, perhaps so the filmmakers in the film can be described as hacks that luck into a nice scene once every couple of days.

In terms of style, the animation opening is what steals the show. Not that the animations are technical in any way, but it sets up the whole movie by introducing all the characters and the caricatures of them are quite humorous.

It seems like De Palma was just having fun with this one. If you take this at face value than it's easy to rank on because it's got its share of implausibilities. If you don't focus on who is filming the movie then it's solid because the actions of the characters are believable (considering what the characters are like) and the progression is logical. As a whole it's a mess, but an enjoyable one that was years ahead of its time. It's out there, but if you like movies with weird families such as Some Girls and didn't find the production of Blair Witch to be a detriment then this is another to check out. I'm glad this isn't De Palma's regular style because we would have been robbed of some great, highly stylish films, but as a one-time experiment it's successful enough and a cool kind of different. I think most people would like his far more conventional comedy Wise Guys better, but I found this story far more humorous and a lot less goofy. 7/10

Raising Cain (1992)

Not close to De Palma's best, but still worthwhile

[22 January 2001]

De Palma tried to return to his vintage style used in the highly underrated Dressed To Kill & Blowout, but this was not nearly as successful. The style was as excellent as you'd expect, telling much of the story with the camera and editing rather than the words. There were two main problems though. First, little was scripted to make you care about the `heros' Davidovich & to a lesser extent Bauer, and their flat performances didn't help things any. Secondly, the roundabout style was more repeating things you already knew if you know how to watch a movie and were paying attention, rather than furthering the plot or creating some much needed suspense. What was annoying is the one thing that they didn't go back and explain, the identity of the body in the sunken car, was the only point in the whole movie that in my estimation could have been confusing (I'm pretty sure it was the mother from the opening).

The strength of the movie, even more so than the patented De Palma flick brilliant cinematography and cool production techniques, was the multifaceted performance of John Lithgow. He shows tremendous range here playing each totally different role to perfection.

This movie was both enjoyable and frustrating. If you appreciate De Palma, and why wouldn't you unless you've only seen Snake Eyes, I can't see how you can think it's a below average film. At the same time, I can see where in the past the director would have done things different that would have improved the overall quality. It just seemed like De Palma should have had more material and a stronger ending before beginning production because even at just over 1 1/2hr it seems too long, and thus is harping on or forcing material rather than properly setting it up and then `shocking us' with it. To me this is similar to Dario Argento's Phenomena. Although Phenomena is clearly a notch or two better, it's basically a case where an awesome director that's not having a good movie by their standards still makes a film that most other directors can't or rarely exceed. The `problem' is the fans of the director expect a great film every time, so a film by them that's merely good often winds up being treated like toilet paper. 6/10

Georgia (1995)

Best performance by best actress

[21 January 2001]

Leigh is the best actress of the modern (color) era, and this is her best performance (exceeding the little seen gem Last Exit From Brooklyn) Aside from taking such a wide range of diverse and incredibly difficult parts (some parts could be played easily, but only if the goal wasn't for the performance to be worth mentioning), what really separates her is that she has no on screen ego. She does not care what depth she has to sink to or how unflattering she'll come across, after all it's never her, always the character she's portraying. She'll always research that character until she can become them on the screen, which is why her performances are so painstaking realistic and believable. She never wins any major awards because `making people happy' always takes precedent over what should be important, which is the believability, accuracy, realness, the generally the way they come to life.

This is not a movie where `a lot of things happen.' In fact, it's tempting to say that `not much happens,' but either would be totally missing the point because it's a character and relationship study about a main character that is incapable of getting things together, succeeding, and healing the wounds she's caused on those around her. It's also about a sister that tries her hardest to deal with this character. She can only take so much, but she can't bring herself to force her sister out of her life.

As she always does when she's in the lead role, Leigh takes the movie on her back and gives a totally engrossing, multidimensional performance. A performance that should make you feel different things about her character at different times even though it's always obvious that Sadie is a no-hoper.

Calling Sadie unlikable is misses the point to some extent because the characters and relationships in this movie are all so complex. Leigh's mother Barbara Turner wrote this story in a way that none of the relationships would be black and white. Sadie is the center of virtually every scene and wears her emotions on her shoulder, but with everyone else there's the spoken and the unspoken. Director Ulu Grosbard has left enough room for the viewer to interpret how everyone really feels toward Leigh.

Sadie is frustrating in the sense that no matter how much people go out of their way to help her, it's useless. Sadie is the person that will always make herself the center of attention, and will suck everyone around her dry. This character is an incredibly flawed person, but the thing is she holds that certain power over people where she's so real, so emotional, and so interesting in addition to being so f***ed up that one way or another people are drawn to her. This is where Leigh's talent really comes to the forefront because she makes the character so interesting that you can see why, as hopeless as she is, the people around Sadie can't help but accept her with her flaws and try to help her. Sure, at some point most of them reach their limit, but even when they do you can see it's tearing them up inside. Aside from her sister Georgia (Winningham), no one really has the guts to confront her on why they have to get away from her, or even how awful her singing is and how out of hand her substance abuse is.

Winningham's performance as the polar opposite sister is so impressive and worthy of supporting awards. She has the restraint and ability to be able to convey the emotions while staying in the background. That's the only way her character could credibly function because as the opposite of Leigh, she's the quiet, unassuming one that has her life totally together (aside from Leigh turning up when she's desperate and pulling her down). Even though she isn't passionate about her profession and doesn't care about fame and fortune, she is the highly successful singer because she's talented and doesn't do anything (aside from perhaps putting Leigh on stage) that would harm her career. Since she's got the dough, she's giving but look for the subtle falseness in the generosity.

The most telling portion of the movie is when she puts Leigh on stage for one song at an AIDS benefit concert, and Leigh does the longest, most emotional rendition of Van Morrison's `Take Me Back.' The problem is the same as always, she's plastered, no one responds to her bizarre pre-song comments, and she sings as bad as anyone can possibly sing without sounding like they are just trying to sound awful. This song seems to go on forever, so Winningham finally reaches the point of embarrassment (and perhaps disgust) where she comes back on stage and makes it a duet so she can `save' her sister and end this debacle. Due to the actresses, a horrible song has never been so amazing to sit through. Of course, Sadie thinks that passion and living the music is what makes for an exceptional performance, so her voice (if she even notices it sucks) isn't important because her show (and her whole life for that matter) is essentially a display of pain open to the public. In the car after Georgia's show is over, Sadie has to ask her husband Axel (Max Perlich), Georgia's husband Jake (Ted Levine), and Georgia `was I great or was I great?' Perlich & Levine, who don't get a tremendous amount of screen time but still offer strong support, agree she was great (well, Levine says she was something so again it's open for interpretation, but to Leigh it's an agreement), but Winningham doesn't want to say anything. After being prodded, she finally can't hold back her real feelings anymore, although she still says it in the `is this what you want to here' way. The true irony of the scene is that throughout the movie, and especially when Sadie got Georgia to come up and sing a duet with her at one of her performances before a few drunks by putting Georgia on the spot, Sadie had always tried to outdo Georgia and steal her thunder. That's the point of the title, although Sadie is the character that gets all the attention and thus screen time, everything she does always comes back to her sister Georgia.

*Spoiler alert*

This is a movie that doesn't have a definitive beginning and ending point. By that I mean, it's obvious that the events were going on long before we started seeing them and they'll continue long after we've left them. That's why the ending of this movie is so perfect. There's none of that it has to be happy and uplifting crap to take away so much of the power of what came before it. There's what we already knew followed by one line from Sadie that shows a small positive change in her character, but at the same time does not lead you to believe that she's poised for either a slow or sudden spiral in either direction. These sisters are who they are.

This may not be a movie that you'll think is one of the greatest of all-time, but Leigh's performance and the basis of the movie itself should stick with you for a long time. 9/10.

Royal Deceit (1994)

Not even worth 20 Cents

[21 January 2001]

There was a 5 catalog titles for a dollar special, but the selection was terrible and I couldn't find a 5th title I hadn't seen that looked watchable. Finally, I stumbled across this movie. I'd never heard of it, but considering The Usual Suspects, Miller's Crossing, & The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, & Her Lover are some of my favorite movies, and Bale is also talented, I figured this should be a winner. Big mistake!

The writing was all around horrible. Generic 4th grade script where some things happened, but you could see them coming a mile away and even if you couldn't you still weren't given any reason to care. The movie was half over before Bale was sent off and it became remotely interesting. Bale did a great job considering he had nothing to work with, but that was the only positive of the movie. Byrne gave his usual professional performance, but the weakness in the scripting of his lines undermined it. Mirren tried, but her only scenes that could have had potential were in the first half when there was no emotion to be found anywhere else, so she almost seemed insincere in trying to bring some. Kate Beckinsale also made an appearance, but her part was basically just smiling at Bale, who quickly married her. Aside from the script, the movie was also filmed with all the style of the various Saturday WPIX TV series. 2/10

The Boost (1988)

Woods at his finest

[3 March 1999]

Another great performance by Woods, first playing his typical schemer who this time gets a lucky break to go to LA and be respectable and even rich. He's now a fast-talking real estate salesman who still has no self esteem, but for the first time has the money to buy the look that can kind of hide it. Unfortunately, the paper reports the tax laws might be changed, so the incredibly profitable business of selling real estate so people can get a tax exemption dries up overnight. Woods is left with no money because he's p****d it away on planes and other luxuries. Woods and then his wife Sean Young become druggies and their life continually spirals down until it reaches rock bottom with disillusion, no future, and no life beyond the drugs. They are left with nothing, but each other, except Woods always knew she was too good for him, so she is the final domino in his now sad life that's left to fall. Woods is the best at making you think he could crack at any moment. He's always trying to get ahead, but at the same time you know he's always on the verge of snapping and totally screwing his life up. The portrayal of Woods & Young's drug addiction is dark and unsettling, but that makes it so much more convincing.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation (1994)

A 1 is way too good, this would be well in the negatives

[23 October 1998]

Where do you begin when a movie is this incredibly awful? This script was so incoherent that to say it was written by an animal would be an insult to the intelligence of whatever animal you chose to pick on. Nothing about this movie made any sense or went anywhere. It was so bad that they didn't even bother trying to offer even the slightest bit of an explanation so the movie would have some semblance of closure. It began, bizarre things happened for reasons I doubt even the writer could explain, then it ended, perhaps because they couldn't afford any more film or something. You know things are beyond awful when one of the big "highlights" of the movie is that the music by some no name band sounded half decent in the background. McConaughey is a very good actor. He seemed Godlike here perhaps because he was truly excellent or perhaps because everything else was so awful that a good performance would seem worthy of one of those bogus awards that never go to the right people. Be smart and don't subject yourself to this cruel and incredibly unusual punishment.

The Negotiator (1998)

Jackson, Spacey, & Gray turn a movie that could easily have been poor into a great, extremely tense and riveting thriller

[11 October 1998]

The Negotiator works because it had the right director and leads to pull it off. With a weak director, two poor leads like Reeves and Gere for their drawing power, and a bunch of rolled out pyro this would have been an * movie. The weakness of the movie is the setup is rather cookie cutter, and the movie is somewhat cliche, but it is excellent from the moment Spacey's character is introduced. Jackson and Spacey are tremendous as always though. This movie doesn't sell out to special effects. It's a movie where the two leads will clearly make or break it, and with Jackson and Spacey it obviously was the latter. They have great chemistry together, and allow the fact that the language of the negotiators goes beyond words to really work. The movie itself is extremely riveting with unrelenting tension. A strength of the movie is that Gray always moves forward instead of sitting on a point to make it stand out. The reason this is important is that every notable cop has at least one scene where they look like they could be in on it. This isn't a cheasy process of elimination movie. You may know some of the people who are in on it, but you aren't sure who stands where until the very end. Thus there can be no strong heels, but it doesn't fall into the trap of making Jackson a very strong face. Gray makes you care about several characters,even ones you wouldn't expect to care about.

The film is somewhat reminiscent of Die Hard, but it moves better and obviously has a superior lead, who gives a great performance.