Reviews

48 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
Bread and Wine
1 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The first time through, you think you've seen Places In The Heart before, this meager drama of pathos set in a simpler time. Sure, it's acted by a prestigious ensemble. And yes, the story it tells is nothing if not respectable. But even the title is generic and sentimental, like any number of Hallmark TV movies. Sally Field's acceptance speech for her (deserved) Oscar win is better remembered today than the movie itself.

At its most powerful, film juxtaposes images to create ideas in the mind of the audience. By this measure, the last shot of Places In The Heart is among the most transformative in all of movies. Taken out of context, it has no significance, and yet is so startling and unexpected —while at the same time so gentle and so much in keeping with all that's come before it— that it might first be confusing. It's one of the greatest shots in movies, because it re-contextualizes all that comes before it.

What writer-director Robert Benton aims at and finally accomplishes in Places In The Heart is so beautiful that the movie transcends its origins as a period piece to become a picture of nothing less than the kingdom of heaven.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
They Don't Make Them Like They Used To
19 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Joan Crawford was made for movies. There's something so extreme, so garish about her face that it almost seems right when punishment is inflicted on her.

And what manners of misfortune visit her as Mildred Pierce! There's more misery packed into its 109 minutes than you'll find in a week's worth of Lifetime weepers.

Yes, this is the kind of movie where a character coughs three times and then two scenes later dies of pneumonia. Lots happens in Mildred Pierce, but it remains dramatically inert; most scenes consist of two characters talking about another.

Talk, talk, talk. The people in Mildred Pierce tell each other what they're going to do (or what they've just done) and make pronouncements about themselves at every opportunity. It's a wonder any of them can stand each other for five minutes, much less the years the story covers.

I understand that James M. Cain, who also gave us Double Indemnity and The Postman Always Rings Twice, considered his novel a departure from his usual fare. But this exposition-filled adaptation gussies up what's fundamentally a straightforward women's drama with seedy, sordid intrigue and a whodunit.

You can call Mildred Pierce a film noir, but that doesn't make it one. It's *shot* like noir, but in every other respect is a standard melodrama. Michael Curtiz, who just three years before had delivered all-time classics Casablanca and Yankee Doodle Dandy, no doubt made the movie he wanted to. It just doesn't stand the test of time. What heralded contemporary movies will play, 60 years from now, like this Mildred Pierce does?

Two other demerits for Mildred Pierce:

Its racist, comic-relief treatment of Butterfly McQueen- at one point, we're even supposed to believe that she doesn't know how to answer a telephone! The actress, well-known by 1945 for her performance in Gone With The Wind, goes uncredited; a slight at the time, Mildred Pierce is so now unintentionally funny that this omission seems almost merciful.

And the second black mark is Crawford's rep as Mommie Dearest. Since the movie hinges on the inherent awfulness of Mildred's daughter and yet can assign neither blame nor credit to Mildred's parenting, it's almost impossible for the knowing viewer not to invoke Ms. Crawford's alter ego. (No wire hangers here, though.)
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Class (2008)
6/10
Incomplete
10 September 2009
(Full disclosure: I have an M.A. in Education and spent the better part of five school years substitute-teaching. Not that I feel superior to Mr. Bégaudeau- I'm not in the classroom anymore, either.)

The Class is an admirable and bracing film, a welcome antidote to the typical, facile-inspirational classroom/educational Hollywood flick. The actors- nearly all nonprofessionals -are engaging and refreshing, the screenplay (what there is) does not build toward dramatic reversals and heart-rendering emotion. It is the most realistic film about school that I have seen.

In the end, though, it remains just a movie. And that's unfortunate, because the reactions it provokes are valuable and overdue.

I can't call the French educational system into question. But I would caution against drawing too many parallels between this film and U.S. public education. Among the numerous problems with this classroom, and the school, as depicted in the movie:

1. Classroom management. There appears to be almost none; the teacher frequently loses control of the class. This would be understandable, and even forgivable, from a first-year teacher. But a fourth-year, as this one is supposed to be? Inexcusable, and not credible.

2. Services. What is a reasonable reaction for the viewer to have regarding the mother who cannot speak French? That it's just 'too bad'? Viewers might be surprised to learn that schools go out of their way to accommodate parents, in cases like this one to procure interpreters. In many if not all places, they are in fact required to, by law.

3. Leadership and structure. I'll limit it to this one aspect: How very democratic of a school to include students in the evaluation process. And how very stupid. No professional, no administration could expect this to be fruitful.

4. Curriculum and method. If this is what and how they are teaching, the French language deserves to die. (While I do know English teachers here in the U.S. who insist on the part-and-participle teaching of grammar, I do not know any who are successful because of it.) Furthermore, any teacher who is combative and confrontational as this one is should be removed from the classroom.

The movie does not seem to understand, or to be pointed enough to indicate, the fundamental ways in which this school fails its students. (And no, it is not students who are the problem.)

Instead of daring to admit this, the movie makes a virtue of its impartiality. This may make it formally exceptional and artistically 'brave', but as a supposedly realistic depiction of a crucial social institution it offers us little of use.

What The Class does, finally, is feed into the perception that public schools are lost causes, hopeless quagmires that do not reward care or effort. The truth is that sound methods, strong leadership and careful planning can result- regardless of socioeconomic or geographic characteristics -in improved and excellent education in public schools.

As difficult to truthfully depict as that may be, and as unbelievable as viewers might find it, that is a movie that would truly be revolutionary.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Petulia (1968)
9/10
what is it about Petulia?
3 September 2008
What, exactly, makes Petulia such a great movie?

Is it the ravishing Julie Christie, who never seemed more appropriately out-of-place? The kismet-touched production, which was somehow at Haight-Ashbury at the right time? Maybe it's the editing, the fractured juxtaposition of images that both disorients and clarifies, making it more than the sum of its parts? The images by Nicholas Roeg, the fluent guidance of Richard Lester?

What about the pitch-perfect supporting cast— Shirley Knight, Joseph Cotten, Richard Chamberlain (!), even Austin Pendleton, Howard Hesseman, and Rene Aberjonois (the last mysteriously uncredited on the IMDb)? Certainly, the haunting John Barry theme doesn't hurt. And the great George C. Scott, so far removed from the pyrotechnics of a General Turgidson or Patton, anchors it all with the kind of unshowy performance that most so-called great actors never get around to giving.

It's all these, and more. Most of all, for me it's the profound and true sadness it evokes, its humor which does anything but lighten or elevate— the spiritual emptiness to which Petulia testifies. 40 years later, few movies have captured the spirit of contemporary life so well. It's terribly pertinent. And yet, Petulia is (like the character herself!) a paradox— so very much of its time, as well, that it seems caught between two worlds. Time is rarely this kind to a movie, but this one is anything but a relic, much less an exercise in nostalgia.

Life is full of regret, both for things we've done, and things we've not done. The older I get, the more I love Petulia.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wanted (2008)
3/10
who's pathetic and ordinary?
26 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Not only do the elemental, natural laws benefit us physically, they also benefit us dramatically: when a character jumps from a skyscraper, for instance, we know that he must fall. If the rules suddenly don't apply, we can't be surprised and delighted by the bending of them, because there are no rules to be bent. In ways both literal and figurative, the laws of nature keep our feet on the ground.

Sometimes, as in The Matrix, the rules are cleverly rewritten. In contemporary action films, they're more often just ignored. I'm as willing to suspend my disbelief as the next moviegoer, but a few too many jumps from one skyscraper to another and I can bring myself to do little more than shrug. If these assassins can perform such feats of magic, why are they limited to knives and bullets?

I can hear its defenders: "It's only eye-candy." If only. When the main character looks at the camera and tells me I'm a worthless human being, I take exception, and so should you. This is no Tyler Durden inside an everyman, it's a vapid action movie lecturing me about the purpose of my life. Rarely has a movie so explicitly held its audience in contempt.

I'd be angrier if I thought Wanted had a clear, cogent thought in its head. Since it is dedicated only to the aesthetic of Cool, it doesn't; the final measure leaves the viewer unable to account for what he has seen, except to remark that it was sporting of the filmmakers to attempt to show him things he hasn't seen before. Like exploding rodents and the use of a human head as a gun silencer.

But it isn't quite accurate to say that Wanted has a, um, wanton disregard for life— because it disregards lots of things, including simple logic and the laws of physics. Wanted dispenses with anything that stands in the way of turbo-charged cinematic action. I suppose that's entertainment to some; to me, it's identical to every other testosterone-driven mediocrity that coats the screens. *This* is what is truly pathetic and ordinary.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mad Men (2007–2015)
a losing campaign
24 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Three episodes was enough. I got it: the 60s were racist, sexist, unhealthy, and unsafe. (Also, very stylish.) And aren't we viewers today so smart for knowing better?

Must every character be such a louse? So tiresome. Not that they need be likable; The Sopranos was riveting, yet almost entirely devoid of anybody I'd ever want to be actual friends with. The difference, in the 3 episodes of this I saw, is that where The Sopranos insisted that the viewer be held responsible, Mad Men seems content to be superior. It wants to both revel in the tawdry details and be righteously outraged at the outdated mores it puts on display. I don't much care for either, and a television show that asks me to do both pushes the limits of my credulity. I could feel my strings being pulled.

No, Don's 'big secret' wasn't enough for me to keep watching- and when I was told what it is, I wasn't sorry in the least. Snoresville.

Undoubtedly there are many, many shows on television that are much, much worse. I don't watch them, either.
241 out of 490 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stormy Monday (1988)
5/10
tempests & teapots
24 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The mist, the neon, the reflections- Roger Deakins could make snot shine. What a great looking movie.

And that's it. There's almost nothing else to distinguish Stormy Monday, which marches to its inexorable conclusion with measured indifference. Coincidences rule the day, while little things like character and consistency are passed over in favor of atmosphere and (perfunctory) symbolism.

Figgis can maintain a tone, but style alone just leaves me detached. The script is so tight, the story seems artificial; it succeeds mainly in assuring that none of the characters are worth giving a damn about. It's all breath, no blood.

In art, such aloofness has probably always been fashionable. It's also terribly juvenile, like a teenager who thinks that cigarette smoking makes him look grown-up. Stormy Monday is a poster child for going through the motions.
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Unit (2006–2009)
8/10
just another day at the office
12 April 2007
As of this writing, the best show on television that no one talks about. Is it easier to overlook military-themed shows, being as their viewership is made up of middle America? But The Unit is neither a gussied-up procedural (NCIS) nor a rousing commercial (Jag), and it betrays almost no political agenda. It keeps to these guys, their job, and their families, all facing challenges that are alternately far beyond and extremely similar to those of our own. Like most Mamet, it is characterized not so much by distinctive characters as it filled with plain ol' drama. The show is as clipped, professional, and dutiful as its characters— no 'special-episodes', no sweeps- month stunts.

In a refreshing change of pace from other current (and more-heralded) shows, it's not serialized; every episode does stand alone, though the show also rewards faithful viewership. I love me some 'Lost', but there's plenty to slog through while waiting for the good stuff. The Unit gives no such quarter; it may not enrapture or surprise, but you can count on it to do its job.
98 out of 119 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Turning Japanese?
8 May 2006
Did you know that Tom Cruise can run? He can. Did you know that he can smile? He does. Have you ever seen him get angry? Look no further!

Has there ever been a less versatile actor with more success? No matter. He knows his strengths and plays to them, and he's never been caught brooding or Oscar-baiting.

Mission: Impossible is even less a stab at immortality than most blockbusters. The formula is even baked into the title. Odd that it took three movies for them to follow it! The third time may not quite charm, but it gives us what we want from this sort of movie: flirtation with danger, exhibition of stealth, playful sophistication. You know, stunts and gadgets and dress-up.

While never transcending genre, M:I3 is almost entirely content to be what it is— so long as it can be Alias! But J.J. & co. steal from themselves admirably. The only real misstep is a political monologue by the villain; such topical boilerplate pulls us out of what is fundamentally a fantasy, and demonstrates the filmmakers' disregard for their own material. Save the preaching, guys; audiences'll draw their own conclusions anyway.

I do wish they'd kept the theft to the script, though. The biggest problem with the movie is that it's shot like TV. Tight close-ups, few masters. There's a couple of great set pieces, but they don't get the scale they deserve, and so aren't as impressive or as intense as they should be, because of the way they're shot. Well, it won't lose much on video.

Welcome to the big-screen, Mr. Abrams. May you make movies as great as the first 1 1/2 seasons of Alias and the pilot of Lost.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
lust in America
8 May 2006
I do like Albert Brooks. As an actor. As a writer and director, his movies fall short of funny, happy to be amusing. Modern Romance is par for the course.

Only in the exchange with Medowlark Lemon does the movie come close to explaining Brooks' neurotic obsession with his girlfriend: she's out of his league. We don't know enough to understand why she's with him; the movie is more interested in his antics. Not only is Brooks' character narcissistic, his movie is too.

The foley scene, the shopping excursion, the Hollywood party are all deftly handled and expertly underplayed. I truly believe that Brooks can find the humor in anything. But he's satisfied with too little in his movies, and his disregard for structure (in his early films) is both curious and frustrating. It's as if he thinks he can get away with less if he doesn't seem to be trying as hard.

Essentially, Modern Romance is a 60-minute monologue with some situational humor mixed in. Is he in love with her, or with himself? That may be the point, but that makes me neither marvel nor laugh.
16 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A beautiful lie
22 January 2006
Great acting, grand scenery, good writing. A sure lock for Best Picture, and a significant event in movie history. These, and more, I grant Brokeback Mountain. What I want to get at, though, is why I am not joining its legion of revelers. I do not, as so many here, flatter myself for my tolerance and fall all over myself to laud it.

Clearly, many find the film deeply moving and identify strongly with its characters and with the dilemma at its heart. We may further debate its merits and discuss its implications, and I applaud the movie for engendering thoughtful conversation about, and consideration of, sexuality and society. It deserves more than mere approval or dismissal. But in reviewing it, I cannot avoid the central conceit. So I'll cut to the chase:

The relationship never moves beyond its passionate beginnings. Even if we assume that it could have if given the chance, it's an empty dream. Jack tells Ennis, "It could always be like this," but that is clearly a delusion; what were for them the halcyon days of Brokeback Mountain cannot be repeated, much less lived indefinitely. No mature couple, be they gay or straight, can remain as they were at the start.

Singularity— an existence apart, seemingly, from obligation and constraint —is, it is clear, integral to the appeal of any illicit affair. We may blame society, fault forces beyond their control that two men in love cannot freely pursue, and allow to develop, their passion. But the movie also asks us to lament that Jack and Ennis never get to return, metaphorically, to Brokeback Mountain— when that haven doesn't really exist at all.

It is a constant challenge to live with lasting connection, keep promises, and choose the welfare of others over one's own. To do so is also frequently incompatible with, but ultimately more rewarding than, the pursuit of one's own gratification. Jack and Ennis repeatedly deceive their loved ones— including each other —and selfishly chase after their own fulfillment, and yet the movie has less sympathy for their responsibilities as employees, husbands, and fathers than it does for their affair.

I believe that their affair is immoral, and would be still if between a man and a woman (of course, in that case it wouldn't be as notable a movie). While I sympathized with the characters and admired the artistry of the film, I am not moved to mourn the consequences of romantic folly. (For this reason, I also find movies like The Bridges of Madison County, The English Patient, and Titanic fundamentally flawed. ) Romance and sex are not the only components of love.

Brokeback Mountain shows the futility of life lived in denial and deception, but assumes that embracing and affirming one's passion is by definition, if not without consequence, more laudable than obligation and restraint. That's an assumption I don't share.
8 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Funny Ha Ha (2002)
8/10
worst thing is the title
18 January 2006
When I graduated college 10 years ago, it took me another 7 or so to formulate any kind of long-term (ie, beyond the next few weeks) plan for my life. The fact that this plan turned out to be wrong does not mean it was any less useful in giving my life more structure.

Funny Ha Ha precisely encapsulates the indefinite malaise of the extended adolescence lived by thousands, maybe even millions of post-college adults. No comedic fantasy, (last I checked, the Owen Wilson & Vince Vaughns of movieland are pushing 40, not in their mid-20's; the middle-aged skirt-chaser is a pathetic, not comic, figure), Funny Ha Ha manages to be funny without being infantile. Its characters, situations, and dilemmas are nearly universal. And the actors don't just talk like real, normal people, they even look like real, normal people— probably because they are.

The movie just seems real. Eat your heart out, David Gordon Green: Bujalski achieves the amiable, apologetic rhythms of conversation, and the tentative, ruthless territory of social negotiation, without the furtive anguish of an All The Real Girls. It's natural, not natural-ism. Neither, however, is it as self-enamored as the films of Cassavates, to which Funny Ha Ha has been favorably compared. The characters' inarticulateness and the seeming randomness of the plot actually belie the film's careful construction.

This movie is not interested in spelling itself out for you. It's not rocket science, but it's not paint-by-numbers, either. Don't mistake its thrift for carelessness… as any amateur filmmaker knows, you can't just put a camera in one place and end up with something intelligible; that's not how this movie, much less any movie, is made. Watch closely, think keenly.

And laugh! The more I think about Funny Ha Ha, the funnier it gets… check out the DVD commentary, it actually appears to be what it says it is, and only proves that Andrew Bujalski has a terrific sense of humor.

(But did anyone else find it a little hard to believe that nobody had cell phones? Then again, the one character who does is the one who most certainly would.

Also, the lead actress looks a whole lot like a good friend of mine, and my sister really is a Margaret who's called Marnie. So it has that going for it too.)
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
King Kong (2005)
6/10
pro and...
2 January 2006
Hamlet. Oedipus Rex. The one about the traveling salesman. Good stories are worth telling again and again. Some are epics, some a few sentences, but when told well they're worth repeating.

On the other hand: domesticated witch in suburbia; redneck brothers in a perpetual demolition derby; crime-fighting team of supermodels. These aren't stories, but premises. And premises don't, by themselves, deserve re-telling. Start a tale, "So this guy comes back from the dead and gets this crime-fighting, talking car" and the listener waits for the rest: "So?" A premise is only an outline. (Admittedly, a premise sells tickets. "A lost man finds himself by helping others" isn't easy to put on a poster. A sleek black Corvette is.)

When we're lucky, a la The Fugitive, familiar premises in movies are infused with imagination and structure. When they're not, they amount to childish imitation. Our acceptance and enjoyment of these, then, is merely a wistful nostalgia, a memory in soft-focus; we ignore their trashy, throwaway origins — the very thing that made them passable in the first place. Once innocent genre exercises, in their new incarnations they must pretend to transcendence, and so collapse under the weight of big budgets and boundless hubris.

Of course, that's a big part of their appeal, the movies: spectacle and bombast. They've always promised marvelous premises. And now they can realize them so fully. All barriers have been removed, nothing is beyond their reach. No bait-and-switch, no men in rubber suits knocking over plastic models: when we see the trailers and hear the taglines, we know we'll get what we're promised. We buy our ticket and wait to be delighted and surprised.

What we want from the movies is the best of both worlds: a great premise plus the elements of a classic, ageless story. King Kong promises both. Pick your subtext— racial, sexual, environmental —or chalk it up to inter-species identification; whatever the fascination, it's real. The big guy's got us.

And never like he does here. Peter Jackson, Andy Serkis and a small army of technicians have triumphed in their creation of an animal, emotional, pitiful monster. At every moment he is credible. He's the most sympathetic special effect since E.T.

The human end of the equation holds up, too. Not since Bob Hoskins played second-fiddle to a cartoon rabbit has anyone acted opposite air as well as Naomi Watts. All the actors are good, even the usually-comic Jack Black.

Jackson & co.'s most interesting choice is to make filmmaker Carl Denham into a headstrong auteur (perhaps even a doppelganger for our esteemed director?). Unfortunately, the script doesn't take this to its logical, dramatic extent. The premise has not so much been expanded as it has been inflated, as if Kong has to answer to hobbits, elves, and wizards.

And so it goes: every element from the original 1933 film, save Kong himself, seems to have been blown up to several times its size and then left to twist in the wind. The story's logical leaps and repeated contrivances are glaring, even with belief suspended.

At the appointed time, Denham suddenly exchanges his quest for celluloid immortality for half-cocked showmanship. He transforms into P.T. Barnum mainly, it seems, to send the movie lurching into its perfunctory final act; as I was reminded, a stage-bound Kong is a ridiculous idea that's been already lampooned by The Simpsons, and there's no reason to repeat it here. With the end in sight, the movie stops trying entirely. The last twenty minutes play almost as an afterthought.

The first sixty? The most earnest, impressive exposition since, well, those epic fantasies of a couple Christmases ago. Only we're not on a quest to save a world from eternal darkness, but to an island with a mammoth monkey.

Once we're there, the movie is chock-full of every sight and sound you could wish for, and several that you wouldn't. Skull Island makes Jurassic Park look like a petting zoo; Peter Jackson can certainly show us more than we've ever imagined. But he doesn't seem to wonder if he should (shades of Jurassic Park, again). "I can, so I did," seems to be the guiding principle— whether it's offing his actors grotesquely, or depicting flyby video-game vistas, or concocting entire, secondary plot lines for uninteresting, secondary characters. Or using that fuzzy Nazgul-cam effect to underline scenes that he's afraid may not be compelling enough on their own. Or letting his menagerie dispatch nameless extras with less respect than he affords art-deco skyscrapers. What there is, is all too much.

Three hours is not, by definition, too long. Some stories demand lavish treatment. But a giant gorilla's romance with a waifish blond? That's 90-odd minutes. Stuffing a silly, thin premise full of superfluous stock characters and dozens of creepy-crawlies, and attempting to infuse it with a grandeur usually reserved for the passing of heads of state, only confirms that it should have stayed a tight, lean adventure yarn.

Little would have been lost had Mr. Jackson succeeded in making his version 9 years ago, before the unquestionable success of the Rings; the technological hurdles would have been higher, and many of the more expensive sequences and lavish period elements would have been sacrificed. He would not have been the world-beating director of theretofore unfilmable fantasy but a scrappy, homegrown horror schlockster. And King Kong could have been better for it.

Instead, this beast is destined to live on primarily as a great test-disc for high-definition televisions. Peter Jackson's King Kong is a perfectly realized premise in want of a ruthlessly efficient story.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Outsiders (1983)
8/10
stay gold
3 December 2005
A terrific tweener for kids of any era. Serious but sweet, and refreshingly free of cynicism.

Godfather Coppola has a real way with family, go figure. But here he keeps the themes and emotions simple. One of the reasons for this story's lasting power is that it was written by a teenager, and so accurately reflects kids' perspective. It would have been very tempting to try and infuse an adaptation with "layers," to comment on the action and show yourself superior, but Coppola exercises great restraint and appropriate respect for the material. He knows it isn't profound stuff, but he understands that it *feels* profound to kids who identify with it. In walking this tightrope, he creates a rare thing: a movie that's for kids but neither talks down to or indulges them.

Lowe, Dillon, Estevez, Howell, Macchio, Garrett, Swayze. Only Cruise and Lane (and Sofia!) seem bigger now than they are here. That, and the 20-some years since, makes The Outsiders all the more poignant.
39 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
monotony monopolized
15 October 2005
Jack, Bruce, & Ellen. How can you go wrong?

Here's how: with a script that's made up of actors' 'show' pieces, a treasure-trove of monologues for the self-indulgent, earnest Thespian. The performances can't really be faulted, but performances aren't enough. The script's not nearly as profound, tragic, or interesting as it thinks it is.

During a rambling and aimless movie I often have a dread feeling that the action (what there is) will come to a head in violence... That may in fact be a pitfall of the rambling and aimless, but in drama is one of the hallmarks of the lazy writer. I had that suspicion here, and the movie delivered on that promise.

Supposedly Rafaelson was proud of casting against type. If you've ever wanted to see a whole movie of Jack clenching a pencil between his cheeks, by all means enjoy The King of Marvin Gardens.
10 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The Next Wave
11 July 2005
While not my favorite of Spielberg's films, I think it will prove to be one of the most lasting, far more so than Amistad or Hook or even Minority Report. The critical and public reaction to it has, for the most part, amazed me; for the part of critics, few had more than a couple of hours to write their reviews before publication, and for audiences, it is far from two hours' of escape, anything but Jaws-from-the-skies. It takes some time, and stomach, to digest. (Two of the more astute considerations are Jim Sheridan's and Ray Pride's). For my part:

If the visitors of Close Encounters and E.T. can be easily construed as divine, the aliens in War of the Worlds are demons of a godless apocalypse. If the supernatural, then, is not benevolent, what remains (indeed, the first building we see destroyed is a church)? Sheer, random survival. This movie poses no solution, no comfort, no solace in anything but, as in the novel, the mysterious machinations of biology. While not philosophically rigorous, it contains more ideas and overt connections than are usually forgiven (or even noticed in) a summertime blockbuster— even the humor is more complicated. Contrast the emergency- broadcast-system gag with the objects-in-mirror-are-closer-than-they-appear one in Jurassic Park; the latter is simple, release-valve irony, while the former is a multi-layered exposure of the uselessness of human measures. "Worlds" contains many explicit allusions and references to Spielberg films, but is almost entirely devoid of his typically light touch, freely plundering his customary clichés. "Think you're safe?" he's accusing. "You're not." The direct references to 9/11 and the present crises are surprising, even disconcerting in a commercial film, but they are far from glib or opportune; despite their presence in a sci-fi flick, they (and the movie itself) are quite serious. Unease at their inclusion comes more from their absence in popular culture; the question is why haven't they, nearly four years later, been invoked MORE often? Spielberg knows that they're further under our skin than we care to admit. War of the Worlds is the first creative, intentional response, in commercial film, to the new terrors under which we live.

Its obligatory "happy" ending seems an unfortunate concession to box-office, but doesn't arrive with fanfare, heroism, or even the arbitrary back-lit reunion scene. The only sure cause for celebration is survival. Perhaps no event in our culture has yet taken our 21st century fears so seriously and turned them back on us so unsparingly. War of the Worlds is not, to quote one viewer on the latest superhero suck-up, "easy to enjoy and see again;" it is a horror movie, pure and simple and unforgiving, with as much to stir and indict an audience as it has to expose and fascinate.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Enduring Love (2004)
7/10
Where's The Rabbit?
5 May 2005
Notwithstanding its popularity, just how bad a match for "Notting Hill" was Roger Michell? "Changing Lanes" was about as substantial as a studio thriller can be; somebody ought to give this guy at a good, commercial chiller that isn't masquerading as anything else. He'd knock it out of the park. The opening sequence and the climax of "Enduring Love" are startlingly effective, and held me in rapt attention as no two scenes in any film the past year. If "Enduring Love" finally proves less than the sum of its parts, well at least there was some math involved.

No doubt Ian McEwan's novel provides the film with what depth it has; the ideas aren't original (Daniel Craig's professor is the kind of talking-head that should exasperate anyone) but their intersections are provocative. How much stress can we take, just how tenuous are our ties?

At its core it is no more than a stalker movie with art-house pretensions, but at least the trials of the main character are less a result of his own transgressions (unlike the the all-time champion in the genre, "Fatal Attraction," which can be boiled down to, Don't commit adultery!). "Enduring Love" demonstrates just how fragile our relationships can be, and how useless rationality is in the face of obsession, or even genuine affection. That its outcome seems inevitable only increases the tension.

In movies today, Rhys Ifans practically has a patent on a certain brand of loser. This one's got an actual (albeit rare) disorder to blame, not that the movie stops (or bothers) to explain that for us— or to differentiate, as it does for marriage and infatuation, between fanaticism and faith: it's the part Mr. Ifans was born-again to play!

Most unfortunate are the Psycho-esquire score and the coda, which is a head-scratcher: is there going to be a sequel? I don't think so.

The Beach Boys' "God Only Knows" will never sound the same. Of course, that only goes to show that you can ruin any pop song by putting it in the mouth of a movie psycho.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Wes's World
2 January 2005
While eviscerating "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou," some are taking the opportunity to retroactively review Wes Anderson's entire output thus far. Having missed the boat, they're still sending us cables insisting that it is going to sink.

They decry the singular design of his films and dismiss the considerable compassion and warmth with which he treats his characters. They ghettoize him as the latest "savior of independent film-making" (a straw-man argument if ever there was one) or they minimize his distinctiveness both as a visual stylist and a writer of comedy. Most unfortunately, they neglect to recognize how Anderson, through the visual, aural, and dramatic elements in his films, examines the act of film-making itself.

Would it help to mention that Martin Scorsese named "Bottle Rocket" one of the ten best of the 1990's? To cite the literary and film predecessors to whom Wes Anderson is indebted, and how he fuses them into something all his own? To quote Kent Jones of _Film Comment_, who calls him "the most original presence in film comedy since Preston Sturges"?

No matter. Why Wes Anderson is derided and filmmakers such as David Gordon Green ("All the Pretty Girls," "Undertow") and Sam Mendes ("American Beauty," "The Road to Perdition")— emperors whom, in my view, wear no clothes —are heralded, is a mystery to me. I suspect it may have something to do with the unmistakable imprint Anderson leaves upon his films, and that as such they are not waiting to be discovered or explained by the arbiters of taste and importance.

Yes, it's all here again in "The Life Aquatic": the taboo female, the fractured father-son relationship, the (increasingly, with each film) despicable protagonist, the folly of the showman, the crimped-together family of eccentrics, the intricacies and importance of correspondence, the font Futura, the iconic costumes, the popular-song score (an element warranting separate analysis), the seemingly arbitrary use of slow-motion. There is no mistaking a Wes Anderson film for anyone else's.

And a Wes Anderson film is, first and foremost, a comedy, albeit one unlike the Adam Sandler-Will Farrell-Jim Carrey antic histrionics, bloated "SNL"-style skits, fantasies of romance, and feature-length sitcoms that pass for "comedy" today. There is such a paucity of fully-realized, director-driven comedies that "The Life Aquatic" may not be appreciated for its best qualities. Reminder: a comedy need not be desperate, loud and crass, nor artistically unambitious.

The one glaring error in "The Life Aquatic" is its lack of narrative thrust, that it has nothing to consistently propel us through its diverting episodes. No *one* thing to pull itself along, mind you; there's just too *much* going on, too *many* threads to be tied together. The film's intended emotional heft is lightened, and its humor lessened, because it doesn't have the tension that a serviceable story provides. More than could be fixed by editing, this appears to have resulted from the overstuffed toy-sack nature of both the script and production design.

For "The Life Aquatic" to achieve its ambitions, Anderson would have had to heed one phrase, that old adage from high-school English: Kill your darlings. But given millions upon millions to see my own dreams realized, I probably wouldn't self-censor, either.

And what darlings! There is enough detail here to fill a dozen features. If the movies are, as Orson Welles said upon being allowed (for a time) the run of the RKO Pictures lot, "the biggest electric train set a boy ever had," "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou" is Wes Anderson's deluxe Lionel engine on a platform filling the lobby of Grand Central Station. As such, it is most remarkable for its accoutrements, like the radio-equipped dolphins, or the put-upon interns, or the myriad idiosyncrasies of the research ship Belafonte.

That more detail—lovingly rendered as it is—was not sacrificed for the movie's greater good makes me worry that Anderson is inordinately enamored with his affectations, a post-college hipster who still defines himself by his clothes, collections, and opinions. But I will accept his first three films as evidence of his heart, and look upon "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou" as the growing pains of a developing artist.

(As for those who chide Anderson for his inept staging of action: no, the Ping Island sequence isn't executed well, but you can't accuse him both of stagnation and not extending himself- and even so, there's still the marvelous set of the decrepit hotel to ogle.)

Wes Anderson's four features are, like them or not, clearly and undeniably the work of an individual artist, and this alone makes them unique and significant in this age of pre-fab franchises. If only, for every "National Treasure" or "Fat Albert," there were two "Life Aquatic"'s.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Blanketed
24 October 2004
As enigmatic as its title, and funnier than it has any right to be, "I Heart Huckabees" is a frothy fizz of discourse and slapstick. In turns brilliant, pedantic, heady, exhausting, hilarious, cruel, trenchant, and incoherent, it succeeds more in its individual moments rather than in any sort of arc or summation. Its sheer audacity is matched only by the startling consistency with which it is able to depict, implicitly, the same ideas that it puts, explicitly, into the mouths of its characters.

This is not so much a movie as a treatise squeezed onto celluloid. Every character, every action, every detail typifies a philosophical point of view. In the world of "Huckabees," everything stands for something: the store is progress, the marsh and woods preservation; Albert is the young romantic idealist, Brad the vacuous, amoral pretty-person that we've all held in contempt; Albert and Catherine's ugly, sloppy sex in the dirt exemplifies the very meaningless that Catherine's philosopher espouses. Etc., etc., etc.

The filmmakers clearly want to put the tenuous balance between the explicable and the inexplicable, the rational and irrational, the yin and yang- or what have you -front and center. But, in striving to plot so much of the philosophical grid, they have also starved their film of any real emotional investment. More machine than man, the film exists to embody ideas and points of view, and this single-mindedness flattens-out everything else in its path.

The problem is, ideas alone are never as compelling as the people who believe them or, for that matter, as a strong story. To its credit, "Huckabees" seems to know better than to insist on telling one. Instead it creates, with its existential detectives, corporate denizens, and earnest public servants, a kind of intellectual pinball machine in which its ideas can be shot about to ricochet inside the helium-filled gasbag of its comedy. And there are pleasures to be had: a winning cast, smart laughs, a madcap pace, a buoyant Jon Brion score, some fanciful and funny visual digressions, and pop psychology countered by genuine insight. Best of all is the fresh air, too much missing from movies, of questions of meaning and existence.

Despite its qualities, though, the film falls short of its goals. In one brief but pivotal scene, a churchgoing family shares dinner with the two of the protagonists. The family's dedication and charity coexist with their reactionism and complicity; yes they have taken in a Sudanese refugee, but they have also co-opted him culturally. These Christians, like so much of everything in this film, are meant to be a contradiction, but, like the other characters, they do not resonate as real, identifiable persons. For everybody in "Huckabees" is pushed to extremes, beings made all and only of one thing. Of course, extremity is a requirement of comedy, but once they approach abstraction, extremes become unbelievable. So the humor in "Huckabees" comes from the taut interplay of its ideas, whereas its story and characters finally generate little more than a shrug.

How ironic that it should engender so much indifference, since apathy, of the intellectual variety, is precisely (and perhaps only) what "Huckabees" decries. Strange, too, that relationships are more or less left out of its equation; barely a passing mention is made of marriage, or family, or any kind of commitment that requires more than obligation or convenience and through which most of humanity forms its strongest bonds of meaning and belonging. In this way, the movie is like a brilliant philosopher who cries himself to sleep every night in an empty apartment. What good are the answers if they leave you alone and depressed? And what happens when we die? Is there a God? Though "I Heart Huckabees" is disciplined in its commitment to ideas, and smart enough to surround them in a sauce of comedy, it leaves too many troubling questions unasked. This omission makes it less ideologically complicated than it purports, and not as comforting as it pretends. For a movie that's so messy, it's still too neat.

"Huckabees" wants us each to look deep inside ourselves, embrace the infinite, and be fulfilled. It would replace consumerism with curiosity, ego with ideas, obliviousness with wonder. But, however much more admirable or preferable than the malaise of our present culture, this is really only superficially different. The pursuit of our own, individual fulfillment is, by any measure and by any name, a selfish one.

Some ideas surely are better than others. But life isn't the property of the abstract- not of only the mind or the body, or of love or even grace; no, a life belongs to a person. As hard as it tries, "Huckabees" is ultimately impersonal. But it does try, and is remarkable in its ambition, conviction, and density (how many movies warrant this kind of analysis?)- and for making it all so easy to take. Definitely not for the faint of brain, it fails on its own terms but should be celebrated regardless. For what it is, I heart "Huckabees."
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Yesterday's Child
30 September 2004
It is what it is better than any stateside commercial release I've seen this year: a pure, unbridled, visually imaginative delight, like the best movie that could ever be made by the smartest 12-year-old boy born in 1927. Punctuated by an appropriately majestic score that doesn't overreach, the look and inventiveness are astounding, the performances circumspect, the dialogue slight but amusing, the plot as thin as the serials that inspired it and that it so beautifully recreates.

And there's no fat on the thing- it comes and goes quickly and knows its limitations. I know that I'll see better movies before the year is out, but I doubt any of them will make me giddy with glee like most of SCatWoT did.

Too innocent for our cynical times, perhaps it will be more appreciated on video.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Man on Fire (2004)
5/10
Denzel en fuego
30 September 2004
Redemption via revenge. Starts cynical and unsentimental but loses its teeth along the way; this compromises its moral foundation, which in the setup threatened to be formidable. What promised to be a solid genre piece becomes a muddy, plodding mess. The whole enterprise, dragged under by weight of its delusions of grandeur, becomes as fractured as its editing is frenetic.

Most amusingly, after 2+ hours of the capital as dangerous, seedy, corrupt, and terminally decadent, the first credit up is the quasi-apologetic 'MEXICO CITY: A TRULY GREAT PLACE' (or something to that extent).
12 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Pulled Off
2 June 2003
An opposite-field single. Gray keeps from overswinging a la Bay & Bruckheimer, going with the pitch he's served up. This incarnation of `The Italian Job' doesn't have the cache, wit, or style of the latest `Ocean's 11', but then again it doesn't have delusions of grandeur either. There's nary a scrap of fat on its bones, and the characters are drawn expressively and efficiently enough to keep it from being a soulless exercise. But an exercise it is.

It's an especially nice change to see Mr. Wahlberg appearing to have so good a time, looking so pleasant a guy; this is the wrong kind of movie to be gritting your teeth in, so he's smart to be playing it cool. More 'Judy, Judy' here than he was in `The Truth About Charlie'- which is not to say that `The Italian Job', or his role or performance within, is worthy of Cary Grant. For one, his biceps betray his effortlessness- at least fit the forearms into the regimen too, Marky. Sheesh!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Frenzy (1972)
3/10
not a good evening
30 January 2003
Not even 'lesser' Hitch, but simply a bad movie. The cinematic equivalent of a dirty-old-man. Ugly in every way: unimaginative script, static point of view, putrid clothing, ghastly hair, unlikable actors, and one truly gratuitous rape-and-strangulation scene. The director's perverse sense of humor is present, but it is not applied consistently; the movie comes alive only in its cruelty. The women fare especially badly; 'Frenzy' could be used as proof the director was a misogynist, though a better explanation to me is that perhaps beginning with his TV series and 'Psycho'- which he himself described as an exercise in thrift, an experiment to see if a television crew could shoot a passable feature -Alfred Hitchcock had pretty much abandoned art and settled for commerce. In 'Frenzy' the great master seems to be bowing to convention, trying to go with the times and give audiences what he thinks they want- in the form of unappealing nudity, nudge-nudge winks, and general nastiness. I don't begrudge an old man his rest, but I don't want to remember him tired and lazy and pandering- time to watch 'Vertigo' again!
26 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Paved With Good Intentions
26 July 2002
Has more pedigree than a kennel. A very earnest endeavor on the part of all concerned, and no doubt many trophies, plaques and statues will exchange hands. You can wake me when the last speech has been made.

Dramatically and thematically, "Road to Perdition" plods grimly along; it has Something Very Important To Say and is fond of saying it twice, and often three times just to be safe, for anyone who may have missed what was obvious from the start. It's high-gloss prestige junk food, a Serious Movie for people who never go further than the new release section at Blockbuster- an emotional sequel, if you will, to the Oscar-baiting films of Rob Reiner ("A Few Good Men", "Ghosts of Mississippi") and Lasse Hallstrom ("Cider House Rules", "Chocolat", "The Shipping News"). The movie is rote and plodding and impressively mounted, neat and tidy and thoroughly innocuous, lacking genuine, messy passion and respect enough for its audience to provide us with entertainment as well as instruction. A stranger's obituary- or a good episode of "The Wonder Years", for that matter -is more moving than "Road to Perdition".

But I confess, most people will probably be impressed. It does indeed do a very thorough job of presenting itself as an object to be taken seriously. But so did that kid in the back of my sophomore English class, and nobody could stand him so why does Sturm Und Drang like this get a pass? "People ask me if my father was a good man"- they do? Who on earth would put that question to anybody? I hereby declare a ban on voice-over narration for all filmmakers who aren't Terence Malick.

God himself sees through cinematographer Conrad Hall's lens, but it's all pretty pictures in search of something worthwhile on which to hang. And it certainly was nice to see Paul Newman; his scenes were good, they hinted at a more vibrant and compelling movie. Plus, it reminded me that we were out of his yummy Peach Salsa.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Swordfish (2001)
2/10
One to be left off the resume...
5 May 2002
This movie DEFINES gratuity. It's a jumble of uglyness, ignoring all good taste and humor. That the movie is incoherent only adds to its vileness; it is by turns crass, preposterous, laughable, and pretentious. Remember when you were a kid and it sounded like a really good idea to mix all the fountain sodas together in one cup? "Swordfish" is the cinematic equivalent, a graveyard pastiche of pointlessness.

Viewers should also be aware that, in light of recent events, "Swordfish" is particularly objectionable for certain events it depicts, and for its glib invocation (and even, arguably, condoning) of terrorism. One begins to understand how depraved we must appear to some who might see this, and 'entertainments' like it, and have no reason not to consider them as indicative of our entire culture.

To top it off, "Swordfish" is even ugly to look at, metallic and antiseptic, with as much artistry as you'd expect from a beer commercial.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed