Bobbyh-2 Reviews

The Strangers (2008)

Is there an adjective that describes worse than "terrible?" Feel free to use it.

[1/10 · 25 July 2008]

Let me start by saying that I like scary movies...but to be effectively scary, a movie has to follow some coherent internal logic. This one doesn't. Characters in a good scary movie ought to behave--at least initially--as though their brains were functioning. These characters don't. There's nothing wrong with gore and brutality--assuming they're used for some reason. No rhyme or reason here. A group of masked kids terrorize a young couple who, as the film unwinds, behave inexplicably--leaving each other alone at moments where it makes no sense to do so, failing to make use of potential weapons at their disposal until it is, conveniently, too late for the weapons to do any good. Why does all this happen? Who knows? Who cares? Fairness compels me to point out that most of the audience--almost exclusively between the ages of 13 and 15 (which should have tipped us off) spend the entire length of the movie screaming constantly, which, I imagine, was why they'd come. To suggest that this film deserves remotely to be compared with films like "Psycho," "Silence of the Lambs," or "Alien"...well, I'm at a loss for words that aren't too tasteless for this forum. What a criminal waste of celluloid.

The Sopranos (1999–2007)

Loved it when it was new---Love it even more seeing it all again

[10/10 · 27 April 2008]

We've been renting the DVDs of "The Sopranos" and watching the entire series for the second time. Originally, we became ardent fans after the first couple of episodes and stayed with it throughout. There were occasional periods when the show declined slightly in quality, it seemed- but only compared to the incredibly high standard it had set for itself. Every aspect of the show--writing , direction, casting, acting, choice of music (Only maybe Kubrick was better at choosing appropriate pre-existing background music)--you name it. Now, watching it all at the rate of about 3-4 episodes per week, and in the light of knowing how everything turns out--my admiration for the show has grown. It is, in a word, brilliant. The way in which characters develop (please note that I don't say "grow") is remarkable. (SPOILER) And I especially LOVE the way in which Chase has used viewer expectations for TV series or movies with respect to wanting closure and/or a sense that characters HAVE grown and matured in some way to amaze us at the end---because in the last analysis--none of the central family "grows" or matures or has any kind of epiphany whatever. Everything just keeps on, status quo ante. Of course some characters die or are killed or whatever...but the Soprano clan remains pretty much as it began. Television simply has never been better than this. Some adaptations on TV have managed to live up to its source material, but in the realm of original creations--this is the pinnacle, as far as I am aware. And DON'T bother with the bowdlerized version currently on view--watch the original, with every 4-letter word intact.

There Will Be Blood (2007)

This stunning, masterful film has a lasting impact.

[9/10 · 2 February 2008]

Thirty seconds into this film, I was hooked. The stark opening sequence, coupled with the remarkable music, generated a level of tension that became electric, and never really let up. As a study of a certain kind of human nature, and certain all too human characteristics, it would be hard to conceive of a more potent blend of components: writing, cinematography, and--above all--virtuosic acting. While the cast as a whole was wonderfully effective, the work of Daniel Day-Lewis simply towers over anything I've seen on any screen for quite some time. I like to think I have a large store of descriptive language at my disposal but, i this instance, I feel somewhat stumped: volcanic (in places), nuanced (where nuance is needed), and always showing great care in the choices made, Day-Lewis, who is seldom off-screen, simply overwhelmed me. (HERE COMES A SPOILER) The final climactic sequence, coming at a point when it didn't seem that DDL could possibly have anything in reserve, was both hypnotic and horrifying. Happily, while I had felt that DDL simply blew Leonardo DiCaprio away in Gangs of New York, in this film he was superbly supported by everyone. Yes it was not fast-paced, but what of that? It was relentless and infinitely absorbing. It deserves at east a couple of Oscars if these awards have any significance at all--and this in a year when there was some very fine competition. I expect that this is a film that will stand among the very best of the coming decade. I look forward to seeing it again once I've had a chance to catch my breath. This movie shows how effective a motion picture can be as a synergistic work of art. DON'T miss this one.

Pan's Labyrinth (2006)

if stomach-turning violence won't turn you off--this is one to see--sui generis

[21 January 2007]

I don't think this extraordinary film alternates fantasy and reality. Seems to me, it alternates two kinds of fantasy: the haunting and evocative world of fairies and fauns on the one hand, and a world of naturalistic but utterly unredeemed villainy vs. unqualified heroism and nobility--a world that, even though seemingly more real, comes off as rather two-dimensional, though no less effective. Both worlds have horrific, even upsetting, elements, so those with delicate sensibilities should be prepared for uncompromised ugliness on occasion. For some this is probably a deal-breaker. This was a stunningly successful realization of an evocative, often deeply disturbing cosmos. I gather some found it slow or boring, but I was absorbed throughout and think it ranks right up there with Coctaeu's "Beauty and the Beast" as a cinematic expression of imagination. The acting, design, direction, cinematography, music--all the elements came together brilliantly. But DON'T see this if your stomach is very easily turned. By the way--I trust that no fairies were harmed in the making of this movie.

The Man Who Skied Down Everest (1975)

a truly self-indulgent and self-aggrandizing waste of time

[1/10 · 21 September 2006]

I saw this film when it came out. Let me see now--this guy who had earlier skied down Mount Fuji manages to accumulate the funding and hire personnel to document what sounds on the surface like a bold and daring act---to ski down the world's highest peak. Well--AND HERE COMES THE SPOILER--what happens, see, after a large crew of people manage to help him get near the top--and a life is lost in the bargain--he gets on his skis, manages to make it down a very very short way, at which point his PARACHUTE OPENS...and that's that. And instead of burning the footage to hide this amazingly anticlimactic ending to an embarrassing debacle, the guy goes ahead and releases it. SPOILER ENDS I do admire the amazing courage and effort it must have taken the film crew to get some of the stunning shots they got. ANOTHER SPOILER--Oh yes, one of the Sherpas is killed by falling into a crevasse. The narrator, who is quoting the "daredevil skier, casually remarks that, according to the Sherpa religion, since this man's body cannot be recovered his soul will roam the world forever and never know rest. Is it worth it, the narrator muses. YES he answers--because it served the purpose of letting this clown "ski down Everest." I can't remember ever seeing a more meretricious piece of celluloid. This is one to miss at all costs.

A Prairie Home Companion (2006)

Altman is a national treasure and Keillor is sui generis.

[9/10 · 22 June 2006]

I'm a fan of Prairie Home Companion on radio--with some reservations--and I imagine that the show's devotees will be more likely to enjoy this quirky, gentle film more than those who loathe Keillor--and they're out there, too. However, this movie isn't simply a cinematic extension of the radio show. Arthur Miller said that "After the Fall" was about a woman who, if she existed, would be like Marilyn Monroe, but she doesn't. Similarly, APHC is about a radio show which, if it existed, would be like PHC--but it doesn't. The movie does display the familiar Altman trademarks: a huge and talented cast at their best;a tangle of story lines that, somehow, more or less resolve; a consistency of mood and wonderful blend of comic, tragic, and touching elements. Keillor is a unique phenomenon and doesn't exactly play himself in the movie--though I doubt he can really play anyone else, either. No, his character is called "GK," which allows him to do what he always does, SPOILER BEGINS while having a romantic history, an affair gone bad, with the Meryl Streep character. He does no monologue (alas) but this is somewhat made up for by the running thread of variations of "how I first got into radio," which are gems. END SPOILER The high quality of the acting is to be expected, given the actors involved, but the quality of the singing did come as something of a surprise; Tomlin and Streep, Harrelson and Reilly, and Lindsay Lohan do wonders. So, of course, do the usual PHC musical regulars--including Keillor. SPOILER I appreciated the nice plot touch that, even though the dreaded Axman--Tommy Lee Jones--is done away with before he can carry out the radio show's execution, the show is killed off anyway. No deus ex machina here. The coda, where some of the cast reunite in the coffee shop is a lovely way to end the film, with the enigmatic reappearance of the Dangerous Woman--or Angel of Death, perhaps. Who has she come for? Or then again, maybe she's just dropped by for a chat. END SPOILER As soon as we got home from this film, we ordered the sound track album, and expect to play it to death. Unless you don't like Altman and have no use for Keillor, this is one to see and cherish.

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Better than the book in that the dreadful writing style isn't a factor

[6/10 · 21 June 2006]

I read the book and thought that the central idea was very clever, but the writing left a whole lot to be desired. To put my reaction into context, I'm not Roman Catholic, or religious in any organized sense. I can see why some practicing Catholics might find this central idea offensive. Considering the movie solely as entertainment, I thought it was a pretty good, if slightly slow and ponderous entertainment. Tom Hanks is an actor I almost always admire; here he seemed to express his seriousness as a character and the gravity of the story by wearing a perpetual frown that wrinkled up his face. No, there's no chemistry between Hanks and the female lead--but under the circumstances, even a suggestion of libido might be inappropriate. Ian McKellan is his usual wonderful self and I didn't think anyone in the cast was less than competent. I figure those people who regard the suggestion that Christ was a man and subject to manly impulses ought to stay away and not expose themselves to this outrage. That's what happened in the case of Mel Gibson's "Passion" film: a lot of people simply avoided it lest their sensibilities be bruised. As for those organizations who have fulminated against the movie and urged that it be embargoed--they've almost certainly done the Box Office a huge favor. Although, what with all the ancillary Da Vinci stuff on the market (the Da Vinci Code DIET??? really!) the Box Office probably needed no outside stimulation. I'd save this one for a weekend when the pickings are otherwise pretty slim.

Art School Confidential (2006)

funny moments and great cast aren't necessarily enough

[5/10 · 15 May 2006]

After seeing the trailer and noting the high-octane names in the cast, I went to this with the bar set fairly high--maybe that was part of the problem. True, there are worthy performances and some amusing touches, but the plot is all over the place and the, um, message--there's a lot of shucking and jiving in the art world--is made early on, then driven home hard, then pounded mercilessly, and finally bludgeoned into a bloody unrecognizable pulp--and it wasn't all that perceptive in the first place. Terry Zwigoff has done better. I did think John Malkovich delivered, as did Jim Broadbent. But there is, alas, less here than meets the eye.

Tristram Shandy (2005)

It's one long quirk and a very funny one, too.

[8/10 · 26 February 2006]

Judging from the comments I read, this movie seems to inspire either extravagant praise or loathing--and, somewhat to my surprise, some of the loathers are British. Okay, count me among the fervent admirers. For me this film worked in several ways: as inspired lunacy, as pointed satire on the hangups of people in the industry, and even--here and there--as a nice representation of some of the book's more comprehensible bits. If you've read the book, tried and failed to read the book, or never opened the book or even heard of it, I think this movie is worth a shot. (SPOILER)I loved the use of music here, especially the extensive quotes from Nino Rota's score for "81/2". It's very apropos; the film is a sort of "81/2" without the angst. I hope it does well at the box office, even though I have my doubts. It certainly deserves to make some money.

Zazie in the Metro (1960)

When it came out it created its own lunatic genre.

[8/10 · 22 October 2005]

I saw "Zazie" in Paris in 1962, and my French at that time was rudimentary. Nevertheless, for sheer manic energy, wonderful visual comedy, and performances that transcended the language barrier, I loved it. I've seen it since and still love it. Among its other virtues for me, this film introduced me to the marvelous actor Philippe Noiret. Malle proved to be a director with virtually unlimited range with respect to style and mood. Consider some of his other fine films: "Lacombe, Lucien," "Atlantic City," "Murmur of the Heart," and "My Dinner with Andre," to name only a few. I guess what Richard Lester did with the Beatles might be close to this when it comes to sheer antic charm, but I think "Zazie"still stands alone. Unless you have zero tolerance for whimsy and insist on Deep Meaning in your movies, I think that you're likely to enjoy this one...if you can find it.

Crash (I) (2004)

too bad there isn't an Oscar for "best ensemble cast"---this would be a strong candidate

[10/10 · 16 May 2005]

Given the thinness of the recent crop, it's a lame compliment to call "Crash" the best film I've seen to this point in 2005: mid-May. But it's a stunner in several ways. The acting is consistently fine, though, since most or all of the roles are not so central as to be considered leads, the actors may not get nominations. Too bad there isn't an ensemble category. The script is exceptional...an intricate weave of plot threads, and not one single loose end at the finish. The music is beautifully chosen, the cinematography is great, and the movie is not without a strong redemptive feeling at the end. It shows human nature as deeply flawed in some respects, but there isn't a single character who comes off as a cardboard stereotype. I hope the movie gets the success it deserves.

Peter Brook's the Mahabharata (1989–1990)

a wonderful realization of one of the world's great religious-mythic epics

[10/10 · 11 April 2005]

I can't recall anything Peter Brook has done that wasn't at least worthwhile, and most of his oeuvre is far more than that--including his Mahabharata. To my great disappointment I never got to see the stage version, but did see the film, as presented on TV. It was cut down (!) to a mere 6 hours, and the only word for it is stunning. The international cast is as good as any ensemble I've seen: they're always right on target, never over the top, and I think I could watch the whole 6 hours without ever getting restless. I've read the Mahabharata in a very good American adaptation that trims the enormous length--15 times the length of the Old and New Testament combined!--to manageable size. While some fine material was necessarily excised from Brook and Carriere's version, the essence seems to be there. By turns, it is amusing, touching gripping, and always absorbing. I believe it is still available on videocassette and may well be on DVD as well. .I notice that, with only one exception, all the users who have written appreciations share my feelings, and I suspect that most others will feel the same way. I won't bother to mention individual performers or scenes; it's all of a piece and a great accomplishment. Next time I watch it will be my seventh or eighth time, and it won't have lost any of its appeal. This is a work of art to savor and treasure.

Million Dollar Baby (2004)

Eastwood is a master filmmaker, but sorry--this wasn't a "masterpiece".

[10 January 2005]

My expectations are very high when I see a movie directed by Clint Eastwood, and they were further fueled by the rapturous reviews this one got...and, largely as a consequence of these expectations, I came less than overwhelmed. Despite splendid directing and wonderfully unselfish and solid performances, this fell short of my hopes. Ultimately, I'd have to agree with those who found it somewhat manipulative and, in places, downright bogus. SEMI-SPOILERS AHEAD...and NO, I am not one of those who are outraged by the suggestion that it is always a sin to want to end one's own life; I can well imagine circumstances under which such a choice is reasonable. But there was a sort of Capra-ish manipulation of the heartstrings that, for me, went against the grain of the movie's admirable efforts to achieve an authentic atmosphere. For example, I found it hard to accept the notion of Eastwood's efforts to learn Gaelic so that he could read...YEATS? When he reads Yeats--in Gaelic--to his fighter, It was bizarre, given that Yeats wrote in English. I suppose there are translations of Yeats's verse into Gaelic, but it would seem more sensible to read it in the original. This seems to have been done in an effort to show the Eastwood character as a smart guy who goes his own way, is proud of his heritage, etc. etc....but I wish it had been done in a way that was more legitimate. END SPOILERS That said, I give this film high marks for many fine qualities. Compared to it, "Rocky"--with which it shares some parallels--comes off as the potboiler it ultimately is. I only wish it had lived up to previous Eastwood films that were masterpieces, in my opinion, like "Mystic River" and "Unforgiven." But for me, this one is, in the last analysis, an honorable but somewhat flawed effort, though worth seeing.

La Dolce Vita (1960)

life imitates art? art imitates life? a bit of both?

[30 November 2004]

I just saw a new print of this wonderful film after not having seen it for maybe 20 years and it is still spellbinding. Fellini sums up an era and an attitude here, and succeeds in doing something that ought to be impossible: he makes a full and meaningful film about empty and meaningless lives. Mastroianni seems to have been to Fellini what DeNiro has been to Scorsese--a perfect embodiment of a personal vision. What a wonderful actor he was--brilliant in his youth and in his age. Many other performers are hardly less fine here, and the cinematography and composition are stunning throughout. There are so many indelible images from this film, images that have become iconic over the decades: Ekberg in the Fontana di Trevi, the statue of Christ flying over Rome, the astonishing, candlelit procession at the castle, to name a few. It seems plot less and yet it isn't plot less at all; Marcello's ultimately fruitless search for meaning, a search that he abandons in the end, as he stares across a slight and yet unbridgable abyss on the beach at a lovely young girl who seems to possess the knowledge and understanding that is denied to him. I'm astonished at the number of people who don't get this movie, who seem to think that Fellini expects us to admire the bizarre characters who people the film, or who think that a movie about worthless individuals must be a worthless movie, or who don't seem to understand that movies that are full of what become clichés usually do so because they capture an important vision. Fellini made several exceptional films: 81/2, La Strada, Amarcord, and The Nights of Cabiria come to mind, but La Dolce Vita may be, when all is said and done, his masterwork.

The Manchurian Candidate (2004)

More holes than an aged Emmenthal cheese fatally weaken this remake.

[10 August 2004]

As a big fan of both Condon's book and Frankenheimer's adaptation, I approached this movie skeptically...and the skepticism, unfortunately, was justified. I thought that the acting be Denzel Washington, Liev Schreiber, Meryl Streep, and several supporting players was solid--not brilliant, but good. The direction was okay, but the SCRIPT was so full of logical lapses that it was impossible to suspend disbelief, even though I tried REAL hard. The following are a few examples--and they are all SPOILERS. SPOILERS FOLLOW (a)Since the filmmakers stuck with the original title but couldn't use the original sinister Asian Commie villains--they had to really stretch believability by calling the shady supercorporate entity that is responsible for the plot Manchurian International, or some such silliness.(b)Both the lead men have had nasty little gizmos implanted under their skin--but Marco removes BOTH implants--and yet both men are still subject to manipulation when someone addresses them by their full names. Now THERE'S a bad triggering device...and how come it still works when the gizmos are gone? (c)the relationship between Schreiber and the Senator's daughter, made quite clear in the earlier movie, is here so vague and undefined as to be incomprehensible. Did they have an affair? Were they just good friends? Why did they separate? We needed more information. (d)who were the mysterious, sinister women in the flashbacks? Were they real people who had some role in the manipulation? Were they nightmarish figments? We never find out. (e) how was Marco, at that point a known threat, allowed to walk casually into the election night festivities? How were they able to eliminate ALL traces that he had been there and replace his image with that of a phony villain? It was done much too casually...for such a major plot point.

Well...one or two such flaws might have been allowable. but the combination of so many holes made for a movie that simply lost any pretense of believability--and with that, the reason for its existence. See the original, read the book, but--unless you have a need to see the complete oeuvre of Denzel Washington, and/or Liev Schreiber, and/or Meryl Streep--this is a very dispensible film.

Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)

Comedy of wit and manners reaches its height here---PLEASE DO NOT REMAKE IT!

[31 March 2004]

I've seen this gem half a dozen times and look forward to seeing it a few times more. It's a masterpiece of unsentimental, yet genteel, humor, and features performances by some extraordinary actors. Sir Alec Guiness's eight different turns have been much commented on and deserve every superlative they've received. Dennis Price is too little recognized--in the US, at least--for his gifts, as his work here proves. Valerie Hobson is wonderful, and Joyce Greenwood is...I would happily buy a recording of her reading the OED, just to hear that astonishing voice. And, in a small but marvelous role, Miles Malleson is superb. If you have not seen this film, it's readily available. Give yourself a treat. I know that Hollywood seems to have forgotten that there's nothing to be gained by trying to remake a perfect film. If they ever dare to do it with this one--I don't give a damn who is in it, or who directs or writes--don't bother. See the original. None genuine without the Ealing Label.

The Barbarian Invasions (2003)

a wistful comedy about passings

[15 March 2004]

Since I haven't seen the movie to which this is a sequel, I can only comment on the movie itself. I liked it quite a lot. I didn't think it was so much about death or a reconciliation, as it was about how eras and attitudes are succeeded by others. The world of which the dying professor and his friends are a part is one that I relate to as a one-time participant. Now, it exists only in pockets, while all around the pockets seethes its turbulent successors--the old system crumbles and something unnerving is slouching toward Bethlehem. The "barbarians" seem disturbing and depressing to the those who look glumly at them from the perspective of the old days and values to which the last survivors cling. It didn't seem to me that Arcand regarded the relics of the Old Way as necessarily admirable or exemplary. But they're representatives of that bygone time of restlessness, of passionate rejection of one "ism" and equally passionate embrace of the next--of a rather dutiful celebration of liberation from sexual repression, and of belief in a certain culture that is increasingly neither studied nor respected. Viewed in that way, the film does a nice job of being evocative. I don't think it means to indict the Canadian medical system, or exalt intellectualism as represented by the old set here at the expense of a new lowbrow world view. But maybe that's just me.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)

Deliberately paced? Yes. Long? Yes. Very good? Absolutely!

[18 November 2003]

From some of the comments posted here, it seems that we live in a time when moviegoers (many of them, anyway) demand that everything be fast-paced, and that the action be close to nonstop. If you fit that description, then you may well find this movie a disappointment. Otherwise, you are likely to find, as we did, that there is a lot about it that's admirable and worthwhile. The look of it, for one thing, is splendid, and the script is a throwback to the Horatio Hornblower/Captain Blood epics of old. There's no pretense of this being a film that tries to show the opposing sides fairly; this is about the days when Britain ruled the waves--period. Russell Crowe is superb and projects an easy authority and heroic strength, and the rest of the cast is fine as well. Peter Weir has done an admirable job, and the special effects are brilliant in that they don't really call attention to themselves as effects. This is one that demands a second viewing some day, and amply rewards a first viewing.

The Station Agent (2003)

a wonderful film about the healing powers of friendship

[28 October 2003]

This remarkable film is another example of the miracles that can be wrought in motion pictures, without lavish budgets, special effects, or pyrotechnics of any sort. Peter Dinklage, Patricia Clarkson, and Bobby Cannavale head a superb cast that fleshes out the excellent work of director-writer Tom McCarthy to create a movie that left us euphoric as we walked out of the theater. In trying to recall other movies that successfully dealt with this theme--a celebration of friendship, and how isolated, broken people can reach out to help each other to achieve a degree of happiness in their lives--I thought first of "Lost in Translation," which operates in similar territory, but actually wound up going all the way back to "Jules and Jim" to find a film that did it as effectively. This is one I look forward to revisiting in years to come.

Mystic River (2003)

this is a perfect example of synergy--the whole exceeds the sum of the parts

[20 October 2003]

I came to this movie with high expectations, based on word-of-mouth and on the virtual unanimity of the critics. My high expectations were met. This is a stunning, deeply involving film with tragic depth and great emotional power. To begin with, Dennis Lehane's novel provides a strong base on which to build. Even the title is superb, and resonates through every word of the book and frame of the film. Eastwood's work is splendid, not a false move made, and exceptional performances elicited from all the performers--to say nothing of the evocative cinematography and the music (Eastwood's work, too, in large part). As for the cast, if none of the male leads get Oscars it may well be because they wind up splitting votes. Sean Penn is simply incandescent; his rage and fire give the movie much of its impetus. Tim Robbins is also stunning. His performance is eloquent, beautifully controlled and modulated throughout. He is touching in conveying a man struggling under a virtually unbearable burden of guilt and memory. Kevin Bacon's work is hardly less fine in a somewhat less gratifying role. These three characters, linked and bound by a common thread, provide the film with its main force. Also admirable in their contributions are Marcia Gay Harden as Dave's fretful, frightened wife, Laura Linney as the passionate and definitively supportive wife to Jimmy, and (in a counterpart role) Laurence Fishburne as Sean's cop partner. Virtually every secondary performance makes its own points. Some people seem to have found the movie "slow." I find that sad..the movie is deliberate like a largo movement of a great piece of music is deliberate...but SLOW? No way. Eastwood may be our finest working filmmaker today--he is surely one of the very best, when he has the components to work with, as he has here. This is a movie to be seen and thought about, and treasured.

Lost in Translation (2003)

A very sweet and evocative film--but I might have one qualifying criticism

[22 September 2003]

Congratulations to Sofia Coppola for demonstrating two sides to her rapidly maturing cinematic talents in this beautifully shot and well-written film. The leads, Bill Murray and Scarlett Johannson, also do a fine job, showing wonderful restraint and thereby conveying the characters' deep and gloomy sense of isolation that the movie absolutely demands if it is to work. Murray has never been better, I think. Visually the film is often simply stunning, there are some extremely funny sequences, and very effective use of music, both background and foreground. The karaoke stuff is especially telling, as personal revelation. And the plot avoided some pitfalls that might have tempted other filmmakers, with regard to the outcome of the relationship between the principals. My one question--and it is just a question, I have no answer--is whether or not the film will offend the sensibilities of Japanese and Japanese-American viewers. In any case, this viewer thoroughly enjoyed every moment.

Finding Nemo (2003)

humor, stunning visuals, great voices, even a little science--what more can you ask from an animated feature?

[8 July 2003]

We went to this one with a certain amount of doubt, owing largely to an old predisposition to regard "cartoons" as too silly to be enjoyed by responsible, solemn grownups--even grownups looking for a few laughs. I'm happy to say we were captivated. The story line isn't groundbreaking, true, but so what? The variations the writers ring in on it are marvelous (I won't throw any spoilers around), the voices are wonderful--Albert Brooks and Ellen DeGeneres above all, but everybody makes a contribution. The visual aspect of the film is remarkable--stunning is not too strong a word to use. The people of Pixar are to be congratulated. And there are even some nuggets of scientific fact scattered here and there--clownfishes DO live in sea anemones because they're immune to the poison, for instance. I will add one warning: if you have very small children, say, under four, think twice about bringing them; a few of the nastier fish would frighten the little ones badly, I think. Otherwise, I cannot imagine any group or category of viewers who would not find this gem worth the time. We'll want to see it again some day. And I should think it is worth seeing on a big screen, if possible.

This Is Spinal Tap (1984)

Age has not withered it. It'll be every bit as funny two decades down the road.

[6 May 2003]

I think "Spinal Tap" is worth seeing roughly once every other year. It remains as fresh, funny, and on-target as ever it was, and there's enough of a foundation to keep it from the sin of fluffiness. Rob Reiner has gone on to other directorial triumphs, and the Guest-McKean-Shearer triumvirate has proven that this film was no fluke with its more recent gems--most lately, "A Mighty Wind." The fact that these three are musicians as well as actors and satirists helps to give this film an additionally wonderful insider's perspective. It's hard to believe that there people out there who have yet to experience this one, but they should lose no time in renting or buying it--ideally in the Collector's Edition. Among the more marvelous aspects of the movie are: the great deadpan spoofs of earlier commercial rock genres through that this relentlessly derivative band has passed over its career; the dozens of beautifully realized secondary characters who give the movie a lot of its laughs; and the fact that, despite their terminal stupidity and shallowness, the guys in Spinal Tap emerge as people you--or, anyway, I--feel sorry for when everything seems to be going against them. To me, it's the vestigial underlying humanity of St. Hubbins, Tufnel, and Smalls that makes this movie something more than just a silly spoof. The same can be said, by the way, for "A Mighty Wind," "Best in Show," and "Waiting for Guffman." The characters may be more than a little silly, but they remain...well...sort of human, too. I can't wait to see this film again, sometime in 2005.

A Mighty Wind (2003)

It's more than just a "mockumentary"--and works fine on that level, too.

[22 April 2003]

By now, it's fair to say that Christopher Guest and his associates have developed a genre of their own. He and Eugene Levy have assembled a very talented ensemble and written a marvelous script that allows most, if not all, of the performers to score plenty of legitimate points. I was in college when the commercial folk music mania reached its peak, when almost everyone knew how to play 3 guitar chords and sing simple harmonies, and every college had its own version of the Kingston Trio--though, usually not as talented. Without in any way trivializing or putting down the many positive aspects of American traditional music, this movie shows that there was plenty from that era that merited some gentle mockery. To get specific is to risk scattering spoilers everywhere, so I'll confine myself to saying that the songs-written for the most part by performers in the film--are marvelous examples of self-enchanted kitschy claptrap, with some great double entendres here and there, and that the acting, which ranges from restrained and subtle to over-the-top is excellent. Special praise should go to Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara, whose work as the due of Mitch and Mickey is not only funny, but provides a sweet and touching note as well. I look back fondly on that time and that music, even the kitschy elements of it. AMW doesn't disrespect the music or the time, despite what a few writers have claimed. It was a delight from beginning to end, and if the end seemed to come too soon...well, it's a hell of a lot better than an ending which comes way too late. See this, by all means.

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

Nowadays, this film is an anomaly--a scary movie that uses atmosphere and suggestion, instead of gore.

[20 March 2003]

It's hard to discuss this film without using spoilers, so I'll get the non-spoiler part done first. Seeing this movie a few decades after my first viewing only confirms my high opinion of Polanski as a brilliant director. In an age when most directors seem to confuse gallons of stage blood and severed body parts with scariness, it's refreshing to be reminded that the most frightening movies need not resort to the grand guignol technique. This one does it with subtle suggestions and carefully crafted atmosphere, and the result is infinitely more effective than the confections in which hideously scarred maniacs take chain saws to shoals of nubile coeds, etc., etc., etc. The acting is quite good throughout: Farrow embodies vulnerable innocence, Cassavettes nails his role, and Ruth Gordon is sublime--was this the film that revitalized her career? It certainly deserved to be. But the star of this film, in terms of who makes the biggest contribution, is Polanski. The end result is a wonderfully evocative and chilling movie that works as well now as it did in the late 60s. (HERE COME THE SPOILERS---IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE FILM, STOP READING HERE) Leaving aside the question of why people, even in a fiction, would believably choose to be Satanists, the great virtue of this movie is the way in which it progresses by gradual steps from a kind of super-normality into a nightmare. Polanski's touches--the shadowy corners of the elaborate old apartment, a fragment of a faded note written by the former tenant, the illustrations in the book on witchcraft that Rosemary gets from the newly deceased "Hutch"--the contrast between the banal, everyday world around the Woodhouses and the horror Rosemary is slowly but inevitably sucked into...it all works. The whole, to my mind, is greater than the sum of its parts. I would say it can be called a genre classic.