What touched me the most is that despite the very very sad undertone caused by the omnipresence of death, both Kevin Bacon (Tom) and Miles Heizer (Davey), by fully embracing their pain and accepting death, are able to gain strength and really start living. What do I mean by this? Tom and Davey are confronted with the ultimate pain of losing or having lost their most beloved people in life. This is a heavy burden to carry. Whenever you see Tom, you see my wife is dying of cancer and I can't do anything about it written in his face. In Davey's case it's I have just lost my mom. That's a very depressing situation for both of them, where despair mingles with desperation, anger and emptiness. Both of them are on the verge of losing everything and yielding to the pain. However, from the moment Davey starts to live with Tom and his wife Megan, a subtle healing process is initiated. I very much agree with the reviewer above, Megan is healing Tom and herself when she decides to take in and look after Davey. For Davey it is not only a path at the end of which he can forgive the man who he deemed responsible for the death of his mother, it is also a path into a better future that allows him to leave death and pain behind and start his young life anew. The death of his mom allowed him to meet Tom and Megan and by the most unlikely circumstances he grows very close with them. When Megan's condition deteriorates and she is about to die, he blames himself and thinks God is punishing him. He has to accept death again, and this time it hurts just as much. However, he has found a place to be, he has found love, and although he is losing a most beloved person again, by embracing death and the pain, he wins a new life at Tom's side, a better life then he would have ever thought he would live. As for Tom, his life is already falling apart before the fateful accident. His wife is dying, he has no children, and when Davey shows up, he risks losing his job. You can feel the emptiness inside of him in every moment, which is grand acting on Kevin Bacon's part. Tom's working mate actually reproaches him for being dead inside. He is really not interested in Davey when he knocks on his door. Yet he realizes that Megan finds a lot of comfort in taking the boy in. Tom and Davey confront each other and their pain, they slowly establish a most unlikely bond, and at the time Megan is dying, they have found a new meaning in life. They help each other out, they overcame their individual pain, which becomes a common pain, and from this common pain they are able to rise together. Death has given both of them a new life, a new meaning in life, and at the very end they are stronger than they ever were and ready to usher into a future that, growing out from so much depression and sadness, holds the promise of life and love and the prospect of happiness.
Reviews
96 Reviews
Leo
(2002)
Complex character portrayal
18 September 2006
The movie itself is a kind of southern Gothic drama with a very distinct cinematographic approach. The storyline is made up of two subtly intertwining narrative layers that make the movie as a whole hard to grasp at the first look, but thoroughly convincing as an independent character study at last. Very complex material in terms of plot and narrative style, very gloomy and depressing in terms of character portrayal and very distinct in terms of pace and cinematography. A convincing and experienced cast round off the movie's basic quality. The complexity and the unusual style might make it hard to digest for the masses, but it is a real gem for people who like to look beyond the surface and dive into the mind of the protagonist.
Schwabenkinder
(2003 TV Movie)
Convincing portrayal of contemporary hardships
5 March 2006
Schwabenkinder is an incredibly strong and convincing movie about the lives and times of those wretched children of poor mountain peasants from the Austrian state of Tyrol who were sent to Swabia as child laborers in the second half of the 19th century.
The movie starts with Kaspar, a man of about thirty years, and his return to his childhood home in the Austrian Alps. He encounters his father, terminally ill and on the brink of death. When the old man recognizes him, he closes his eyes and starts crying as does Kaspar. From that very early moment on you know that there is a deep emotional scar inflicted on both men, and the honesty and the incredible depth of their emotions set the stage for a stunning true story of despair, privation and atrocious hardships.
Kaspar settles down at his father's bedside, and while overwhelmed by his emotions and his love for the dying man, he starts telling the story of his life.
When Kaspar was 8 years old, his mother died in an avalanche. This loss forces Kaspar's father to send him away with many other children of the rural alpine community to Swabia in order to work for farmers and peasants over there as cheap laborers. The first real strength of the story is the inner conflict of Kaspar's father. He has so far stoutly refused to give any of his children away, but the death of his wife leaves him no other chance. Kaspar deeply loves his father their relationship is portrayed as very affectionate and close. When Kaspar gets a wonderful knife from his father, he is the happiest boy. He never gives the knife away it reminds him of his native land and his family during the hardest and most painful days, months and years that are about to come. There is a scene just before Kaspar leaves his family, when his father beats him up to make it easier for the boy to leave him behind. This scene is thrashing and utterly brilliant. The man beats his son and cries at the same time as if each whack would cut into his own flesh. Kaspar is unable to understand this and thinks that his father has started to hate him. The boy is very sensitive and hardly talks after that.
The middle part of the movie deals with the merciless hike through the Alps to reach Swabia. This part is brutal and one of the most impressive accomplishments I have seen in a long time. The visuals are magnificent. I could almost feel the pain of the kids, the icy polar winds on my cheeks and the tons of snow around me. A young priest leads the group through snowstorms, over frozen passes and snow-covered slopes. Kaspar and the other kids suffer severely, and the visual transformation is stunning in capturing their desperate struggle to survive amidst hostile conditions. Some of the them break down, one girl falls with pneumonia, and Kaspar almost freezes to death after an arctic night. This physically exhausting hike is strengthened in its devastation by the emotional suffering of the kids. One girl desperately screams for her mother several times in a way that makes your heart burst. The hardships these children had to endure are presented in stirringly authentic moments.
The last part of the movie deals with Kaspar and the peasant he has to work for. He is forced to work for hours without any rest, he witnesses the brutal regime of the farmer and turns even stronger into himself. He has to clean the cows, muck out the stable and work as a shepherd boy during hail and icy rain, sticking his naked and freezing feet into dung to warm himself. At night he lies in his bed and cries for hours, at lunchtime he sits next to the other workers and stares at his food without touching it. And throughout all these moments of humiliation and merciless suffering, of despair and loneliness, he always touches his father's knife, closes his eyes and thinks about his home.
I normally cannot make much of Austrian and German movies. They tend to be simple-minded and unable to live up to the scope of American productions in terms of acting quality and storyline. Schwabenkinder however is an outstanding and deeply moving tale about real historical circumstances. My eyes turned wet several times. The story's emotional level drags you right into the contemporary hardships of those poor kids. Thomas Unterkircher as eight-year-old Kaspar is pervasive and subtle at the same time. He portrays his character's suffering so genuinely and with such sensitivity that you want to grab a blanket and cover the lonely and freezing boy when he crouches under the icy rain.
The historical background adds tremendous authenticity to the movie and makes the suffering of Kaspar and the other kids even more painful to watch. Even the language was adapted to the regional dialects, and thus some native speakers of German might have problems following the Tyrolean slang. It is a story about a son and his father, about atonement and almost unbearable hardships, but also about dreams and endurance despite utter despair and isolation. Schwabenkinder is dedicated as a whole to the kids who had to endure these hardships up until World War I. It stands as an epitaph for those who fell and as an authentic epitome of Austria's past and the life of mountain dwellers in such remote regions. 9/10.
The movie starts with Kaspar, a man of about thirty years, and his return to his childhood home in the Austrian Alps. He encounters his father, terminally ill and on the brink of death. When the old man recognizes him, he closes his eyes and starts crying as does Kaspar. From that very early moment on you know that there is a deep emotional scar inflicted on both men, and the honesty and the incredible depth of their emotions set the stage for a stunning true story of despair, privation and atrocious hardships.
Kaspar settles down at his father's bedside, and while overwhelmed by his emotions and his love for the dying man, he starts telling the story of his life.
When Kaspar was 8 years old, his mother died in an avalanche. This loss forces Kaspar's father to send him away with many other children of the rural alpine community to Swabia in order to work for farmers and peasants over there as cheap laborers. The first real strength of the story is the inner conflict of Kaspar's father. He has so far stoutly refused to give any of his children away, but the death of his wife leaves him no other chance. Kaspar deeply loves his father their relationship is portrayed as very affectionate and close. When Kaspar gets a wonderful knife from his father, he is the happiest boy. He never gives the knife away it reminds him of his native land and his family during the hardest and most painful days, months and years that are about to come. There is a scene just before Kaspar leaves his family, when his father beats him up to make it easier for the boy to leave him behind. This scene is thrashing and utterly brilliant. The man beats his son and cries at the same time as if each whack would cut into his own flesh. Kaspar is unable to understand this and thinks that his father has started to hate him. The boy is very sensitive and hardly talks after that.
The middle part of the movie deals with the merciless hike through the Alps to reach Swabia. This part is brutal and one of the most impressive accomplishments I have seen in a long time. The visuals are magnificent. I could almost feel the pain of the kids, the icy polar winds on my cheeks and the tons of snow around me. A young priest leads the group through snowstorms, over frozen passes and snow-covered slopes. Kaspar and the other kids suffer severely, and the visual transformation is stunning in capturing their desperate struggle to survive amidst hostile conditions. Some of the them break down, one girl falls with pneumonia, and Kaspar almost freezes to death after an arctic night. This physically exhausting hike is strengthened in its devastation by the emotional suffering of the kids. One girl desperately screams for her mother several times in a way that makes your heart burst. The hardships these children had to endure are presented in stirringly authentic moments.
The last part of the movie deals with Kaspar and the peasant he has to work for. He is forced to work for hours without any rest, he witnesses the brutal regime of the farmer and turns even stronger into himself. He has to clean the cows, muck out the stable and work as a shepherd boy during hail and icy rain, sticking his naked and freezing feet into dung to warm himself. At night he lies in his bed and cries for hours, at lunchtime he sits next to the other workers and stares at his food without touching it. And throughout all these moments of humiliation and merciless suffering, of despair and loneliness, he always touches his father's knife, closes his eyes and thinks about his home.
I normally cannot make much of Austrian and German movies. They tend to be simple-minded and unable to live up to the scope of American productions in terms of acting quality and storyline. Schwabenkinder however is an outstanding and deeply moving tale about real historical circumstances. My eyes turned wet several times. The story's emotional level drags you right into the contemporary hardships of those poor kids. Thomas Unterkircher as eight-year-old Kaspar is pervasive and subtle at the same time. He portrays his character's suffering so genuinely and with such sensitivity that you want to grab a blanket and cover the lonely and freezing boy when he crouches under the icy rain.
The historical background adds tremendous authenticity to the movie and makes the suffering of Kaspar and the other kids even more painful to watch. Even the language was adapted to the regional dialects, and thus some native speakers of German might have problems following the Tyrolean slang. It is a story about a son and his father, about atonement and almost unbearable hardships, but also about dreams and endurance despite utter despair and isolation. Schwabenkinder is dedicated as a whole to the kids who had to endure these hardships up until World War I. It stands as an epitaph for those who fell and as an authentic epitome of Austria's past and the life of mountain dwellers in such remote regions. 9/10.
Cinema Paradiso
(1988)
The magic of the movies
5 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Cinema Paradiso is a very simple movie with one particular theme that makes it special: The magic of the movies. The storyline follows the path of a famous Italian director and traces his career back to his early childhood days, when he spent countless hours with his adult friend Alfredo in the projection room of the little cinema in their village. The two of them grow quite close, and it is fair to say that Alfredo becomes a kind of real father for little Toto, whose natural father died in World War II. After a horrible incident that leaves Alfredo blind, Toto himself becomes the projectionist, a job he performs for many years.
The movie further extensively elaborates on Toto's first love and on many subtle themes, such as Alfredo fatherly guidance and Toto's time in the army. Throughout the proceedings of the story, the magic of movies plays an important part. The inspiration and impact on ordinary people in those early days of the cinema, the way people were emotionally stirred and how they participated actively with cheers, laughters and even tears, all these aspects are transformed into the movie in a way that is maybe a bit over-subscribed and occasionally a bit corny, but very authentic and with a marked nostalgic edge.
Cinema Paradiso is a very subtle and slow movie. It is a typical Italian movie in terms of pace and camera work. I was occasionally reminded of Once Upon A Time in America and Martin Scorsese's narrative style. It is a very nostalgic movie with lots of sad moments that make you aware of the passing of time. At the same it is the story of Toto and his relationship with Alfredo, who was more a father than a friend to him. It is maybe a bit two long, and some moments could have been made more interesting and more helpful for a quicker proceeding of storyline developments. 8/10.
The movie further extensively elaborates on Toto's first love and on many subtle themes, such as Alfredo fatherly guidance and Toto's time in the army. Throughout the proceedings of the story, the magic of movies plays an important part. The inspiration and impact on ordinary people in those early days of the cinema, the way people were emotionally stirred and how they participated actively with cheers, laughters and even tears, all these aspects are transformed into the movie in a way that is maybe a bit over-subscribed and occasionally a bit corny, but very authentic and with a marked nostalgic edge.
Cinema Paradiso is a very subtle and slow movie. It is a typical Italian movie in terms of pace and camera work. I was occasionally reminded of Once Upon A Time in America and Martin Scorsese's narrative style. It is a very nostalgic movie with lots of sad moments that make you aware of the passing of time. At the same it is the story of Toto and his relationship with Alfredo, who was more a father than a friend to him. It is maybe a bit two long, and some moments could have been made more interesting and more helpful for a quicker proceeding of storyline developments. 8/10.
The Angel Doll
(2002)
Nostalgic Christmas story about love and hope
15 February 2006
The Angel Doll is based on the book by Jerry Bledsoe and written and directed by Alexander Johnston, who died shortly after making this movie. It is an enchanting and touching true story told through the eyes of Jerry Barlow (Michael Welch), a ten-year-old boy. The setting of this beautifully acted and moving tale of family life is the nostalgic world of small-town America. Jerry lives in the southern town of Thomasville, and the year is 1950. The summer has just begun, and it is going to be a summer that will change Jerry's life forever. He is doing his paper round for the town store, dreaming about a Schwinn Black Phantom bike and getting up to innocent mischief with his mates. When he meets "Whitey" Black (Cody Newton), they become best friends. Whitey is a boy from a troubled family his father died, his mother (Diana Scarwid) drinks to blot out life's miseries and his little four-year-old sister Sandy lies bedridden with polio. Yet although he lives a tough life, Whitey has a heart of gold. Sandy's only comfort from her illness is her love for angels. So Whitey and his friends set out to find an angel doll as a special Christmas gift for Sandy. It is the ultimate quest of hope, and the boys learn what is truly important in their lives.
Next to Michael Welsh and Cody Newton, The Angel Doll also features a strong line-up of grown up acting talent, including Oscar winner Keith Carradine (Nashville, The Long Riders), Oscar nominee Diana Scarwid, Betsy Brantley, Pat Hingle and Nick Searcy.
The story is a very effective combination of childhood nostalgia with all its enchanting features and sincere messages of life. The movie primarily shows all the stereotypical aspects of family life in small-town America. Jerry's family fits very much into this pattern and is introduced as the typical American family of the 50s. Jerry and his friends are very imaginative boys. They fight battles with sticks and stones and even launch an expedition into a nearby army camp, which turns out to be a daring adventure that unravels the dangers of polio as a contagious disease.
The entire story is told through the eyes of Jerry, and thus his naivety and his simple-minded perception of life grants the movie just the right amount of sensibility and plain fun. There are various scenes that strongly reflect the coming-of-age theme as a very pervasive sub-theme of the plot. The hysteria of catching polio leads to a very interesting conversation between Jerry and his mother (Betsy Brentley) about fears and personal integrity. Jerry also learns a lot about challenges and struggles. He learns that friendship is really one of the most important things in life, and that dreams are a necessity to maintain hope and strength.
The issues of death and loss are very strong themes as well and add a lot of authenticity to the coming-of-age process Jerry in particular undergoes. Whitey loves Sandy with all his heart, but at the same time she is a very heavy emotional burden for him to bear. His gift for her is an ultimate sign of affection, showing his deep love and heart wrenching commitment to make her happy. One of the most compelling messages of the story shines through at the end when Jerry realizes that Whitey is gone. He is told that "Sooner or later, everybody loses a friend in their lives." Brilliant.
The Angel Doll is a story about Christmas and the most solemn human virtues. It is indeed a story of one lasting summer and nostalgic childhood memories. At the same time it takes a sentimental look at growing up and learning a lot about yourself and the world around you. It features inspirational themes as well as sincere depictions of how hard and unjust life can be. Just as when Whitey loses the money he has saved for the angel doll, he is down and out. Then Jerry steps in and shows genuine compassion for his friend's needs, thus renewing hope and inciting new confidence in Whitey. This is the main message. Care for those who need you and always remember that giving hope to someone else is the most rewarding gift anyone can give. Be it an angel doll for you ailing sister, pocket money for your struggling friend, donations for children's hospitals or Christmas gifts beneath the tree. Although there is loss and death everywhere around us, it is hope that brings us together and makes us carry on.
Next to Michael Welsh and Cody Newton, The Angel Doll also features a strong line-up of grown up acting talent, including Oscar winner Keith Carradine (Nashville, The Long Riders), Oscar nominee Diana Scarwid, Betsy Brantley, Pat Hingle and Nick Searcy.
The story is a very effective combination of childhood nostalgia with all its enchanting features and sincere messages of life. The movie primarily shows all the stereotypical aspects of family life in small-town America. Jerry's family fits very much into this pattern and is introduced as the typical American family of the 50s. Jerry and his friends are very imaginative boys. They fight battles with sticks and stones and even launch an expedition into a nearby army camp, which turns out to be a daring adventure that unravels the dangers of polio as a contagious disease.
The entire story is told through the eyes of Jerry, and thus his naivety and his simple-minded perception of life grants the movie just the right amount of sensibility and plain fun. There are various scenes that strongly reflect the coming-of-age theme as a very pervasive sub-theme of the plot. The hysteria of catching polio leads to a very interesting conversation between Jerry and his mother (Betsy Brentley) about fears and personal integrity. Jerry also learns a lot about challenges and struggles. He learns that friendship is really one of the most important things in life, and that dreams are a necessity to maintain hope and strength.
The issues of death and loss are very strong themes as well and add a lot of authenticity to the coming-of-age process Jerry in particular undergoes. Whitey loves Sandy with all his heart, but at the same time she is a very heavy emotional burden for him to bear. His gift for her is an ultimate sign of affection, showing his deep love and heart wrenching commitment to make her happy. One of the most compelling messages of the story shines through at the end when Jerry realizes that Whitey is gone. He is told that "Sooner or later, everybody loses a friend in their lives." Brilliant.
The Angel Doll is a story about Christmas and the most solemn human virtues. It is indeed a story of one lasting summer and nostalgic childhood memories. At the same time it takes a sentimental look at growing up and learning a lot about yourself and the world around you. It features inspirational themes as well as sincere depictions of how hard and unjust life can be. Just as when Whitey loses the money he has saved for the angel doll, he is down and out. Then Jerry steps in and shows genuine compassion for his friend's needs, thus renewing hope and inciting new confidence in Whitey. This is the main message. Care for those who need you and always remember that giving hope to someone else is the most rewarding gift anyone can give. Be it an angel doll for you ailing sister, pocket money for your struggling friend, donations for children's hospitals or Christmas gifts beneath the tree. Although there is loss and death everywhere around us, it is hope that brings us together and makes us carry on.
The River
(1984)
Fighting invincible adversities as a genuine American virtue
15 February 2006
The River features a decent portrayal of the harsh life of American farmers and delivers a fine message that stands as the epitome of genuine American virtues. It is the story of Tom Garvey (Mel Gibson) and his family. They cultivate land close to the banks of the Tennessee River and have to fight floods and financial crises while one of the local capitalists plans to build a reservoir and wants them to abandon their land. Tom and his wife Mae (Sissy Spacek) are unwilling to yield. They rather chose to continue their inhuman struggles and stick to the grounds of their ancestors. What follows is a desperate and almost destructive fight to survive against adversities that seem invincible.
Mel Gibson and Sissy Spacek are portrayed as a loving couple that would never back down. Despite mounting pressure and considerable setbacks it is a question of honor and integrity for them to hold on. Due to financial reasons, Tom takes a job as a factory worker and has to leave Mae with the work at home. Mae is a rugged but also very sensitive and determined woman. She is not as stubborn as her husband and does indeed show signs of wavering and despair. Yet she is as dogged as he is when it comes to defend their land and their family. This is where both get their strength from. Land and family. The most important values for Americans. As long as there is land, and as long as the family is intact, there is always hope. Whatever adversity is thrown upon you natural or man-made backing down is no option. The movie lives from this emotional and psychologically compelling commitment and brings these genuine American virtues to the fore with sincere authenticity and without glossing over the facts. The life of the family is portrayed in all its depressing hardships and stands as a symbol for the bold ambitions and the perseverance of the pioneers of the historical frontier. At the same time Tom and Mae embody natural virtues of not just Americans but all humans.
Apart from the very obvious emphasis on courage and steadfastness, the movie provides visually intriguing sequences. The camera work is sublime and manages to capture at least some of the most picturesque images of the Tennessee River. The entire movie is shot on location in the Volunteer State along the banks of the great river. The scenes shot at night and during heavy rain are stunning and require substantial experience.
The River is indeed more than an average movie. Its story is simple but compelling. The characters are decently portrayed and the message is both appealing and inspirational. Storyline developments are sometimes still too slow and some scenes are occasionally long-winded. It is a typical American movie, thus elaborating strongly on American issues and American virtues.
Mel Gibson and Sissy Spacek are portrayed as a loving couple that would never back down. Despite mounting pressure and considerable setbacks it is a question of honor and integrity for them to hold on. Due to financial reasons, Tom takes a job as a factory worker and has to leave Mae with the work at home. Mae is a rugged but also very sensitive and determined woman. She is not as stubborn as her husband and does indeed show signs of wavering and despair. Yet she is as dogged as he is when it comes to defend their land and their family. This is where both get their strength from. Land and family. The most important values for Americans. As long as there is land, and as long as the family is intact, there is always hope. Whatever adversity is thrown upon you natural or man-made backing down is no option. The movie lives from this emotional and psychologically compelling commitment and brings these genuine American virtues to the fore with sincere authenticity and without glossing over the facts. The life of the family is portrayed in all its depressing hardships and stands as a symbol for the bold ambitions and the perseverance of the pioneers of the historical frontier. At the same time Tom and Mae embody natural virtues of not just Americans but all humans.
Apart from the very obvious emphasis on courage and steadfastness, the movie provides visually intriguing sequences. The camera work is sublime and manages to capture at least some of the most picturesque images of the Tennessee River. The entire movie is shot on location in the Volunteer State along the banks of the great river. The scenes shot at night and during heavy rain are stunning and require substantial experience.
The River is indeed more than an average movie. Its story is simple but compelling. The characters are decently portrayed and the message is both appealing and inspirational. Storyline developments are sometimes still too slow and some scenes are occasionally long-winded. It is a typical American movie, thus elaborating strongly on American issues and American virtues.
Living with the Dead
(II) (2002)
A stunning mystery masterpiece
8 February 2006
Talking to Heaven aka Living with the Dead is based on the book by James van Praagh, one of America's most famous mediums. He is also the main character, played by Ted Danson. The movie features the story of James' ability to connect with dead people and traces his supernatural gift back to his childhood. Now he is in his forties. When his mother (Diane Ladd) dies everything comes back and his abilities grow stronger. Mysterious things start to happen, dead boys haunt James and want him to do something. James is baffled and starts investigating with the help of detective Karen Condrin (Mary Steenburgen). While they come across a 30-year-old murder case involving seven young boys, James delves deeper into the mysteries and finds evidence of a connection to his own past. But their time is running out and the life of another boy (Reece Thompson) is on the line.
The story is very complex and sophisticated. You never stop making your own assumptions and the numerous subtle hints and connections between times and places give the story tremendous strength and add substantial quality to the plot. I have seen many mystery movies and thrillers, but hardly any is able to match the suspense and the complexity of Talking to Heaven. Despite its length of almost three hours and due to the wonderfully paced unraveling of mysteries and the ability of Ted Denson in particular to maintain the level of suspense, the story keeps the audience alert and never becomes slow or corny. There are so many connections and hints, so many scenes that are simply awesome and so many sub-plots with underlying themes and messages that Talking to Heaven can be called a revelation and a stunning mystery masterpiece.
The strongest aspect of the story is the link between the murder of the boys and James' own past. This makes him emotionally very much attached to the crime story and is perfectly connected to the introductory sequences that feature him as a boy. Everything is a puzzle at the outset and there is never a point in the course of the story where you could predict what is going to happen next. Very few movies achieve this level of unpredictability.
James' life and his struggles make up a significant part of the story, especially his relationship and his ensuing contact with his late mother. She provides some sort of guidance for him and makes him understand the issue of death and accept his gift as a blessing rather than a curse. The relationships with his father (veteran Jack Palance) and his friend Midge (Queen Latifah) have no immediate connection to the crime story, but provide substantial depth for understanding him as a character. The many scenes in which James talks to strangers about their late relatives collaborates to get a sense of his abilities and the mysteries of his life.
The murder case is the core of the story, its major strength and the main source of suspense. Even without the mystery aspect, this would make an awesome thriller. Mary Steenburgen as detective Condrin acts as a kind of buffer between the supernatural background story and the terrific real-life murder case and helps to combine the strengths of both. There are many pieces that need to be collected, many assumptions that need to be made and many secrets that need to be unraveled.
A major sub-theme is the story of Eddie Kats (James Kirk) and his mother. Their paths are a significant part of the story and add another very sophisticated emotional level. The scenes that feature Eddie and James reminded me very much of thematic elements that pervade the writings of Stephen King, who makes strong use of these cross-time stories that appeal emotionally and make you think about values and life in general. A similar pattern surfaces in the story of Reece Thompson's character, who is terrorized and trying to escape death. Both boys (Thompson and Kirk) are perfectly cast and deliver superb performances though they appear on entirely different settings. They shine and add authenticity to the story, in particular on an emotional level.
Talking to Heaven is a combination of different genres. It features a complex and outstandingly sophisticated storyline, awesome actors and so many sub-themes that culminate in an entirely stunning and satisfying climax that leaves you at the edge of your seat. The final denouement connects with all the layers of setting, both time and place, and by then you realize the complexity and quality of the story. A brilliant mystery masterpiece by all means.
The story is very complex and sophisticated. You never stop making your own assumptions and the numerous subtle hints and connections between times and places give the story tremendous strength and add substantial quality to the plot. I have seen many mystery movies and thrillers, but hardly any is able to match the suspense and the complexity of Talking to Heaven. Despite its length of almost three hours and due to the wonderfully paced unraveling of mysteries and the ability of Ted Denson in particular to maintain the level of suspense, the story keeps the audience alert and never becomes slow or corny. There are so many connections and hints, so many scenes that are simply awesome and so many sub-plots with underlying themes and messages that Talking to Heaven can be called a revelation and a stunning mystery masterpiece.
The strongest aspect of the story is the link between the murder of the boys and James' own past. This makes him emotionally very much attached to the crime story and is perfectly connected to the introductory sequences that feature him as a boy. Everything is a puzzle at the outset and there is never a point in the course of the story where you could predict what is going to happen next. Very few movies achieve this level of unpredictability.
James' life and his struggles make up a significant part of the story, especially his relationship and his ensuing contact with his late mother. She provides some sort of guidance for him and makes him understand the issue of death and accept his gift as a blessing rather than a curse. The relationships with his father (veteran Jack Palance) and his friend Midge (Queen Latifah) have no immediate connection to the crime story, but provide substantial depth for understanding him as a character. The many scenes in which James talks to strangers about their late relatives collaborates to get a sense of his abilities and the mysteries of his life.
The murder case is the core of the story, its major strength and the main source of suspense. Even without the mystery aspect, this would make an awesome thriller. Mary Steenburgen as detective Condrin acts as a kind of buffer between the supernatural background story and the terrific real-life murder case and helps to combine the strengths of both. There are many pieces that need to be collected, many assumptions that need to be made and many secrets that need to be unraveled.
A major sub-theme is the story of Eddie Kats (James Kirk) and his mother. Their paths are a significant part of the story and add another very sophisticated emotional level. The scenes that feature Eddie and James reminded me very much of thematic elements that pervade the writings of Stephen King, who makes strong use of these cross-time stories that appeal emotionally and make you think about values and life in general. A similar pattern surfaces in the story of Reece Thompson's character, who is terrorized and trying to escape death. Both boys (Thompson and Kirk) are perfectly cast and deliver superb performances though they appear on entirely different settings. They shine and add authenticity to the story, in particular on an emotional level.
Talking to Heaven is a combination of different genres. It features a complex and outstandingly sophisticated storyline, awesome actors and so many sub-themes that culminate in an entirely stunning and satisfying climax that leaves you at the edge of your seat. The final denouement connects with all the layers of setting, both time and place, and by then you realize the complexity and quality of the story. A brilliant mystery masterpiece by all means.
The Return
(2003)
Promising premise, yet incoherent and illogical developments
8 February 2006
The Return is a Russian movie that deals with two boys, Andrej and Ivan, and the sudden appearance of a man who claims to be their father. The three of them embark on a trip that eventually brings them to a remote island. There things get out of control and a mentally thrashing climax leads to a weird final denouement that leaves many questions unanswered and an attentive viewer unsatisfied.
The movie's very basic premise is indeed promising and causes the audience to have certain expectations and rough ideas of underlying themes and the topics that are likely to be addressed. The first scenes provide an interesting introduction to the two brothers, their relationship with each other, their fears and specific characteristics. Russian movies tend to be very different from productions of other countries, mainly in terms of pace, visuals and tone. This very much applies here.
Then the boys' father turns up and the mysteries start. Who is he? Where did he come from? Why didn't he show up before? These questions do not necessarily need to be answered on condition that the movie either genuinely unravels the mysteries by natural developments or that the story is sophisticated enough to refrain from any revelations. Neither is the case. Instead more and more questions are posed and the story turns from interesting to weird. Not only that the identity and the intentions of the man claiming to be the boys' father remain entirely unclear, the story as it is presented is occasionally incoherent and simply not understandable. Some examples: The man takes the two boys with him for almost a week nobody knows where they are going or what they are about to do. The road trip aspect is nicely transformed, but there is no main theme that provides real identification and understanding of the proceeding events. I never stopped expecting some kind of explanation, and thus I was surprised that the movie never provided one. Then there is something that the man digs out it seems to be a treasure and the main incentive for him to go on the trip to the island in the first place. So what is it? Not a single hint is given. The entire quest of the boys to connect with the strange man is hampered by the incoherent developments and prevents the movie from persuasively elaborating on the father-son relationship, which was the primary source of the movie's emotional and psychological strength.
The two boys do a decent job. The younger one delivers some difficult and very emotional scenes that require substantial acting skills. The visuals are interesting, as you normally do not come to see images of the Russian countryside in all its rugged and picturesque beauty. The camera work is sometimes too slow in pace, but generally acceptable. The close-ups and the use of light is fine so the visual accomplishments need to be appreciated as such.
What starts as a very promising movie becomes an average flick that lacks substantial quality in plot and storyline developments. Although I could to some extent identify with the characters, the movie does little to help the audience to connect with them. It rather provides nothing but questions you expect to be answered. The theme of an absent father coming back and the emotional turmoil inflicted on the two boys is a very strong premise that made me expect a very sophisticated handling of the conflicts and frictions within the family and in particular between the father and his sons. I would love to give the movie a good rating for its theme, but the crudities were too apparent and overlapping the qualities. 5/10.
The movie's very basic premise is indeed promising and causes the audience to have certain expectations and rough ideas of underlying themes and the topics that are likely to be addressed. The first scenes provide an interesting introduction to the two brothers, their relationship with each other, their fears and specific characteristics. Russian movies tend to be very different from productions of other countries, mainly in terms of pace, visuals and tone. This very much applies here.
Then the boys' father turns up and the mysteries start. Who is he? Where did he come from? Why didn't he show up before? These questions do not necessarily need to be answered on condition that the movie either genuinely unravels the mysteries by natural developments or that the story is sophisticated enough to refrain from any revelations. Neither is the case. Instead more and more questions are posed and the story turns from interesting to weird. Not only that the identity and the intentions of the man claiming to be the boys' father remain entirely unclear, the story as it is presented is occasionally incoherent and simply not understandable. Some examples: The man takes the two boys with him for almost a week nobody knows where they are going or what they are about to do. The road trip aspect is nicely transformed, but there is no main theme that provides real identification and understanding of the proceeding events. I never stopped expecting some kind of explanation, and thus I was surprised that the movie never provided one. Then there is something that the man digs out it seems to be a treasure and the main incentive for him to go on the trip to the island in the first place. So what is it? Not a single hint is given. The entire quest of the boys to connect with the strange man is hampered by the incoherent developments and prevents the movie from persuasively elaborating on the father-son relationship, which was the primary source of the movie's emotional and psychological strength.
The two boys do a decent job. The younger one delivers some difficult and very emotional scenes that require substantial acting skills. The visuals are interesting, as you normally do not come to see images of the Russian countryside in all its rugged and picturesque beauty. The camera work is sometimes too slow in pace, but generally acceptable. The close-ups and the use of light is fine so the visual accomplishments need to be appreciated as such.
What starts as a very promising movie becomes an average flick that lacks substantial quality in plot and storyline developments. Although I could to some extent identify with the characters, the movie does little to help the audience to connect with them. It rather provides nothing but questions you expect to be answered. The theme of an absent father coming back and the emotional turmoil inflicted on the two boys is a very strong premise that made me expect a very sophisticated handling of the conflicts and frictions within the family and in particular between the father and his sons. I would love to give the movie a good rating for its theme, but the crudities were too apparent and overlapping the qualities. 5/10.
Joshua's Heart
(1990 TV Movie)
Emotionally challenging drama of a forging mother-son relationship
2 February 2006
Joshua's Heart is written by Susan Cuscuna and directed by Micheal Pressman (two-time Emmy Award Winner for Picket Fences). It is an engrossing family drama starring Melissa Gilbert-Brinkman, Tim Matheson (The West Wing) and Lisa Eilbacher (An Officer and a Gentleman) and featuring an amazingly assured performance by child actor Matthew Lawrence (Mrs. Doubtfire).
Claudia Casara (Gilbert) is an advertising executive and children's book author. When she meets Tom (Matheson) it is love at first sight. Tom's 10-year-old son Joshua (Lawrence) is used to new female faces and his father's changing relationships and expects Claudia to be another short-term acquaintance. When Claudia moves in she slowly gets to know this lonely little boy aching to love someone and to have a thoughtful parent around. She is the only one who spots Joshua's deep unhappiness behind the confident facade he presents to the world. The two of them forge an intense bond and Claudia realizes that she has started to love Joshua as if he were her own son. When Tom starts to meet another woman and with Joshua's real mother Kit (Eilbacher) making an appearance and claiming her rights for her son, Claudia is faced with a heart rending dilemma. Should she fight to keep Joshua in her life, or should she let go of him and risk breaking his heart along with her own.
As with most outstanding dramas the story and the cast make up the basic quality. The story of Joshua's Heart is the story of love, the struggle to find happiness and to be together with those you honestly care for. It is also the story of responsibility and trust in a world that has become increasingly artificial and negligent of genuine moral virtues. Through her relationship with Tom and her growing affection towards Joshua, Claudia finds out about the real miracles of life and her own dreams and emotions. The story is simple but very emotional and drags the audience very much into the ensuing struggles of Joshua and Claudia. It is a drama that addresses the issue of how much you are allowed to love someone you are not related to, how unaffected this love can be and how much you gain from such a relationship.
At the outset Claudia is very much focused on her career. Joshua somehow manages to open her eyes and to make it into her heart with his enchanting personality. Her relationship with Tom despite apparently passionate and sincere never gains this kind of emotional depth Claudia expects. Tom lies to her and takes advantage of her naivety. Thus Claudia projects her desire to have someone to care for and to love her unaffectedly into Joshua, a 10-year-old boy. While you might question her means and her obsession to have Joshua as the embodiment of her romantic yearnings, her intentions are genuine and not be challenged. She wants to protect him and to be the kind of mother he never had.
Joshua's response to her love is the main issue and the real emotional highlight of the movie. He is the one who carries the burden of being left alone with babysitters and having no-one to talk to. Matthew Lawrence is very assured and plays his character in an outstandingly persuasive manner. He never makes his relationship with Claudia appear corny or phony. He portrays his character's sensibility and the emotional struggle with shining decency that grants his performance with substantial quality. His emotional implications are due to the fact that he has never had a real mother to care for him, and hence the amount of love and trust he feels towards Claudia is authentic and perfectly understandable.
Kit, Joshua's real mother, is portrayed as a person who has the best intentions, but who was too inexperienced and too naive to live up to the responsibilities of being a parent. Now as she comes back she tries very hard to establish a real bond towards Joshua, who is eventually willing to give her a second chance and let her into his life again.
The bond between Claudia and Joshua is very strong. Both their lives have changed forever, and this makes the movie so pervasive. It is the story of how people can enrich each other's lives and how much they can grow from a relationship of mutual understanding and affection. Joshua experiences the warmth within a large family when he comes to Claudia's clan on Christmas, and Claudia finally finds out what she really wants in life and that Joshua's story also makes a good children's book. Life is about experiences and finding your true self in the course of them. Although painful and emotionally challenging, the relationship between Claudia and Joshua affirms this premise of life. The performances by Matthew Lawrence and Melissa Gilbert make Joshua's Heart a warm, tender and instructive tale of how painful love can be, but also of how much we can gain.
Claudia Casara (Gilbert) is an advertising executive and children's book author. When she meets Tom (Matheson) it is love at first sight. Tom's 10-year-old son Joshua (Lawrence) is used to new female faces and his father's changing relationships and expects Claudia to be another short-term acquaintance. When Claudia moves in she slowly gets to know this lonely little boy aching to love someone and to have a thoughtful parent around. She is the only one who spots Joshua's deep unhappiness behind the confident facade he presents to the world. The two of them forge an intense bond and Claudia realizes that she has started to love Joshua as if he were her own son. When Tom starts to meet another woman and with Joshua's real mother Kit (Eilbacher) making an appearance and claiming her rights for her son, Claudia is faced with a heart rending dilemma. Should she fight to keep Joshua in her life, or should she let go of him and risk breaking his heart along with her own.
As with most outstanding dramas the story and the cast make up the basic quality. The story of Joshua's Heart is the story of love, the struggle to find happiness and to be together with those you honestly care for. It is also the story of responsibility and trust in a world that has become increasingly artificial and negligent of genuine moral virtues. Through her relationship with Tom and her growing affection towards Joshua, Claudia finds out about the real miracles of life and her own dreams and emotions. The story is simple but very emotional and drags the audience very much into the ensuing struggles of Joshua and Claudia. It is a drama that addresses the issue of how much you are allowed to love someone you are not related to, how unaffected this love can be and how much you gain from such a relationship.
At the outset Claudia is very much focused on her career. Joshua somehow manages to open her eyes and to make it into her heart with his enchanting personality. Her relationship with Tom despite apparently passionate and sincere never gains this kind of emotional depth Claudia expects. Tom lies to her and takes advantage of her naivety. Thus Claudia projects her desire to have someone to care for and to love her unaffectedly into Joshua, a 10-year-old boy. While you might question her means and her obsession to have Joshua as the embodiment of her romantic yearnings, her intentions are genuine and not be challenged. She wants to protect him and to be the kind of mother he never had.
Joshua's response to her love is the main issue and the real emotional highlight of the movie. He is the one who carries the burden of being left alone with babysitters and having no-one to talk to. Matthew Lawrence is very assured and plays his character in an outstandingly persuasive manner. He never makes his relationship with Claudia appear corny or phony. He portrays his character's sensibility and the emotional struggle with shining decency that grants his performance with substantial quality. His emotional implications are due to the fact that he has never had a real mother to care for him, and hence the amount of love and trust he feels towards Claudia is authentic and perfectly understandable.
Kit, Joshua's real mother, is portrayed as a person who has the best intentions, but who was too inexperienced and too naive to live up to the responsibilities of being a parent. Now as she comes back she tries very hard to establish a real bond towards Joshua, who is eventually willing to give her a second chance and let her into his life again.
The bond between Claudia and Joshua is very strong. Both their lives have changed forever, and this makes the movie so pervasive. It is the story of how people can enrich each other's lives and how much they can grow from a relationship of mutual understanding and affection. Joshua experiences the warmth within a large family when he comes to Claudia's clan on Christmas, and Claudia finally finds out what she really wants in life and that Joshua's story also makes a good children's book. Life is about experiences and finding your true self in the course of them. Although painful and emotionally challenging, the relationship between Claudia and Joshua affirms this premise of life. The performances by Matthew Lawrence and Melissa Gilbert make Joshua's Heart a warm, tender and instructive tale of how painful love can be, but also of how much we can gain.
Oliver Twist
(2005)
Visually intriguing but lacking substantial emotional implications
2 February 2006
Here it is, Roman Polanski's adaptation of Charles Dickens' timeless classic. There have been many movies dealing with Oliver's adventures in 19th century London, and each has its qualities as well as its flaws. Polanski's version is not entirely satisfying, but decent and a visual revelation. It is a solid 8 in my eyes, and I will outline my reasoning.
Every adaptation of Oliver Twist primarily depends on the performance of its main protagonist. Here we have Barney Clark as Oliver. His performance is solid and decent, but throughout the entire story he is somehow emotionally idle. There is nothing to be complained about his appearance and his performance as a whole, but does he really live up to the leading part of his character? Is Barney Clark a bad Oliver Twist? Definitely not. Could he have done better? Definitely yes. I had the impression that Barney never really connected to the story on a genuine emotional level he somehow drifts through the different locations and settings but never really wakes up. There is a constant melancholy surrounding him and his face is almost all the time slightly depressed. While on the one hand this drifting appearance of Oliver complies with the general very subtle tone of the movie, it does on the other hand hamper real identification with the story's hero. It seems as if Barney himself feels a bit indifferent, and so will the audience. He is not a persuasive and emotionally captivating Oliver, but Polanski probably created his part deliberately so. Alex Trench in the 1997 TV version did a more vivid and compelling job in portraying Oliver, while Barney Clark adds a blue edge and a stronger sensibility to his character. Oliver Twist is a rascal and needs to take the floor, which Barney Clark never really does. I hardly ever connected to him on an emotional level.
The rest of the cast lives up to the premise of the story. Ben Kingsley is a good Fagin and manages to revive this awkward and ambivalent character almost to perfection. Harry Eden is a credible and decent Artful Dodger, definitely better suited than Elijah Wood in the 1997 version. Eden has already appeared in many movies (Pure, Peter Pan) and knows how to act sincerely without overdoing and exaggerating things.
By leaving the characters and taking a closer look at the story itself, I have to acknowledge the visual accomplishments of Polanski's adaptation. The images of the Victorian Age are stunning, the use of light and wide-angle shots together with partly gloomy, partly colorful close-ups and the contemporary London skyline creature a visually intriguing and convincing setting that very much lives up to Dickens' perception of those days. The visuals add substantial authenticity in terms of reviving the cultural features of London and the Victorian society. The pace of story developments is very subtle and sometimes too slow, the dramatic developments could have been made more straightforward, with more captivating climaxes and less pauses between them.
Oliver Twist has never really been a children's story in its most common sense, and Polanski's version is also not necessarily suited for the faint-hearted. It is the story of one boy torn between two cultural strata, between the expectation of living a decent life and the danger of getting caught in the sinister world of murder and deceit. There have been comical adaptations, but this one is very sincere and does not shun portraying all the vices and depravities of the society and its people.
Polanski has all in all done a decent job. He has found his own interpretation and still managed to preserve Dickens' basic premise. The camera work and the visuals are very persuasive, the settings are authentic and detailed; all that lacks to make Oliver Twist a masterpiece is a too indifferent performance by Barney Clark and an occasionally too slow pace of dramatic developments. It had the scope and the means of becoming a smashing movie, but it did not make use of its full potential.
Every adaptation of Oliver Twist primarily depends on the performance of its main protagonist. Here we have Barney Clark as Oliver. His performance is solid and decent, but throughout the entire story he is somehow emotionally idle. There is nothing to be complained about his appearance and his performance as a whole, but does he really live up to the leading part of his character? Is Barney Clark a bad Oliver Twist? Definitely not. Could he have done better? Definitely yes. I had the impression that Barney never really connected to the story on a genuine emotional level he somehow drifts through the different locations and settings but never really wakes up. There is a constant melancholy surrounding him and his face is almost all the time slightly depressed. While on the one hand this drifting appearance of Oliver complies with the general very subtle tone of the movie, it does on the other hand hamper real identification with the story's hero. It seems as if Barney himself feels a bit indifferent, and so will the audience. He is not a persuasive and emotionally captivating Oliver, but Polanski probably created his part deliberately so. Alex Trench in the 1997 TV version did a more vivid and compelling job in portraying Oliver, while Barney Clark adds a blue edge and a stronger sensibility to his character. Oliver Twist is a rascal and needs to take the floor, which Barney Clark never really does. I hardly ever connected to him on an emotional level.
The rest of the cast lives up to the premise of the story. Ben Kingsley is a good Fagin and manages to revive this awkward and ambivalent character almost to perfection. Harry Eden is a credible and decent Artful Dodger, definitely better suited than Elijah Wood in the 1997 version. Eden has already appeared in many movies (Pure, Peter Pan) and knows how to act sincerely without overdoing and exaggerating things.
By leaving the characters and taking a closer look at the story itself, I have to acknowledge the visual accomplishments of Polanski's adaptation. The images of the Victorian Age are stunning, the use of light and wide-angle shots together with partly gloomy, partly colorful close-ups and the contemporary London skyline creature a visually intriguing and convincing setting that very much lives up to Dickens' perception of those days. The visuals add substantial authenticity in terms of reviving the cultural features of London and the Victorian society. The pace of story developments is very subtle and sometimes too slow, the dramatic developments could have been made more straightforward, with more captivating climaxes and less pauses between them.
Oliver Twist has never really been a children's story in its most common sense, and Polanski's version is also not necessarily suited for the faint-hearted. It is the story of one boy torn between two cultural strata, between the expectation of living a decent life and the danger of getting caught in the sinister world of murder and deceit. There have been comical adaptations, but this one is very sincere and does not shun portraying all the vices and depravities of the society and its people.
Polanski has all in all done a decent job. He has found his own interpretation and still managed to preserve Dickens' basic premise. The camera work and the visuals are very persuasive, the settings are authentic and detailed; all that lacks to make Oliver Twist a masterpiece is a too indifferent performance by Barney Clark and an occasionally too slow pace of dramatic developments. It had the scope and the means of becoming a smashing movie, but it did not make use of its full potential.
Black and Blue
(1999 TV Movie)
Excellent performances in a stunning real-life drama
27 January 2006
Black & Blue is based on a novel by Anna Quindlen, scripted by April Smith (Emmy-Award nominated for her work on the TV series Lou Grant) and directed by Paul Shapiro, who has worked on a number of TV series such as 24, Roswell and Dark Angel.
It is the dramatic tale of Frannie Benedetto (Mary Stuart Masterson) and her flight from her abusive husband Bobby (an outstanding Anthony LaPaglia). Frannie has endured continuous physical and psychological abuse. She is a nurse, her husband is a cop, and theirs is a 10-year-old son, Robert (Will Rothhaar, who earned a Young Artist Award nomination for his performance). Frannie is very loyal to her family and caught in a harrowing dilemma. Bobby is a highly decorated detective, and she knows that cops protect their own. But when an acquaintance of her dies due to fatal blows, Frannie decides to end the nightmare and to protect herself and her son. She secretly contacts an organization that helps battered wives. The scenario she is presented with seems almost as bleak as her current existence. She must erase every trace of her past and sever all links to her family and friends. She takes Robert and flees to a new life in Florida. There she adopts a new identity and lifestyle. She soon encounters school-teacher Mike Riordan (Sam Robards), who is the complete opposite of Bobby and who introduces her to a life of romance and tenderness. But Bobby is already chasing after her by using his investigative skills, and Frannie has to find out that when you are married to a cop, you can run, but you cannot hide.
This is the basic premise. The concept is fairly simple. You have a wife who is forced by her abusive husband to leave everything behind and to start a new life with her son. The psychological implications of the years of continuous suffering have left obvious scars, but these years also provide the source of Frannie's basic strength and determination to start anew. This struggle is wonderfully transformed by Mary Stuart Masterson. She has the ability to portray both the fragility and the courage of her character. Her appearance grants the movie with substantial authenticity. It is her story, of how she finds her strength and what hardships she is willing to endure in order to save herself and Robert.
Bobby Benedetto is an erratic character who demands total obedience. He enjoys his power over his wife and humiliates her frequently. Then again he seems to love his son, and in fact, he never touches him in the course of the story. However, it is the psychological strain inflicted on Robert that makes him an abusive father as well as an abusive husband. Anthony LaPaglia is outstanding in his role. He is rugged and ambivalent, relentless and his ambitions to get what he wants and violent in his means. The scenes when his violent streak erupts are smashing. You do not expect a detective, who ought to belong to the good, to behave that way. He is cold-blooded and deceitful, a tremendously genuine and sinister antagonist who goes to any lengths to get what he wants.
My personal gratitude goes to Will Rothhaar as young Robert. He makes this movie not just good, but perfect. It needs a special kind of young actor to establish a genuine identification with a character, and he has the skills and and the talent to portray the hardships and struggles of Robert's quest to support his mom and to adopt to a new life. Robert is very much in the center of all emotional scenes. He suffers a lot, not just when he has to witness his abusive father, but also when he yearns for his home and his friends once he and Frannie reach Florida. This is exactly what you would expect from a young boy. The way he suspiciously surveys how his soccer teacher Mike Riordan enters into their lives and associates with Frannie is nothing but genuine. He never exaggerates, he is never overdoing things, but rather very much aware of his character's sensibility and the subtle strains that ensue his new life in an unknown community.
Sam Robards as Mike Riordan completes the outstanding quality of the cast. He is the perfect opposite to Bobby. He is gentle and sincere, and this honesty in everything he does makes it perfectly understandable why Frannie eventually falls in love with him. Mike means security and fills the gap in Frannie's doleful life. Robards never pushes and thus avoids his relationship with Frannie to become stereotypical.
The story as a whole is very strong and makes the audience automatically associate with Frannie and Robert. It is not an artificial movie dealing with phony developments, but rather a smashing portrayal of courage and steadfastness, of love and hope. The audience is very much drawn into Frannie's desperate struggle to escape. The story develops naturally towards the final confrontation, thus living up to the premise of classic dramas. Nothing is superficial, the actors are wonderful and the message of the movie is clear and unaffected: Never stop fighting to find happiness.
It is the dramatic tale of Frannie Benedetto (Mary Stuart Masterson) and her flight from her abusive husband Bobby (an outstanding Anthony LaPaglia). Frannie has endured continuous physical and psychological abuse. She is a nurse, her husband is a cop, and theirs is a 10-year-old son, Robert (Will Rothhaar, who earned a Young Artist Award nomination for his performance). Frannie is very loyal to her family and caught in a harrowing dilemma. Bobby is a highly decorated detective, and she knows that cops protect their own. But when an acquaintance of her dies due to fatal blows, Frannie decides to end the nightmare and to protect herself and her son. She secretly contacts an organization that helps battered wives. The scenario she is presented with seems almost as bleak as her current existence. She must erase every trace of her past and sever all links to her family and friends. She takes Robert and flees to a new life in Florida. There she adopts a new identity and lifestyle. She soon encounters school-teacher Mike Riordan (Sam Robards), who is the complete opposite of Bobby and who introduces her to a life of romance and tenderness. But Bobby is already chasing after her by using his investigative skills, and Frannie has to find out that when you are married to a cop, you can run, but you cannot hide.
This is the basic premise. The concept is fairly simple. You have a wife who is forced by her abusive husband to leave everything behind and to start a new life with her son. The psychological implications of the years of continuous suffering have left obvious scars, but these years also provide the source of Frannie's basic strength and determination to start anew. This struggle is wonderfully transformed by Mary Stuart Masterson. She has the ability to portray both the fragility and the courage of her character. Her appearance grants the movie with substantial authenticity. It is her story, of how she finds her strength and what hardships she is willing to endure in order to save herself and Robert.
Bobby Benedetto is an erratic character who demands total obedience. He enjoys his power over his wife and humiliates her frequently. Then again he seems to love his son, and in fact, he never touches him in the course of the story. However, it is the psychological strain inflicted on Robert that makes him an abusive father as well as an abusive husband. Anthony LaPaglia is outstanding in his role. He is rugged and ambivalent, relentless and his ambitions to get what he wants and violent in his means. The scenes when his violent streak erupts are smashing. You do not expect a detective, who ought to belong to the good, to behave that way. He is cold-blooded and deceitful, a tremendously genuine and sinister antagonist who goes to any lengths to get what he wants.
My personal gratitude goes to Will Rothhaar as young Robert. He makes this movie not just good, but perfect. It needs a special kind of young actor to establish a genuine identification with a character, and he has the skills and and the talent to portray the hardships and struggles of Robert's quest to support his mom and to adopt to a new life. Robert is very much in the center of all emotional scenes. He suffers a lot, not just when he has to witness his abusive father, but also when he yearns for his home and his friends once he and Frannie reach Florida. This is exactly what you would expect from a young boy. The way he suspiciously surveys how his soccer teacher Mike Riordan enters into their lives and associates with Frannie is nothing but genuine. He never exaggerates, he is never overdoing things, but rather very much aware of his character's sensibility and the subtle strains that ensue his new life in an unknown community.
Sam Robards as Mike Riordan completes the outstanding quality of the cast. He is the perfect opposite to Bobby. He is gentle and sincere, and this honesty in everything he does makes it perfectly understandable why Frannie eventually falls in love with him. Mike means security and fills the gap in Frannie's doleful life. Robards never pushes and thus avoids his relationship with Frannie to become stereotypical.
The story as a whole is very strong and makes the audience automatically associate with Frannie and Robert. It is not an artificial movie dealing with phony developments, but rather a smashing portrayal of courage and steadfastness, of love and hope. The audience is very much drawn into Frannie's desperate struggle to escape. The story develops naturally towards the final confrontation, thus living up to the premise of classic dramas. Nothing is superficial, the actors are wonderful and the message of the movie is clear and unaffected: Never stop fighting to find happiness.
Millions
(2004)
Enchanting and delightful
27 January 2006
This movie is really exceptional. Its story is partly surrealistic, partly a modern fairy tale for kids, partly a dream come true for most adults and partly a sophisticated parable. Frank Cottrell Boyce has written the literary artwork, Danny Boyle is the director.
After the death of their mother Damien and Anthony Cunningham move house. Their father (James Nebitt) is a construction engineer. The setting is apparently the Manchester region (as the movie is mostly shot there, and the kids at school dote for United players) and E-Day is approaching in England, which stands for the fictitious scenario that Sterling will soon be replaced by the Euro as the official currency. Damien is about six years old and a very imaginative little boy who is completely taken in by saints. When out of the blue a sports bag filled with millions of pounds finds its way to Damien, he takes it for a gift of God. Anthony is the only one he shares his discovery with. Yet despite their initial delight and the apparent advantages of being wealthy, Damien and Anthony soon have to realize that it is simply not feasible to dodge the ensuing problems. And then there is this stranger who stalks them and claims the money back.
The entire scenario the movie elaborates on is unrealistic and indeed over the top. However, its natural charm, the naivety of how Damien wants to do good and by addressing serious moral issues of society, Danny Boyle has created a movie that will enchant younger audiences in the same way as it will inspire adults. He deliberately introduces two very different brothers, who somehow personify two different attitudes and ideologies. He presents all of this as an entertaining and magical tale that is exciting and instructive at the same time.
It is mainly Damien's story. Alexander Nathan Etel, born in Manchester, is the perfect choice to play this character. It surely was a long-winded process to find the right kid for this part. Alex is very appealing and possesses these kinds of natural skills that make you identify with his character instantly. Damien feels morally obliged to share his fortune with the poor, in a persistent way that is remarkable for a kid his age. His obsession with saints and his imagination let reality merge with fiction. Thus he encounters saints and martyrs and talks to them as if they were real people. This provides the movie with a substantial religious background. However, the religious implications do not make the message less important nor do they deter certain audiences. It makes it even more compelling and adds a surrealistic edge that basically complies with the entire arrangement of the movie.
Lewis Owen McGibbon, who plays Anthony, is also a very convincing young actor who manages to set his own stamp on the story. James Nesbitt has a talent to connect with the audience straightaway. However, his character lacks some real emotional depth and seems a bit shallow, as does his relationship with Dorothy (Daisy Donovan). But hey, it is the story of the two boys, centering around Damien's quest to do good and to unselfishly help the poor.
And here lies the main strength of Millions, whether you are Christian or not. The clear message running through and the charm of Damien's character make this movie shine and make you condone minor flaws (such as when Anthony, who seems to be an investment expert, says that 40 percent are almost all of it, or when the robber appears in Damien's room). The plot itself has minor gaps too, and together with the immature handling of James Nesbitt's and Daisy Donovan's characters, this prevents me from giving Millions a 10.
The score is wonderful perfectly matching the scenes and the visuals. This needs to be highly acclaimed. The camera work is awesome, especially the use of light and close-ups. The two scenes when the clouds pass by the sky in a fast forward movement, and in particular the scenes at the end which are shot at night demonstrate the elevated level of visual editing.
Millions is a tale that will make it right into your heart and leave you spellbound. It is an inspiring and spiritual quest of one boy who struggles to do the right thing. Naïve and delightful, with a surrealistic ending and enchanting scenes, it can surely be classed as one of the years most compelling accomplishments and an outstanding example of British cinema. The impact of its decent message and the genuine themes it addresses make Millions exceptional by all means. Enjoy!
After the death of their mother Damien and Anthony Cunningham move house. Their father (James Nebitt) is a construction engineer. The setting is apparently the Manchester region (as the movie is mostly shot there, and the kids at school dote for United players) and E-Day is approaching in England, which stands for the fictitious scenario that Sterling will soon be replaced by the Euro as the official currency. Damien is about six years old and a very imaginative little boy who is completely taken in by saints. When out of the blue a sports bag filled with millions of pounds finds its way to Damien, he takes it for a gift of God. Anthony is the only one he shares his discovery with. Yet despite their initial delight and the apparent advantages of being wealthy, Damien and Anthony soon have to realize that it is simply not feasible to dodge the ensuing problems. And then there is this stranger who stalks them and claims the money back.
The entire scenario the movie elaborates on is unrealistic and indeed over the top. However, its natural charm, the naivety of how Damien wants to do good and by addressing serious moral issues of society, Danny Boyle has created a movie that will enchant younger audiences in the same way as it will inspire adults. He deliberately introduces two very different brothers, who somehow personify two different attitudes and ideologies. He presents all of this as an entertaining and magical tale that is exciting and instructive at the same time.
It is mainly Damien's story. Alexander Nathan Etel, born in Manchester, is the perfect choice to play this character. It surely was a long-winded process to find the right kid for this part. Alex is very appealing and possesses these kinds of natural skills that make you identify with his character instantly. Damien feels morally obliged to share his fortune with the poor, in a persistent way that is remarkable for a kid his age. His obsession with saints and his imagination let reality merge with fiction. Thus he encounters saints and martyrs and talks to them as if they were real people. This provides the movie with a substantial religious background. However, the religious implications do not make the message less important nor do they deter certain audiences. It makes it even more compelling and adds a surrealistic edge that basically complies with the entire arrangement of the movie.
Lewis Owen McGibbon, who plays Anthony, is also a very convincing young actor who manages to set his own stamp on the story. James Nesbitt has a talent to connect with the audience straightaway. However, his character lacks some real emotional depth and seems a bit shallow, as does his relationship with Dorothy (Daisy Donovan). But hey, it is the story of the two boys, centering around Damien's quest to do good and to unselfishly help the poor.
And here lies the main strength of Millions, whether you are Christian or not. The clear message running through and the charm of Damien's character make this movie shine and make you condone minor flaws (such as when Anthony, who seems to be an investment expert, says that 40 percent are almost all of it, or when the robber appears in Damien's room). The plot itself has minor gaps too, and together with the immature handling of James Nesbitt's and Daisy Donovan's characters, this prevents me from giving Millions a 10.
The score is wonderful perfectly matching the scenes and the visuals. This needs to be highly acclaimed. The camera work is awesome, especially the use of light and close-ups. The two scenes when the clouds pass by the sky in a fast forward movement, and in particular the scenes at the end which are shot at night demonstrate the elevated level of visual editing.
Millions is a tale that will make it right into your heart and leave you spellbound. It is an inspiring and spiritual quest of one boy who struggles to do the right thing. Naïve and delightful, with a surrealistic ending and enchanting scenes, it can surely be classed as one of the years most compelling accomplishments and an outstanding example of British cinema. The impact of its decent message and the genuine themes it addresses make Millions exceptional by all means. Enjoy!
Secrets of the Heart
(1997)
Secrets and death as major themes
22 January 2006
Some other reviewers have claimed this movie to be uneventful - and they are right. I was not yet bored, but almost on the brink of it. What struck me most is the absence of any sort of dramatic and/or emotional climax. There is no final highlight, no real final denouement. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but here it was. Thus I cannot give the movie more than a 7, although it has lots of positive aspects to it. Let us look at them now.
Secrets of the Heart is a movie about individuals, about their daily struggles to survive and to find happiness, about their frailties and their sins. The two major themes I have detected are secrets and death, melted together in the social stratum of a lower class communal family in Spain in the early 1960s. The movie's protagonist is young Javi, a little boy. We see the world through his eyes mainly, in a naive and unaffected manner.
The theme of death is the strongest, very much linked to the theme of secrets. The death of Javi's father and the secrets his mother wants to hide from him and his brother represent the story's mysterious edge. Death and mysteries come up again when Javi and his friend Carlos want to find out about the secrets of a decayed mansion. Also the spider Javi observes in his uncle's cowshed symbolizes death, as we see it killing flies and other insects various times. So the story has indeed the capacity to provide some sort of exciting developments. It just does not fully use this capacity, and that is a pity.
The story rather focuses on a family portrayal. We get an insight look into the bleak and doleful existence of Javi's two aunts with all their imperfections and vices. The story of Javi's brother, his mother and his grandfather are presented similarly - subtle and somehow uneventful. Then again it is Javi's story, of how he grows up, how he influences and is influenced in return by the world and the individuals around him. He undergoes rites of passage and makes the story also a quest of finding out the truths about all the secrets and mysteries within his family in particular and of the world in general.
The story has its charm, but it did not exploit its full potential. It can be summarized as an authentic socio-cultural portrayal of family life, and as such it needs to be praised. However, there are too many subtle and uneventful sequences. I never felt the sort of emotional and moral attachment I normally expect from valuable movies dealing with sincere and genuine themes of life. Thus I was a bit disappointed. Those who like these sorts of cultural depictions into which you can interpret a lot and never become tired of finding new aspects by reflecting on the events will probably like it. I would have preferred some sort of real message running through the plot, some sort of dramatic climax or at least a higher pace in terms of developments.
Secrets of the Heart is a movie about individuals, about their daily struggles to survive and to find happiness, about their frailties and their sins. The two major themes I have detected are secrets and death, melted together in the social stratum of a lower class communal family in Spain in the early 1960s. The movie's protagonist is young Javi, a little boy. We see the world through his eyes mainly, in a naive and unaffected manner.
The theme of death is the strongest, very much linked to the theme of secrets. The death of Javi's father and the secrets his mother wants to hide from him and his brother represent the story's mysterious edge. Death and mysteries come up again when Javi and his friend Carlos want to find out about the secrets of a decayed mansion. Also the spider Javi observes in his uncle's cowshed symbolizes death, as we see it killing flies and other insects various times. So the story has indeed the capacity to provide some sort of exciting developments. It just does not fully use this capacity, and that is a pity.
The story rather focuses on a family portrayal. We get an insight look into the bleak and doleful existence of Javi's two aunts with all their imperfections and vices. The story of Javi's brother, his mother and his grandfather are presented similarly - subtle and somehow uneventful. Then again it is Javi's story, of how he grows up, how he influences and is influenced in return by the world and the individuals around him. He undergoes rites of passage and makes the story also a quest of finding out the truths about all the secrets and mysteries within his family in particular and of the world in general.
The story has its charm, but it did not exploit its full potential. It can be summarized as an authentic socio-cultural portrayal of family life, and as such it needs to be praised. However, there are too many subtle and uneventful sequences. I never felt the sort of emotional and moral attachment I normally expect from valuable movies dealing with sincere and genuine themes of life. Thus I was a bit disappointed. Those who like these sorts of cultural depictions into which you can interpret a lot and never become tired of finding new aspects by reflecting on the events will probably like it. I would have preferred some sort of real message running through the plot, some sort of dramatic climax or at least a higher pace in terms of developments.
The Next Best Thing
(2000)
Corny beginning, but strong developments
22 January 2006
This movie is really not as bad as the rating wants to make you believe. I admit that the beginning is just cheesy and absolutely horrible, riddled with stereotypes and awkward performances. It gets better from the moment on when Madonna confronts Rupert Everett's character (Robert) with his upcoming paternity. The moral implications of a gay man and a straight woman deciding to raise a child together are indeed challenging and very much up-to-date. Here the comedy aspect is overlaid by some sincere issues that make this movie more interesting than the beginning has implied.
The movie even turns into a family drama and becomes very emotional. You will love Malcolm Stumpf as Sam, the protagonists' son. He is very convincing and shows substantial natural talent, which adds considerable quality to the story. The final dramatic climax is an ensuing court room struggle for custody of the little boy between Robert and Madonna with her new boyfriend Ben. This causes very strong moral and emotional implications. Robert's desperate struggle and his honest commitment to be together with his beloved son goes straight into your heart and addresses the issue of homosexuals and their rights to raise children. Here again Malcolm Stumpf bears a significant part of the emotional burden, and does so genuinely.
This movie is very simple in its equipment, but the messages delivered and the characters portrayed make it worthwhile. Rupert Everett does a great job, and Madonna shows that she can act if she has to. It is a very tough subject, and in the end you will not consider the movie a comedy any longer. This is a good thing.
The movie even turns into a family drama and becomes very emotional. You will love Malcolm Stumpf as Sam, the protagonists' son. He is very convincing and shows substantial natural talent, which adds considerable quality to the story. The final dramatic climax is an ensuing court room struggle for custody of the little boy between Robert and Madonna with her new boyfriend Ben. This causes very strong moral and emotional implications. Robert's desperate struggle and his honest commitment to be together with his beloved son goes straight into your heart and addresses the issue of homosexuals and their rights to raise children. Here again Malcolm Stumpf bears a significant part of the emotional burden, and does so genuinely.
This movie is very simple in its equipment, but the messages delivered and the characters portrayed make it worthwhile. Rupert Everett does a great job, and Madonna shows that she can act if she has to. It is a very tough subject, and in the end you will not consider the movie a comedy any longer. This is a good thing.
Just Ask My Children
(2001 TV Movie)
A 10 is too low a rating for this movie
11 January 2006
I have never before in my entire life seen a movie which dealt so strongly and so stirringly with the most profound and most common human emotion of all: love within a family. I felt emotionally attached to the Kniffen family as if I were a member of their kin. The emotional roller-coaster this movie provides is substantial and will not let go of you. This is because of the unbelievable injustice and the outrageous mistake committed by the legal system of the United States.
Just Ask My Children is a true story, elaborating on the tragedy of the Kniffen family in 1982. This was the time of a nation-wide witch-hunt that tore dozens of families apart and brought many innocent parents into jail. Scott and Brenda Kniffen (Jeff Nordling and Virginia Madsen) live a happy life with their two boys Brandon, age 9, and six-year-old Brian. When wrong allegations of child abuse cause a state-wide hysteria, they find themselves in a harrowing nightmare. Without a shred of evidence, the Kniffens are arrested and their two sons are taken away from them and put into the custody of social services. There the impressionable boys are brainwashed, confused and utterly manipulated by a malicious prosecutor in his relentless ambition to put the Kniffens into prison. In court they testify against their own parents, which convinces the jury beyond the reasonable doubt that Brenda and Scott Kniffen are guilty of committing the heinous crimes they are accused of in the indictment. They are sentenced to 240 years each, the longest sentences ever imposed in Kern County. Scott and Brenda spend twelve years behind bars, suffering and praying to God, while their boys are put from foster home to foster home, confused and emotionally scarred.
The movie gains all its strength from this single, but tremendously strong theme. While following the developments of the story, the tragedy and the hardships imposed on this innocent couple makes everyone unwilling to believe that such an outrageous thing could have actually happened not yet 20 years ago. The reference to medieval witch trials occasionally surfaces in the story and makes the audience even more aware of how merciless the system can be in case of utter failure.
The toughest and most brilliant aspect this movie deals with is how the family is effected by the verdict. The story of the boys, as they mature and question their own past is wonderfully adapted to their emotional turmoil. Scott's parents and their continuous fight to prove the innocence of their son and Brenda is stunning in its passion and desperate commitment. The movie features various heart-breaking scenes that will leave you emotionally drained and makes you aware of how much suffering the family has to bear. The tragedy hits you so strong because you know the truth, and you feel so sorry for the entire family, good and decent people now thoroughly despised by the public and labeled as child molesters.
Brian and Brandon are played by Ryan Wilson (Cold Creek Manor) and Cody Dorkin at the beginning, then by Dan Byrd and Scott Bailey. Finally Gregory Smith (The Patriot) plays 18-year-old Brian, Scott Bailey again 21-year-old Brandon. The passing of the years makes the audience understand how long this struggle for justice went on and how desperate Scott and Brenda sought freedom to embrace their sons. The young actors portraying the two boys, above all Ryan Wilson and Cody Dorkin, do a great job. Ryan Wilson in particular made it straight into my heart, due to his performance in the court room, but also when he is yearning for his mom. The scene when Scott and Brenda are allowed to see their boys one last time is nothing but tough, because it shows the tragedy of the separation in all its brutality. You see this family, how much they love each other and how strongly they yearn for just being together again, but you know that they will remain torn apart.
Just Ask My Children will affect you, even more so if you consider it being based on a true story. It makes you mad at the relentless prosecutors and shows with smashing credibility how atrociously the system can fail. The emotional scenes are likely to force tears into your eyes, as you automatically associate and identify with Scott and Brenda. The story is really tough, not suited for kids and an emotional roller-coaster that will leave you terrified. This movie deserves a 10, no doubt about that.
Just Ask My Children is a true story, elaborating on the tragedy of the Kniffen family in 1982. This was the time of a nation-wide witch-hunt that tore dozens of families apart and brought many innocent parents into jail. Scott and Brenda Kniffen (Jeff Nordling and Virginia Madsen) live a happy life with their two boys Brandon, age 9, and six-year-old Brian. When wrong allegations of child abuse cause a state-wide hysteria, they find themselves in a harrowing nightmare. Without a shred of evidence, the Kniffens are arrested and their two sons are taken away from them and put into the custody of social services. There the impressionable boys are brainwashed, confused and utterly manipulated by a malicious prosecutor in his relentless ambition to put the Kniffens into prison. In court they testify against their own parents, which convinces the jury beyond the reasonable doubt that Brenda and Scott Kniffen are guilty of committing the heinous crimes they are accused of in the indictment. They are sentenced to 240 years each, the longest sentences ever imposed in Kern County. Scott and Brenda spend twelve years behind bars, suffering and praying to God, while their boys are put from foster home to foster home, confused and emotionally scarred.
The movie gains all its strength from this single, but tremendously strong theme. While following the developments of the story, the tragedy and the hardships imposed on this innocent couple makes everyone unwilling to believe that such an outrageous thing could have actually happened not yet 20 years ago. The reference to medieval witch trials occasionally surfaces in the story and makes the audience even more aware of how merciless the system can be in case of utter failure.
The toughest and most brilliant aspect this movie deals with is how the family is effected by the verdict. The story of the boys, as they mature and question their own past is wonderfully adapted to their emotional turmoil. Scott's parents and their continuous fight to prove the innocence of their son and Brenda is stunning in its passion and desperate commitment. The movie features various heart-breaking scenes that will leave you emotionally drained and makes you aware of how much suffering the family has to bear. The tragedy hits you so strong because you know the truth, and you feel so sorry for the entire family, good and decent people now thoroughly despised by the public and labeled as child molesters.
Brian and Brandon are played by Ryan Wilson (Cold Creek Manor) and Cody Dorkin at the beginning, then by Dan Byrd and Scott Bailey. Finally Gregory Smith (The Patriot) plays 18-year-old Brian, Scott Bailey again 21-year-old Brandon. The passing of the years makes the audience understand how long this struggle for justice went on and how desperate Scott and Brenda sought freedom to embrace their sons. The young actors portraying the two boys, above all Ryan Wilson and Cody Dorkin, do a great job. Ryan Wilson in particular made it straight into my heart, due to his performance in the court room, but also when he is yearning for his mom. The scene when Scott and Brenda are allowed to see their boys one last time is nothing but tough, because it shows the tragedy of the separation in all its brutality. You see this family, how much they love each other and how strongly they yearn for just being together again, but you know that they will remain torn apart.
Just Ask My Children will affect you, even more so if you consider it being based on a true story. It makes you mad at the relentless prosecutors and shows with smashing credibility how atrociously the system can fail. The emotional scenes are likely to force tears into your eyes, as you automatically associate and identify with Scott and Brenda. The story is really tough, not suited for kids and an emotional roller-coaster that will leave you terrified. This movie deserves a 10, no doubt about that.
Jack the Bear
(1993)
Growing up is never easy
11 January 2006
Jack the Bear is a wonderful movie. It is the story of John Leary (Danny DeVito) and his two boys, Jack (Robert J. Steinmiller, Jr.) and Dylan (young Miko Hughes, known e.g. from his later accomplishment in 'Mercury Rising'). It is a story that takes a bittersweet look at the joys and pains of growing up. By doing so it elaborates on weighty issues, while at the same, it has a certain amount of humor to it. Yet despite the subtle comedian edge, this movie is by no means a comedy. It is a very emotional and instructive tale of one family's struggles, of challenges and tragedies. It features sincere messages of life and can be seen as a symbolic story that stands for the premise that growing up is never easy. Sometimes it is painful. Sometimes it is scaring. Then again, when the chips are low and the world seems to fall apart, there is hope. Hope you find within your family, hope and the knowledge that there will be brighter days ahead.
Danny DeVito plays Jack Leary, a widower who works as a monster-host of a late night horror show and who entertains the neighborhood kids with silly ghoulish antics. His twelve-year-old son Jack is the movie's main protagonist. He talks to the audience as if he would tell the story of his life which he does to some extent. The entire developments are told through his eyes mainly. Thus the story is endowed with the childish naivety that makes it so special and so sincere. Dylan, Jack's little brother, is about four years old. The setting is Oakland, California, in 1972.
The main theme that runs through the entire story is the theme of monsters. Jack Leary, the perfect monster in his TV show, is not the only one. Right at the beginning Jack says that he would find out that summer that real monsters existed. Then there is Jack's "monster" crush on the lovely girl at school (young Reece Witherspoon), which is a sub-theme of the plot. We share Jack's joy and his confusion after their first date, which is so funny as many will be able to identify with his tenseness prior to and his enthusiasm after their first kiss. The real monster is introduced as weird and apparently dangerous Norman Strick (Gary Sinise, who completes the quality of the cast), who turns out to be a deceitful and dangerous antagonist.
The strongest emotional theme is that of family life. John's wife, Jack's and Dylan's mom died the previous winter in a road accident after some heavy arguments with her husband. This left a huge gap in the boys' lives and painful scars on Jack in particular. He occasionally seems to see her, and we get some flashbacks to their time together throughout the movie. This is very tough and intensifies the feeling of loss and loneliness. This theme is then even more so addressed when Dylan is kidnapped, which is presented in all its horror and pain for Jack and his dad. Very close to this is John's struggle to be a good father, to overcome his irresponsibility and live up the needs of his boys. All of these aspects mixed together make up the story's strength and provide substantially more than mere entertainment, but real issues of daily struggles and common problems.
Seen from socio-cultural aspects, this movie is typically American in its entire setting and its developments. Following the emotionally stirring showdown with Norman Strick, Jack has an emotional breakdown and cries for his mother. When John tries to comfort him, Jack shouts: "No, nothing is all right!" Then John looks straight into his son's eyes and replies: "Then we gonna make it all right." This is the embodiment of the American Dream, the American attitude never to give up and keep fighting, even if the chips are low and the times are hard and full of privation.
The cast is outstanding, the acting is very convincing and the themes are brilliantly worked out. It is the struggle of a father to keep his kids; it is one boy's quest to find happiness; it is a typically American tale of courage and steadfastness, of values, trust and love. The movie captures pure messages of life, is exciting and displays tremendous wisdom, all woven together in the cultural stratum of 1972. And finally, it has genuine humor and provides first class entertainment for the entire family. You will enjoy Jack the Bear, and you have all reason to do so.
Danny DeVito plays Jack Leary, a widower who works as a monster-host of a late night horror show and who entertains the neighborhood kids with silly ghoulish antics. His twelve-year-old son Jack is the movie's main protagonist. He talks to the audience as if he would tell the story of his life which he does to some extent. The entire developments are told through his eyes mainly. Thus the story is endowed with the childish naivety that makes it so special and so sincere. Dylan, Jack's little brother, is about four years old. The setting is Oakland, California, in 1972.
The main theme that runs through the entire story is the theme of monsters. Jack Leary, the perfect monster in his TV show, is not the only one. Right at the beginning Jack says that he would find out that summer that real monsters existed. Then there is Jack's "monster" crush on the lovely girl at school (young Reece Witherspoon), which is a sub-theme of the plot. We share Jack's joy and his confusion after their first date, which is so funny as many will be able to identify with his tenseness prior to and his enthusiasm after their first kiss. The real monster is introduced as weird and apparently dangerous Norman Strick (Gary Sinise, who completes the quality of the cast), who turns out to be a deceitful and dangerous antagonist.
The strongest emotional theme is that of family life. John's wife, Jack's and Dylan's mom died the previous winter in a road accident after some heavy arguments with her husband. This left a huge gap in the boys' lives and painful scars on Jack in particular. He occasionally seems to see her, and we get some flashbacks to their time together throughout the movie. This is very tough and intensifies the feeling of loss and loneliness. This theme is then even more so addressed when Dylan is kidnapped, which is presented in all its horror and pain for Jack and his dad. Very close to this is John's struggle to be a good father, to overcome his irresponsibility and live up the needs of his boys. All of these aspects mixed together make up the story's strength and provide substantially more than mere entertainment, but real issues of daily struggles and common problems.
Seen from socio-cultural aspects, this movie is typically American in its entire setting and its developments. Following the emotionally stirring showdown with Norman Strick, Jack has an emotional breakdown and cries for his mother. When John tries to comfort him, Jack shouts: "No, nothing is all right!" Then John looks straight into his son's eyes and replies: "Then we gonna make it all right." This is the embodiment of the American Dream, the American attitude never to give up and keep fighting, even if the chips are low and the times are hard and full of privation.
The cast is outstanding, the acting is very convincing and the themes are brilliantly worked out. It is the struggle of a father to keep his kids; it is one boy's quest to find happiness; it is a typically American tale of courage and steadfastness, of values, trust and love. The movie captures pure messages of life, is exciting and displays tremendous wisdom, all woven together in the cultural stratum of 1972. And finally, it has genuine humor and provides first class entertainment for the entire family. You will enjoy Jack the Bear, and you have all reason to do so.
Go Toward the Light
(1988 TV Movie)
The saddest movie of my life
11 January 2006
Go Toward the Light is one of the most powerful movies I know. It circles around one major theme, and it gains all its strength and emotional power from the tragedy it elaborates on.
Go Toward the Light is the true story of Claire and Greg Madison (Linda Hamilton and Richard Thomas) and their struggle with the knowledge that their oldest son, Ben, has contracted AIDS. This hits the family with almost destructive brutality. According to the doctors, Ben has less than a year to live. As painful as it is, Claire and Greg have to accept Ben's unalterable fate. They have to put aside their own overwhelming grief and fears and prepare Ben to face his approaching death with the same love and courage with which they had been preparing him for life.
It is pretty obvious from the premise itself that this movie is emotionally very affecting. The entire movie deals with nothing but Ben's approaching death. At the very beginning the audience is introduced to the family. All three boys of the Madisons are hemophiliacs. This alone is a challenge, but Claire and Greg have always tried very hard to raise their boys as normally as possible. When Ben is diagnosed with AIDS, the emotional impact on the parents is vast, almost destructive. The main part of the movie deals with Ben himself, how his physical condition increasingly deteriorates, how he gradually loses all his vitality and strength, and how he emotionally deals with the knowledge of being destined to die in a few months.
There is nothing more painful than witnessing a child's death. This alone is tremendously depressing. Just because it is not right. It is simply not right. It must have been a very challenging task for Joshua Harris to play Ben. A kid his age does not reflect a lot about death and pain. A kid his age is supposed to live a happy, adventurous and vivid life. When you stop and think about what Ben will never experience, how much he will never do and see, you feel so sorry for him and his family. The movie drags you into the inner circle of the family and makes the emotional suffering and the pervading grief so authentic and painful that I had the feeling of icy fingers embracing my heart.
Linda Hamilton and Richard Thomas do justice to the movie's theme and the emotional challenge for them as Ben's parents. We occasionally get to hear Claire's thoughts, which belong to the saddest but also the wisest inner monologues I have ever heard. This inside look into her mind adds substantial depth to the movie and makes it even more convincing. Greg, Ben's father, deals with the whole tragedy on a different level; he denies it much longer than Claire. In the end he feels like dying himself and gets panic attacks, as the emotional pressure intensifies.
The movie's heart and soul though is Joshua Harris' portrayal of Ben. As I have already indicated, this role is very demanding for such a young actor. It is awful to watch him physically deteriorate. Every shot, every camera glimpse, every minute he gets more fragile and pale. He is handling his character with so much genuine commitment that his struggle becomes even more painful and so authentic that you feel for him every single time you see his handsome face, his weary eyes and his emaciated body. When he asks his mom if he would die, his facial expressions are subtle but outstandingly genuine, as is his entire performance.
This movie is the saddest I have ever seen in my life so far. It centers around this single tragedy. Its transformation is thoroughly convincing. The effects on the family, on Claire and Greg, on Ben's brothers and on his grandparents are implemented with masterly sensitivity and smashing subtlety. It focuses around death and how a young couple has to face the ultimate test of their love and strength. Seeing your boy die and holding him in your hands when he goes towards the light being with him when he leaves this world as you were with him when he made his first breath this is the most painful experience for any parent. Because it is not right. This landmark drama, like none before, based on a real family's experience, brings this emotionally challenging issue to the fore with dear compassion and remarkable wisdom that will leave you emotionally scarred.
Go Toward the Light is the true story of Claire and Greg Madison (Linda Hamilton and Richard Thomas) and their struggle with the knowledge that their oldest son, Ben, has contracted AIDS. This hits the family with almost destructive brutality. According to the doctors, Ben has less than a year to live. As painful as it is, Claire and Greg have to accept Ben's unalterable fate. They have to put aside their own overwhelming grief and fears and prepare Ben to face his approaching death with the same love and courage with which they had been preparing him for life.
It is pretty obvious from the premise itself that this movie is emotionally very affecting. The entire movie deals with nothing but Ben's approaching death. At the very beginning the audience is introduced to the family. All three boys of the Madisons are hemophiliacs. This alone is a challenge, but Claire and Greg have always tried very hard to raise their boys as normally as possible. When Ben is diagnosed with AIDS, the emotional impact on the parents is vast, almost destructive. The main part of the movie deals with Ben himself, how his physical condition increasingly deteriorates, how he gradually loses all his vitality and strength, and how he emotionally deals with the knowledge of being destined to die in a few months.
There is nothing more painful than witnessing a child's death. This alone is tremendously depressing. Just because it is not right. It is simply not right. It must have been a very challenging task for Joshua Harris to play Ben. A kid his age does not reflect a lot about death and pain. A kid his age is supposed to live a happy, adventurous and vivid life. When you stop and think about what Ben will never experience, how much he will never do and see, you feel so sorry for him and his family. The movie drags you into the inner circle of the family and makes the emotional suffering and the pervading grief so authentic and painful that I had the feeling of icy fingers embracing my heart.
Linda Hamilton and Richard Thomas do justice to the movie's theme and the emotional challenge for them as Ben's parents. We occasionally get to hear Claire's thoughts, which belong to the saddest but also the wisest inner monologues I have ever heard. This inside look into her mind adds substantial depth to the movie and makes it even more convincing. Greg, Ben's father, deals with the whole tragedy on a different level; he denies it much longer than Claire. In the end he feels like dying himself and gets panic attacks, as the emotional pressure intensifies.
The movie's heart and soul though is Joshua Harris' portrayal of Ben. As I have already indicated, this role is very demanding for such a young actor. It is awful to watch him physically deteriorate. Every shot, every camera glimpse, every minute he gets more fragile and pale. He is handling his character with so much genuine commitment that his struggle becomes even more painful and so authentic that you feel for him every single time you see his handsome face, his weary eyes and his emaciated body. When he asks his mom if he would die, his facial expressions are subtle but outstandingly genuine, as is his entire performance.
This movie is the saddest I have ever seen in my life so far. It centers around this single tragedy. Its transformation is thoroughly convincing. The effects on the family, on Claire and Greg, on Ben's brothers and on his grandparents are implemented with masterly sensitivity and smashing subtlety. It focuses around death and how a young couple has to face the ultimate test of their love and strength. Seeing your boy die and holding him in your hands when he goes towards the light being with him when he leaves this world as you were with him when he made his first breath this is the most painful experience for any parent. Because it is not right. This landmark drama, like none before, based on a real family's experience, brings this emotionally challenging issue to the fore with dear compassion and remarkable wisdom that will leave you emotionally scarred.
Return to Innocence
(2001)
Disturbing subject that makes you think
5 January 2006
Return to Innocence is a very interesting movie in terms of its subject. It deals with relationships between boys and male adults and their effects. The movie is based on Gary M. Frazier's novel. The author himself does the screenplay and thus participates in the making of this LifeLine Entertainment Picture. The movie is directed and produced by Rocky Costanzo, Black&White and endowed with a gripping score by Orren Merton.
It is the story of Glen Erskine (a solid Richard Meese), director and chief of staff of New Horizons, a group home and counseling center for abused boys, and the relationship to one of his boys, 13-year-old Tommy Jackson (Andrew Martin). Now Glen Erskine is the leading personality in the field of child therapy and a first-rate scholar of male sexuality, having dealt with the phenomenon of pederasty and intergenerational relationships in various books and articles. When Glen finds out that one of his counselors has had a sexual encounter with Tommy Jackson, he confronts him with the consequences, which ultimately leads to an accident and the death of this counselor. Now Tommy Jackson strikes back by accusing the man he believes responsible. With that accusation of child molestation, the stage is set for a gloomy, disturbing, yet still emotionally stirring and poignant tale of love and sacrifice, redemption and forgiveness. Thus this movie becomes a thrilling court room drama and provides a riveting inside look at the processes and agendas involved in the handling of a child sex abuse case.
Rocky Costanzo has approached a subject that many ordinary citizens would preferably sweep under the carpet. The story of Glen Erskine is indeed very controversial as is the man and some of his attitudes. What I find particularly striking about this production is the fact that Glen Erskine appears to be a man of strong character and principles. He believes in what he his doing, he shows fierce commitment and unwavering sacrifice. In fact, as we find out in the movie, he has never had sexual contact with any of the boys under his custody. His entire life turns upside down as he has to defend himself in the courtroom. He has to defend his honor, but also his entire personal background of caring about boys and working for them with unselfish passion. In the course of the trial before the grand jury, we get an idea of Glen's work, his values and his character. He has committed himself to a cause that leads a morally biased public to question his righteousness, which makes you think about the controversy of men who devote their lives to help young boys. Thus this movie is a pervasive tale of the most human of all emotions: love.
To make this very clear, the movie does not answer the most urgent question it evokes: Is a sexual relationship between an adult and a boy always considered molestation and abuse, leading to negative effects on the boy's mind? Or can it under certain premises if not be appreciated at least get rid of its sinister reputation? Or in other words: Is there really no difference between sexual predators and boy-lovers? This is the main essence of the story. The answer is not given; it is left to the audience to make up their minds, if they are open-minded enough to even consider reflecting about this issue.
Having seen this movie, my thoughts circled around this issue for a while, and I started doing some research on the Internet. I am too young, too inexperienced and lacking the scientific knowledge to assess any of the heavy moral questions addressed. However, I quickly found many information about the movie, the novel and the issues brought up in there. The devotion and passion Glen Erskine embodies is something I could never live up to, but I can easily identify with his intentions. He loves his boys, and his boys love him. I have found some articles that differentiate between so-called 'boy-lovers' and pederasts. The latter are primarily interested in getting sexually stimulated by boys, while the former just care about the boys and would never do anything that hurts them. I was not aware of this distinction before, but having seen this movie and reflected about the issue, it makes some sense to me. So the question is, should every male adult strictly refuse any sort of sexual touch, even if there is no threat, violence or whatever, but just mutual love? Having said this, Glen Erskine is not even a member of this category, for he has never done anything like that. There are scientific articles that claim that boys are not necessarily harmed, even if there is some sort of sexual relationship; something hard to digest for dour conservatives.
I just meant to point out the moral aspects addressed by the movie, issues that are shunned by the public and rather ignored than discussed which ultimately leads to branding everyone who spends too much time with boys, even if there is no evidence of child abuse. Rapists and men who care about boys must not be put into the same category. I cannot see anything sinister in the kind of devotion Glen Erskine shows towards his boys; on the contrary, this movie made me glad that there are men who overcome our morally biased public and give boys the kind of love they need.
However, this movie has done a great job in bringing these issues to the fore. I give it a 8, basically due to the theme. The movie itself has some weaknesses. While the score was wonderful and the Black&White did strengthen the visuals in a stunning manner, the acting was somehow shallow and not as convincing as I would have liked it to be. The actors were awkward occasionally and not really capable of giving their characters the emotional depth and authenticity that this subject would have required.
It is the story of Glen Erskine (a solid Richard Meese), director and chief of staff of New Horizons, a group home and counseling center for abused boys, and the relationship to one of his boys, 13-year-old Tommy Jackson (Andrew Martin). Now Glen Erskine is the leading personality in the field of child therapy and a first-rate scholar of male sexuality, having dealt with the phenomenon of pederasty and intergenerational relationships in various books and articles. When Glen finds out that one of his counselors has had a sexual encounter with Tommy Jackson, he confronts him with the consequences, which ultimately leads to an accident and the death of this counselor. Now Tommy Jackson strikes back by accusing the man he believes responsible. With that accusation of child molestation, the stage is set for a gloomy, disturbing, yet still emotionally stirring and poignant tale of love and sacrifice, redemption and forgiveness. Thus this movie becomes a thrilling court room drama and provides a riveting inside look at the processes and agendas involved in the handling of a child sex abuse case.
Rocky Costanzo has approached a subject that many ordinary citizens would preferably sweep under the carpet. The story of Glen Erskine is indeed very controversial as is the man and some of his attitudes. What I find particularly striking about this production is the fact that Glen Erskine appears to be a man of strong character and principles. He believes in what he his doing, he shows fierce commitment and unwavering sacrifice. In fact, as we find out in the movie, he has never had sexual contact with any of the boys under his custody. His entire life turns upside down as he has to defend himself in the courtroom. He has to defend his honor, but also his entire personal background of caring about boys and working for them with unselfish passion. In the course of the trial before the grand jury, we get an idea of Glen's work, his values and his character. He has committed himself to a cause that leads a morally biased public to question his righteousness, which makes you think about the controversy of men who devote their lives to help young boys. Thus this movie is a pervasive tale of the most human of all emotions: love.
To make this very clear, the movie does not answer the most urgent question it evokes: Is a sexual relationship between an adult and a boy always considered molestation and abuse, leading to negative effects on the boy's mind? Or can it under certain premises if not be appreciated at least get rid of its sinister reputation? Or in other words: Is there really no difference between sexual predators and boy-lovers? This is the main essence of the story. The answer is not given; it is left to the audience to make up their minds, if they are open-minded enough to even consider reflecting about this issue.
Having seen this movie, my thoughts circled around this issue for a while, and I started doing some research on the Internet. I am too young, too inexperienced and lacking the scientific knowledge to assess any of the heavy moral questions addressed. However, I quickly found many information about the movie, the novel and the issues brought up in there. The devotion and passion Glen Erskine embodies is something I could never live up to, but I can easily identify with his intentions. He loves his boys, and his boys love him. I have found some articles that differentiate between so-called 'boy-lovers' and pederasts. The latter are primarily interested in getting sexually stimulated by boys, while the former just care about the boys and would never do anything that hurts them. I was not aware of this distinction before, but having seen this movie and reflected about the issue, it makes some sense to me. So the question is, should every male adult strictly refuse any sort of sexual touch, even if there is no threat, violence or whatever, but just mutual love? Having said this, Glen Erskine is not even a member of this category, for he has never done anything like that. There are scientific articles that claim that boys are not necessarily harmed, even if there is some sort of sexual relationship; something hard to digest for dour conservatives.
I just meant to point out the moral aspects addressed by the movie, issues that are shunned by the public and rather ignored than discussed which ultimately leads to branding everyone who spends too much time with boys, even if there is no evidence of child abuse. Rapists and men who care about boys must not be put into the same category. I cannot see anything sinister in the kind of devotion Glen Erskine shows towards his boys; on the contrary, this movie made me glad that there are men who overcome our morally biased public and give boys the kind of love they need.
However, this movie has done a great job in bringing these issues to the fore. I give it a 8, basically due to the theme. The movie itself has some weaknesses. While the score was wonderful and the Black&White did strengthen the visuals in a stunning manner, the acting was somehow shallow and not as convincing as I would have liked it to be. The actors were awkward occasionally and not really capable of giving their characters the emotional depth and authenticity that this subject would have required.
Lamb
(1985)
The ending makes this otherwise worthwhile movie thoroughly disgusting
2 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This comment contains crucial information about the ending. So please do not read it unless you know / want to know about it.
I give Lamb a 4. If it had not been for the movie's last 10 minutes, I would have given it a 7. The ending though is simply horrible and disgusting. My review will now take a closer look at the story and why I think the arguments of those who like the last scenes miss the point and are as surrealistic as the ending itself.
Lamb is the story of the Christian Brother Michael Lamb (played by Liam Neeson) and his doomed love for a 10 year old boy. He works at a Remand Home on the Irish Coast and is struggling with his loss of faith. Very soon the epileptic Owen (Hugh O'Connor) is put into the care of the Home by his obviously cold-hearted mother. The institution is run by Brother Benedict (Ian Bannen), who has a sadistic streak and does not care about individuals and their problems. When Lamb's father dies, the young priest seems to have some sort of emotional breakdown at least this assumption makes the following events somehow understandable. Owen, who regresses under the Home's brutal regime, is initially not interested in Lamb as the kind of mentor the young priest wants to be for the boy, but as soon as Owen finds out that Lamb wants to help him, he sides with the young priest. As Lamb is about to expect some inheritance, he decides to quit his work at the Home and to take Owen with him. They manage to leave the institution clandestinely and eventually arrive in London, where they are masquerading as father and son. Things get worse quickly, they run out of money after a short time and have to realize that the police is already in pursuit. Lamb tries to make a living, but as Owen's physical condition deteriorates alarmingly due to a lack of tablets and as the police is closing in, he takes him back to Ireland.
From this point on the movie becomes surrealistic and disturbing. Lamb apparently seems to think that Owen needs salvation, that his suffering is not to be cured, and that he is the only one who can redeem the boy from his sorely-tried life. So he gives him other tablets instead of those which Owen normally takes to prevent his fits, and takes him to the beach. There Owen breaks down. Lamb grabs his body and walks into the sea. He puts his head under the surface and apparently drowns the boy. He then leaves the body on a dune and dives into the sea himself several times. He finally comes back, places himself next to Owen's dead body and here the movie ends.
Now these last shots are totally beyond me. They are surreal, only to be grasped if you assume Lamb having lost his mind. The movie is not bad at all, starts with an interesting premise, shows a dear relationship which gradually grows stronger between the boy and the priest. The story itself is not necessarily coherent all the time and sometimes lacking sophisticated and realistic proceedings, but it works save for the end.
Other reviewers have stated that the final scenes are strong and convincing because they are tragic and far off the corny happy-ending pattern. The DVD cover calls it "the ultimate act of love and mercy". Some have said that Owen has finally found peace.
This attitude lacks good common sense. Everyone who has at least some understanding of terms such as "responsibility" and "reason" would have to realize that this ending is entirely unrealistic. If Lamb had really loved the boy, he would have quit the hiding and running away and assured Owen's save return, so that he could be treated according to his illness. Owen trusts him even loves him by the end of the movie, but Lamb abuses this trust and kills the boy. He kills him. He kills a boy who has his entire life still ahead, who has yet to experience so much and find out so many aspects of life. Why does he do so? Because he panics; loses his mind; turns mad however you wish to put it.
I have no problem with tragic endings; I have no problem with emotionally thrashing and exposing scenes that are far off the stereotypical happy ending. So if Owen would have drowned, or died due to an accident or some sort of complications from epilepsy fine. But this is nonsense, surrealistic and entirely beyond common sense. Lamb seems to be so strongly obsessed by the boy probably caused by the loss of his own father that he abandons the thought of returning him into the custody of the Home. Of course, Lamb would have to go to prison, Owen would probably return to the Home or some other institution, and yes, he would presumably continue to suffer, BUT: He would be alive. And this is my point. How anyone dares to call the killing of an innocent child "an act of mercy and love" is simply beyond me. How can anyone think that this deed does any good to Owen?
The boy is dead, and the one he trusted is responsible for it and has done everything deliberately. This is the sad essence of a story that has such a good background plot and very interesting events happening, but is simply ruined by a disgusting and appalling ending.
I give Lamb a 4. If it had not been for the movie's last 10 minutes, I would have given it a 7. The ending though is simply horrible and disgusting. My review will now take a closer look at the story and why I think the arguments of those who like the last scenes miss the point and are as surrealistic as the ending itself.
Lamb is the story of the Christian Brother Michael Lamb (played by Liam Neeson) and his doomed love for a 10 year old boy. He works at a Remand Home on the Irish Coast and is struggling with his loss of faith. Very soon the epileptic Owen (Hugh O'Connor) is put into the care of the Home by his obviously cold-hearted mother. The institution is run by Brother Benedict (Ian Bannen), who has a sadistic streak and does not care about individuals and their problems. When Lamb's father dies, the young priest seems to have some sort of emotional breakdown at least this assumption makes the following events somehow understandable. Owen, who regresses under the Home's brutal regime, is initially not interested in Lamb as the kind of mentor the young priest wants to be for the boy, but as soon as Owen finds out that Lamb wants to help him, he sides with the young priest. As Lamb is about to expect some inheritance, he decides to quit his work at the Home and to take Owen with him. They manage to leave the institution clandestinely and eventually arrive in London, where they are masquerading as father and son. Things get worse quickly, they run out of money after a short time and have to realize that the police is already in pursuit. Lamb tries to make a living, but as Owen's physical condition deteriorates alarmingly due to a lack of tablets and as the police is closing in, he takes him back to Ireland.
From this point on the movie becomes surrealistic and disturbing. Lamb apparently seems to think that Owen needs salvation, that his suffering is not to be cured, and that he is the only one who can redeem the boy from his sorely-tried life. So he gives him other tablets instead of those which Owen normally takes to prevent his fits, and takes him to the beach. There Owen breaks down. Lamb grabs his body and walks into the sea. He puts his head under the surface and apparently drowns the boy. He then leaves the body on a dune and dives into the sea himself several times. He finally comes back, places himself next to Owen's dead body and here the movie ends.
Now these last shots are totally beyond me. They are surreal, only to be grasped if you assume Lamb having lost his mind. The movie is not bad at all, starts with an interesting premise, shows a dear relationship which gradually grows stronger between the boy and the priest. The story itself is not necessarily coherent all the time and sometimes lacking sophisticated and realistic proceedings, but it works save for the end.
Other reviewers have stated that the final scenes are strong and convincing because they are tragic and far off the corny happy-ending pattern. The DVD cover calls it "the ultimate act of love and mercy". Some have said that Owen has finally found peace.
This attitude lacks good common sense. Everyone who has at least some understanding of terms such as "responsibility" and "reason" would have to realize that this ending is entirely unrealistic. If Lamb had really loved the boy, he would have quit the hiding and running away and assured Owen's save return, so that he could be treated according to his illness. Owen trusts him even loves him by the end of the movie, but Lamb abuses this trust and kills the boy. He kills him. He kills a boy who has his entire life still ahead, who has yet to experience so much and find out so many aspects of life. Why does he do so? Because he panics; loses his mind; turns mad however you wish to put it.
I have no problem with tragic endings; I have no problem with emotionally thrashing and exposing scenes that are far off the stereotypical happy ending. So if Owen would have drowned, or died due to an accident or some sort of complications from epilepsy fine. But this is nonsense, surrealistic and entirely beyond common sense. Lamb seems to be so strongly obsessed by the boy probably caused by the loss of his own father that he abandons the thought of returning him into the custody of the Home. Of course, Lamb would have to go to prison, Owen would probably return to the Home or some other institution, and yes, he would presumably continue to suffer, BUT: He would be alive. And this is my point. How anyone dares to call the killing of an innocent child "an act of mercy and love" is simply beyond me. How can anyone think that this deed does any good to Owen?
The boy is dead, and the one he trusted is responsible for it and has done everything deliberately. This is the sad essence of a story that has such a good background plot and very interesting events happening, but is simply ruined by a disgusting and appalling ending.
Where Eskimos Live
(2002)
Remarkably good and touching story
2 January 2006
Where Eskimos Live caught my heart. It made me laugh and cry. It is a stunning accomplishment, showing the cruelties of war bluntly and without glossing over the facts of inhumanity and destruction. It is a simple but very convincing movie, centering around two very different characters and how they learn to trust and love each other in the sinister world of death, child trade and deceit.
Sharkey (Bob Hoskins) is an obscure man who travels around war-torn Bosnia in 1995. He claims to be a caseworker for UNICEF, a camouflage he makes use of to get orphaned boys for a Russian mafia syndicate in Poland. He is in his fifties, apparently rough and callous; a loner always chasing an opportunity to make as much money as possible. Vlado (Sergiusz Zymelka) is a nine-year-old boy, orphaned by the war and now a member of a gang of pre-teen hoodlums who fool the military and steal food whenever they get a chance.
After Sharkey's unlucky encounter with a colonel, who now claims him responsible for the death of his daughter and is hard on his heels, he meets Vlado's gang. Eventually, the young boy follows him, as Sharkey pretends coming from Norway that is where Eskimos live, and Vlado always wanted to go there. So the two of them walk off, heading for the border. Of course their journey is not as smoothly as Sharkey would have preferred it to be; they have to survive various dangerous adventures, in the course of which they gradually grow quite close. Having dealt with the colonel and managed to leave Bosnia, Sharkey and Vlado arrive in Poland. Now they have to face the Russians, which means new challenges. Sharkey's cunning deceit almost proves too daring, but again they manage to survive.
The movie is set and shot entirely on locations in Bosnia and Poland. The setting both time and place is the story's backbone. Thus it is a movie dealing with two characters and how they manage to survive amidst death and havoc in a war-torn country. The cruelties of war are shown in appalling images, visualized in all their crushing brutality and atrocity. Sharky and Vlado are surrounded by these images, by death and despair. They encounter deserters who are shot to death at a checkpoint on the street; they have to run for their lives when shells explode in their vicinity; they find piles of dead corpses, shot to death and terribly deformed. They are surrounded by these images and emotionally affected in a subtle but pervasive way, which leads to the establishment of an emotional bond between them that would have never attained its honesty and depth if it had not been for the hostile environment that makes them rely on each other.
The acting performances of the two protagonists are outstanding. Sergiusz Zymelka in particular delivers so genuine scenes that I was moved to tears occasionally. His handsome appearance, his vivid and bright eyes, his cleverness and his disarming charm make him shine. The scene when Sharky attempts to make a photograph of the boy for a new passport features an hilarious Vlado who makes faces and displays his childish gaiety. Apart from that I deeply appreciate his knowledge of English, which is remarkably well-developed for a boy his age.
Where Eskimos Live is a road movie; it lives by individual sequences that define its quality. The scene after the shooting of the two deserters is just awesome, so natural and authentic that I could almost feel the emotional scars inflicted in Sharky and Vlado. They lie down in the grass and scream they have just escaped death, and it is moving how Vlado makes Sharkey release his pent-up emotions.
This movie is never stereotypical or corny. It tells the story of one man who was looking for money but rather found something that was worth much more a boy who pins all his hopes on him, a boy who makes him a better person, and, above all, a boy who loves him. The movie won various awards, giving ample evidence for its essential quality. It is brutal, sometimes vulgar and thus hard to digest for young children, but flawless and never awkward. Honest authenticity and a wonderful father-son relationship make this low budget production a more than worthwhile experience that shows how two characters undergo challenges and changes, which strengthens their bond and deepens their love.
Sharkey (Bob Hoskins) is an obscure man who travels around war-torn Bosnia in 1995. He claims to be a caseworker for UNICEF, a camouflage he makes use of to get orphaned boys for a Russian mafia syndicate in Poland. He is in his fifties, apparently rough and callous; a loner always chasing an opportunity to make as much money as possible. Vlado (Sergiusz Zymelka) is a nine-year-old boy, orphaned by the war and now a member of a gang of pre-teen hoodlums who fool the military and steal food whenever they get a chance.
After Sharkey's unlucky encounter with a colonel, who now claims him responsible for the death of his daughter and is hard on his heels, he meets Vlado's gang. Eventually, the young boy follows him, as Sharkey pretends coming from Norway that is where Eskimos live, and Vlado always wanted to go there. So the two of them walk off, heading for the border. Of course their journey is not as smoothly as Sharkey would have preferred it to be; they have to survive various dangerous adventures, in the course of which they gradually grow quite close. Having dealt with the colonel and managed to leave Bosnia, Sharkey and Vlado arrive in Poland. Now they have to face the Russians, which means new challenges. Sharkey's cunning deceit almost proves too daring, but again they manage to survive.
The movie is set and shot entirely on locations in Bosnia and Poland. The setting both time and place is the story's backbone. Thus it is a movie dealing with two characters and how they manage to survive amidst death and havoc in a war-torn country. The cruelties of war are shown in appalling images, visualized in all their crushing brutality and atrocity. Sharky and Vlado are surrounded by these images, by death and despair. They encounter deserters who are shot to death at a checkpoint on the street; they have to run for their lives when shells explode in their vicinity; they find piles of dead corpses, shot to death and terribly deformed. They are surrounded by these images and emotionally affected in a subtle but pervasive way, which leads to the establishment of an emotional bond between them that would have never attained its honesty and depth if it had not been for the hostile environment that makes them rely on each other.
The acting performances of the two protagonists are outstanding. Sergiusz Zymelka in particular delivers so genuine scenes that I was moved to tears occasionally. His handsome appearance, his vivid and bright eyes, his cleverness and his disarming charm make him shine. The scene when Sharky attempts to make a photograph of the boy for a new passport features an hilarious Vlado who makes faces and displays his childish gaiety. Apart from that I deeply appreciate his knowledge of English, which is remarkably well-developed for a boy his age.
Where Eskimos Live is a road movie; it lives by individual sequences that define its quality. The scene after the shooting of the two deserters is just awesome, so natural and authentic that I could almost feel the emotional scars inflicted in Sharky and Vlado. They lie down in the grass and scream they have just escaped death, and it is moving how Vlado makes Sharkey release his pent-up emotions.
This movie is never stereotypical or corny. It tells the story of one man who was looking for money but rather found something that was worth much more a boy who pins all his hopes on him, a boy who makes him a better person, and, above all, a boy who loves him. The movie won various awards, giving ample evidence for its essential quality. It is brutal, sometimes vulgar and thus hard to digest for young children, but flawless and never awkward. Honest authenticity and a wonderful father-son relationship make this low budget production a more than worthwhile experience that shows how two characters undergo challenges and changes, which strengthens their bond and deepens their love.
A Place to Be Loved
(1993 TV Movie)
One boy's heroic struggle to find a place to be
31 December 2005
There was one boy who made a stand and fought for nothing but a place to be. His unprecedented courage stirred public conscience and paved the way for children's rights. Rights - unalienable rights, as they are held self-evident by the Declaration of Independence - that include the Pursuit of Happinesss for every citizen of the United States - even for minors. This boy was in the midst of a legal case that altered the understanding of parental rights and parents' responsibility towards their children. This boy made it clear that all you need is courage and steadfastness, which he badly enough gained from years of suffering and years of neglect; from years of being abandoned and deceived by his natural parents.
This boy is known as Gregory Kingsley. This is his story.
This adaptation focuses much more on Gregory's new family and how he manages to become a part of it, while following the same pattern as 'Switching Parents' aka 'Gregory K' with Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Here Tom Guiry plays Gregory, and he does so with outstanding sincerity and genuine charm that makes his screen debut a brilliant success.
Here the story starts right with George Russ running into Gregory at the "Boys' Ranch". Thus nothing substantial about the boy's previous story with his natural parents is introduced as it is in 'Switching Parents', which makes it clear that this movie differs from the other adaptation of Gregory's quest. It does not take long, and Mr. Russ (veteran Richard Crenna) decides to take Gregory into his family. The movie then elaborates on Gregory's development within the Russ family, how he manages to deal with the eight other kids he is now living together with and how the family as a whole reacts to him as a new member.
Whereas the strength of 'Switching Parents' lies embedded in the emotional conflict between Gregory and his mother, 'Shattered Family' gains its quality from a more convincing portrayal of how Gregory integrates into his new environment, how he gets along with his new siblings, how he deals with these arising challenges and how they family itself responds to him. These aspects are so strongly and genuinely implemented due to a stronger storyline as in 'Switching Parents' and above all, a stronger, more convincing and experienced cast. Richard Crenna is just the perfect head of the Russ clan, rugged and sensitive at the same time. Cyril O'Reilly is also much more credible than the comical and awkward Robert Joy. On the other hand I would say that Kathleen York is a better Rachel Kingsley in 'Switching Parents' than Joycelyn O'Brien in here, mainly due to a stronger mother-son conflict and as she basically has a more substantial and credible appearance.
A comparison of the two young actors Tom Guiry and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is very difficult. They both have tremendous talent and give outstanding performances in these movies. Both manage to carry the emotional burden with genuine charm and natural skills. Still, if I had to decide, I would say Joseph Gordon-Levitt has done slightly better. He manages to say so much with subtle facial expressions; he seems to have such a strong personality that makes him perfectly fit into the role of Gregory Kingsley. Tom Guiry then again caught my heart with his genuine performance, which he delivered in a way which is typical for newcomers; he never appears to be "working hard to act", he rather seems to evoke a kind of natural relation to him as a character among the audience, due to his uncomplicated manner and unconventional honesty that pervades his acting.
I give this movie a 9 because I was personally attached to the story and stunned by the sensibility of the cast when it comes to handling the emotionally exposing scenes. Furthermore the movie manages to emotionally address an issue of profound importance. It is the issue of whether parental rights are unalienable or not. It is the issue of which rights minors are entitled to, the issue if they ought to have the possibility of deciding for themselves where to live, so that they can be happy. All these aspects are wonderfully transformed and brilliantly visualized and treated by the cast.
Just as Gregory says, in both movies: "I'm doing this for me so that I can be happy."
This is what he is fighting for but it is also the origin of this movie's dramatic and emotional quality.
This boy is known as Gregory Kingsley. This is his story.
This adaptation focuses much more on Gregory's new family and how he manages to become a part of it, while following the same pattern as 'Switching Parents' aka 'Gregory K' with Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Here Tom Guiry plays Gregory, and he does so with outstanding sincerity and genuine charm that makes his screen debut a brilliant success.
Here the story starts right with George Russ running into Gregory at the "Boys' Ranch". Thus nothing substantial about the boy's previous story with his natural parents is introduced as it is in 'Switching Parents', which makes it clear that this movie differs from the other adaptation of Gregory's quest. It does not take long, and Mr. Russ (veteran Richard Crenna) decides to take Gregory into his family. The movie then elaborates on Gregory's development within the Russ family, how he manages to deal with the eight other kids he is now living together with and how the family as a whole reacts to him as a new member.
Whereas the strength of 'Switching Parents' lies embedded in the emotional conflict between Gregory and his mother, 'Shattered Family' gains its quality from a more convincing portrayal of how Gregory integrates into his new environment, how he gets along with his new siblings, how he deals with these arising challenges and how they family itself responds to him. These aspects are so strongly and genuinely implemented due to a stronger storyline as in 'Switching Parents' and above all, a stronger, more convincing and experienced cast. Richard Crenna is just the perfect head of the Russ clan, rugged and sensitive at the same time. Cyril O'Reilly is also much more credible than the comical and awkward Robert Joy. On the other hand I would say that Kathleen York is a better Rachel Kingsley in 'Switching Parents' than Joycelyn O'Brien in here, mainly due to a stronger mother-son conflict and as she basically has a more substantial and credible appearance.
A comparison of the two young actors Tom Guiry and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is very difficult. They both have tremendous talent and give outstanding performances in these movies. Both manage to carry the emotional burden with genuine charm and natural skills. Still, if I had to decide, I would say Joseph Gordon-Levitt has done slightly better. He manages to say so much with subtle facial expressions; he seems to have such a strong personality that makes him perfectly fit into the role of Gregory Kingsley. Tom Guiry then again caught my heart with his genuine performance, which he delivered in a way which is typical for newcomers; he never appears to be "working hard to act", he rather seems to evoke a kind of natural relation to him as a character among the audience, due to his uncomplicated manner and unconventional honesty that pervades his acting.
I give this movie a 9 because I was personally attached to the story and stunned by the sensibility of the cast when it comes to handling the emotionally exposing scenes. Furthermore the movie manages to emotionally address an issue of profound importance. It is the issue of whether parental rights are unalienable or not. It is the issue of which rights minors are entitled to, the issue if they ought to have the possibility of deciding for themselves where to live, so that they can be happy. All these aspects are wonderfully transformed and brilliantly visualized and treated by the cast.
Just as Gregory says, in both movies: "I'm doing this for me so that I can be happy."
This is what he is fighting for but it is also the origin of this movie's dramatic and emotional quality.
Gregory K
(1993 TV Movie)
One boy's heroic struggle to find a place to be
31 December 2005
There was one boy who made a stand and fought for nothing but a place to be. His unprecedented courage stirred public conscience and paved the way for children's rights. Rights - unalienable rights, as they are held self-evident by the Declaration of Independence - that include the Pursuit of Happinesss for every citizen of the United States - even for minors. This boy was in the midst of a legal case that altered the understanding of parental rights and parents' responsibility towards their children. This boy made it clear that all you need is courage and steadfastness, which he badly enough gained from years of suffering and years of neglect; from years of being abandoned and deceived by his natural parents.
This boy is known as Gregory Kingsley. This is his story.
Gregory Kingsley is played by young Joseph Gordon-Levitt. We are introduced to him as he enters his new home at the so-called "Boys' Ranch", a place for kids who are under the custody of Social Services, not because they have done something wrong, but because they have been let down and abandoned. Gregory's story is told in flashbacks, starting with the relationship to his alcoholic and erratic father Ralph (played by Robert Joy). As soon as Ralph was charged with child neglect and abuse, Gregory moved on to his mom, Rachel (Kathleen York), and his two brothers Zachary and Jeremiah. His relationship with his mother is the central theme in this adaptation of his story. Rachel seems to really love her son, but she has lost his trust and proved unable to cope with three children; she broke her promises regularly, and every time Gregory thought it would work out, she let him down and finally broke his heart when she gave him away into foster care.
Then there is George Russ (Bill Smitrovich), head of a family of eight, who visits the Boys' Ranch and gets caught by Gregory and his sadness. He and his wife meet Gregory, develop sympathy and affection for him and decide to become his foster parents. Gregory pins all his hopes on his new family, and as they grow close to each other, the Russes want to adopt the boy. This is challenged by Rachel, who wants her son back under her custody.
Here the story starts, as the time has come for Gregory to take a stand and to bring his own case before the court to terminate all parental rights, so that he can be adopted. What follows is a major struggle for Gregory, as Rachel tries everything to woo him back to her. It is an exchange of charges and counter-charges, a confrontation of highest emotional tension and strain.
The movie itself lives by the outstanding acting performance of Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He makes this struggle for happiness and a place to be so vivid and authentic that the audience can almost feel where this boy's strength comes from. He has a way of expressing so much disillusion and sadness with so little endeavor, with so marked experience and an effecting sincerity that is smashing in its genuine portrayal of a boy who has been continuously abandoned and neglected by his parents.
The focus of the movie centers around Gregory's conflict and his relationship with his parents; it is shown why and how they forced him to "divorce" them. The other movie dealing with Gregory's story, 'Shattered Family', featuring Tom Guiry as the leading character, deals more with Gregory's new family and how he manages to integrate himself into the Russ clan.
By further comparing the two movies, I would say that 'Shattered Family' is slightly better as a whole, due to a better cast. Richard Crenna as Mr. Russ is much stronger and more credible than Bill Smitrovich here, as is Cyril O'Reilly as Ralph Kingsley. On the other hand I would say that Kathleen York is a better Rachel than Joycelyn O'Brien in 'Shattered Family', mainly due to a stronger mother-son conflict and basically having a more substantial and credible appearance.
A comparison of the two young actors Tom Guiry and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is very difficult. They both have tremendous talent and give outstanding performances in these movies. Both manage to carry the emotional burden with genuine charm and natural skills. Still, if I had to decide, I would say Joseph Gordon-Levitt has done slightly better. He manages to say so much with subtle facial expressions; he seems to have such a strong personality that makes him perfectly fit into the role of Gregory Kingsley.
I give this movie a 9, not because it has such a convincing cast or outstanding visuals. In fact, it has not, save for Gregory's part. I give it a 9 because it manages to emotionally address an issue of profound importance. It is the issue of whether parental rights are unalienable or not. It is the issue of which rights minors are entitled to, the issue if they ought to have the possibility of deciding for themselves where to live, so that they can be happy.
Just as Gregory says, in both movies: "I'm doing this for me so that I can be happy."
This is what he is fighting for but it is also the origin of this movie's dramatic and emotional quality.
This boy is known as Gregory Kingsley. This is his story.
Gregory Kingsley is played by young Joseph Gordon-Levitt. We are introduced to him as he enters his new home at the so-called "Boys' Ranch", a place for kids who are under the custody of Social Services, not because they have done something wrong, but because they have been let down and abandoned. Gregory's story is told in flashbacks, starting with the relationship to his alcoholic and erratic father Ralph (played by Robert Joy). As soon as Ralph was charged with child neglect and abuse, Gregory moved on to his mom, Rachel (Kathleen York), and his two brothers Zachary and Jeremiah. His relationship with his mother is the central theme in this adaptation of his story. Rachel seems to really love her son, but she has lost his trust and proved unable to cope with three children; she broke her promises regularly, and every time Gregory thought it would work out, she let him down and finally broke his heart when she gave him away into foster care.
Then there is George Russ (Bill Smitrovich), head of a family of eight, who visits the Boys' Ranch and gets caught by Gregory and his sadness. He and his wife meet Gregory, develop sympathy and affection for him and decide to become his foster parents. Gregory pins all his hopes on his new family, and as they grow close to each other, the Russes want to adopt the boy. This is challenged by Rachel, who wants her son back under her custody.
Here the story starts, as the time has come for Gregory to take a stand and to bring his own case before the court to terminate all parental rights, so that he can be adopted. What follows is a major struggle for Gregory, as Rachel tries everything to woo him back to her. It is an exchange of charges and counter-charges, a confrontation of highest emotional tension and strain.
The movie itself lives by the outstanding acting performance of Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He makes this struggle for happiness and a place to be so vivid and authentic that the audience can almost feel where this boy's strength comes from. He has a way of expressing so much disillusion and sadness with so little endeavor, with so marked experience and an effecting sincerity that is smashing in its genuine portrayal of a boy who has been continuously abandoned and neglected by his parents.
The focus of the movie centers around Gregory's conflict and his relationship with his parents; it is shown why and how they forced him to "divorce" them. The other movie dealing with Gregory's story, 'Shattered Family', featuring Tom Guiry as the leading character, deals more with Gregory's new family and how he manages to integrate himself into the Russ clan.
By further comparing the two movies, I would say that 'Shattered Family' is slightly better as a whole, due to a better cast. Richard Crenna as Mr. Russ is much stronger and more credible than Bill Smitrovich here, as is Cyril O'Reilly as Ralph Kingsley. On the other hand I would say that Kathleen York is a better Rachel than Joycelyn O'Brien in 'Shattered Family', mainly due to a stronger mother-son conflict and basically having a more substantial and credible appearance.
A comparison of the two young actors Tom Guiry and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is very difficult. They both have tremendous talent and give outstanding performances in these movies. Both manage to carry the emotional burden with genuine charm and natural skills. Still, if I had to decide, I would say Joseph Gordon-Levitt has done slightly better. He manages to say so much with subtle facial expressions; he seems to have such a strong personality that makes him perfectly fit into the role of Gregory Kingsley.
I give this movie a 9, not because it has such a convincing cast or outstanding visuals. In fact, it has not, save for Gregory's part. I give it a 9 because it manages to emotionally address an issue of profound importance. It is the issue of whether parental rights are unalienable or not. It is the issue of which rights minors are entitled to, the issue if they ought to have the possibility of deciding for themselves where to live, so that they can be happy.
Just as Gregory says, in both movies: "I'm doing this for me so that I can be happy."
This is what he is fighting for but it is also the origin of this movie's dramatic and emotional quality.
The Cure
(1995)
A tale of friendship and hope
29 December 2005
The Cure is an outstanding real-life drama that deals with a very sensitive subject. It is the story of the profound and dear friendship between two boys, Eric and Dexter. The latter has acquired AIDS from a blood transfusion. Thus he and his mom (Annabella Sciorra) have become outcasts, shunned by the public and labeled as dangerous company, basically due to a common lack of public knowledge of the disease.
When Eric (Brad Renfro, known from 'The Client' and 'Apt Pupil') and his mom move into the house next to them, he has to deal with public insults and the fear of catching AIDS himself. However, Eric overcomes his fear and risks everything. At first he starts talking to Dexter, but eventually he climbs over the fence and joins the witty boy (played by Jurassic Park's Joseph Mazzello) and his games. Very quickly he develops a real friendship with Dexter, who is delicately built and frail due to his condition.
The central theme of the movie the theme which makes it pervasively authentic and tragic at the same time is how Eric and Dexter try to find the ultimate cure. At first they experiment with all kinds of plants and leaves which is very naive, but also genuine at the same time, as it shows how young kids deal with such heinous diseases and how strongly they still believe in the magic of the world. When they hear about an alleged cure which has been developed in the South, they do not hesitate and take off for an adventure that will bring them even closer together and symbolizes the ultimate quest for hope.
So they board a raft and head southwards on the Mississippi River. What starts as a real adventure becomes a dangerous undertaking, which is emotionally intriguing and instructive at the same time. The scene when Dexter reveals his fears and talks about the end of the universe, where everything is dark and cold, Eric hands him his sneaker, a symbol that wherever the boy may have to go, Eric is and will always be with him; he will never have to be alone. This sequence, which is one of the most compelling ones of the movie, features a very convincing interaction between the two actors, who manage to avoid awkward and corny dialogs and deliver a very genuine performance that is eventually smashing in its tenderness and honesty.
I will not go any further in outlining the plot, as I do not intend to give away too much information. The ending however is emotionally tough and makes the audience so much a part of the tragedy that everyone who watches the movie will feel personally affected. This aspect makes this movie so strong, so outstanding and so convincing. The emotional burden on every character is so real and so thrashing that even the tougher members of the audience might need some hankies.
A 10 is doing justice to this movie and is not too high a rating. There is hardly any other movie I have seen in my life so far that handles such an emotional issue with so much wit and sensibility. It is the story of how two boys make each other's life richer and how they teach each other lessons of life. Thus Dexter overcomes his isolation and sadness, and Eric learns what really counts in life; and both of them realize how much of a gift real friendship is when it comes to the hardest moments of life.
This movie is tragic but its message is sheer inspiration.
When Eric (Brad Renfro, known from 'The Client' and 'Apt Pupil') and his mom move into the house next to them, he has to deal with public insults and the fear of catching AIDS himself. However, Eric overcomes his fear and risks everything. At first he starts talking to Dexter, but eventually he climbs over the fence and joins the witty boy (played by Jurassic Park's Joseph Mazzello) and his games. Very quickly he develops a real friendship with Dexter, who is delicately built and frail due to his condition.
The central theme of the movie the theme which makes it pervasively authentic and tragic at the same time is how Eric and Dexter try to find the ultimate cure. At first they experiment with all kinds of plants and leaves which is very naive, but also genuine at the same time, as it shows how young kids deal with such heinous diseases and how strongly they still believe in the magic of the world. When they hear about an alleged cure which has been developed in the South, they do not hesitate and take off for an adventure that will bring them even closer together and symbolizes the ultimate quest for hope.
So they board a raft and head southwards on the Mississippi River. What starts as a real adventure becomes a dangerous undertaking, which is emotionally intriguing and instructive at the same time. The scene when Dexter reveals his fears and talks about the end of the universe, where everything is dark and cold, Eric hands him his sneaker, a symbol that wherever the boy may have to go, Eric is and will always be with him; he will never have to be alone. This sequence, which is one of the most compelling ones of the movie, features a very convincing interaction between the two actors, who manage to avoid awkward and corny dialogs and deliver a very genuine performance that is eventually smashing in its tenderness and honesty.
I will not go any further in outlining the plot, as I do not intend to give away too much information. The ending however is emotionally tough and makes the audience so much a part of the tragedy that everyone who watches the movie will feel personally affected. This aspect makes this movie so strong, so outstanding and so convincing. The emotional burden on every character is so real and so thrashing that even the tougher members of the audience might need some hankies.
A 10 is doing justice to this movie and is not too high a rating. There is hardly any other movie I have seen in my life so far that handles such an emotional issue with so much wit and sensibility. It is the story of how two boys make each other's life richer and how they teach each other lessons of life. Thus Dexter overcomes his isolation and sadness, and Eric learns what really counts in life; and both of them realize how much of a gift real friendship is when it comes to the hardest moments of life.
This movie is tragic but its message is sheer inspiration.
Jet Boy
(2001)
Great Canadian road movie
29 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Jet Boy deals with some very sensitive subjects. It does so with skillful honesty and without falling into stereotypes and melodramatic depictions. It is a real-life drama that convinces with its sincere authenticity and the profound quality of the interaction between the two leading characters.
The movie is set in Canada and shot in Vancouver, B.C., Calgary and Linden, Alberta, and the road between. It can be qualified as a road movie and as a drama focusing on characters influenced by their cultural milieu and by each other. The movie has a simple story and is still complex in its plot development as well as in the pace of plot revelations. The audience never stops learning about the two main characters, their individual stories and their background, which provides the movie with tremendous quality and causes curiosity that makes the audience dive into the story and stay alert.
The main protagonist is Nathan, played by newcomer Branden Nadon. We are introduced to him as he sells his body on his 14th birthday. These very subtle scenes at the beginning make us aware of how desperate this young boy is. He is a hustler, but still a child. We get a very good impression of his life a bleak, exploited life without much room for dreams and no way out. Then we are introduced to his family. He has no father and his mother is a drug addict. She dies right at the beginning due to an overdose, which leaves Nathan orphaned and totally isolated.
The second main character is a rough and mysterious man named Boon Palmer (played by Dylan Walsh), a man we do not know anything about. Apparently he has a questionable past as some kind of criminal. All we know is that he is up to something and violent if challenged.
Nathan is on the road, running away from the social services that would take him in, heading towards Vancouver, when he encounters Boon in a road pub. He associates with him and manages to make the taciturn man give him a ride to the city. On their way they stop in a motel in a small town, where Boon grew up and where he has to settle something. It becomes clear from the very beginning of their traveling companionship that Nathan sees much more than a temporary ride in Boon, but pins all his hopes on him. He does everything to please the man, makes their breakfast and as some subtle hints reveal would not mind sleeping in the same bed with him.
Once in the small town, we find out some interesting bits and pieces about Boon's past, about his imperious father, about his old flame and his life twenty years ago. We still do not know who Boon is today, but we get a clearer idea of his roots and find out that he is indeed a rather likable person, which we could not expect right from the beginning. The growing relationship between Boon and Nathan is characterized by frictions, but still slowly growing in depth. Boon renews a sexual affair with his old flame while Nathan associates with some local lads.
The movie's climax is emotionally stirring and intriguingly played by the two leading characters. Nathan breaks away as Boon neglects his love and his yearning for paternal appreciation. Boon has to finish his job in Vancouver, and there he sees how Nathan offers himself to a client. He follows them and rushes into the hotel room as Nathan is about to be sexually harassed. Boon hugs Nathan, and the emotional turmoil makes the boy break down and cry. As they leave the hotel, we find out that Boon is in fact an undercover cop something we did not know throughout the entire movie. They drive back to the small town, as it seems happily united.
This last aspect is probably slightly, just slightly overdone and a bit corny. The rest of the movie is profoundly authentic and smashing in its sincere character portrayal of a strange man and a young hustler who help each other out of their bleak lives. These two characters carry complex problems and their interaction makes up the emotional thrill of the whole production. The soundtrack is flawless and the camera work lives up to the decisive moments. The other characters are fairly flat, but this is okay here, as the two protagonists carry the burden and define the pace and the quality of the plot development.
I give Jet Boy a 9 because it handles a very sensitive issue child prostitution frankly and without corny stereotypes. It furthermore delivers a fine character portrayal and focuses on a very strong father-son aspect, set in a cultural stratum in which hope and trust are hard to find and even harder to maintain. The two leading actors are just brilliant, and thus Jet Boy is an authentic Canadian movie, a wonderful portrayal of genuine human struggles
The movie is set in Canada and shot in Vancouver, B.C., Calgary and Linden, Alberta, and the road between. It can be qualified as a road movie and as a drama focusing on characters influenced by their cultural milieu and by each other. The movie has a simple story and is still complex in its plot development as well as in the pace of plot revelations. The audience never stops learning about the two main characters, their individual stories and their background, which provides the movie with tremendous quality and causes curiosity that makes the audience dive into the story and stay alert.
The main protagonist is Nathan, played by newcomer Branden Nadon. We are introduced to him as he sells his body on his 14th birthday. These very subtle scenes at the beginning make us aware of how desperate this young boy is. He is a hustler, but still a child. We get a very good impression of his life a bleak, exploited life without much room for dreams and no way out. Then we are introduced to his family. He has no father and his mother is a drug addict. She dies right at the beginning due to an overdose, which leaves Nathan orphaned and totally isolated.
The second main character is a rough and mysterious man named Boon Palmer (played by Dylan Walsh), a man we do not know anything about. Apparently he has a questionable past as some kind of criminal. All we know is that he is up to something and violent if challenged.
Nathan is on the road, running away from the social services that would take him in, heading towards Vancouver, when he encounters Boon in a road pub. He associates with him and manages to make the taciturn man give him a ride to the city. On their way they stop in a motel in a small town, where Boon grew up and where he has to settle something. It becomes clear from the very beginning of their traveling companionship that Nathan sees much more than a temporary ride in Boon, but pins all his hopes on him. He does everything to please the man, makes their breakfast and as some subtle hints reveal would not mind sleeping in the same bed with him.
Once in the small town, we find out some interesting bits and pieces about Boon's past, about his imperious father, about his old flame and his life twenty years ago. We still do not know who Boon is today, but we get a clearer idea of his roots and find out that he is indeed a rather likable person, which we could not expect right from the beginning. The growing relationship between Boon and Nathan is characterized by frictions, but still slowly growing in depth. Boon renews a sexual affair with his old flame while Nathan associates with some local lads.
The movie's climax is emotionally stirring and intriguingly played by the two leading characters. Nathan breaks away as Boon neglects his love and his yearning for paternal appreciation. Boon has to finish his job in Vancouver, and there he sees how Nathan offers himself to a client. He follows them and rushes into the hotel room as Nathan is about to be sexually harassed. Boon hugs Nathan, and the emotional turmoil makes the boy break down and cry. As they leave the hotel, we find out that Boon is in fact an undercover cop something we did not know throughout the entire movie. They drive back to the small town, as it seems happily united.
This last aspect is probably slightly, just slightly overdone and a bit corny. The rest of the movie is profoundly authentic and smashing in its sincere character portrayal of a strange man and a young hustler who help each other out of their bleak lives. These two characters carry complex problems and their interaction makes up the emotional thrill of the whole production. The soundtrack is flawless and the camera work lives up to the decisive moments. The other characters are fairly flat, but this is okay here, as the two protagonists carry the burden and define the pace and the quality of the plot development.
I give Jet Boy a 9 because it handles a very sensitive issue child prostitution frankly and without corny stereotypes. It furthermore delivers a fine character portrayal and focuses on a very strong father-son aspect, set in a cultural stratum in which hope and trust are hard to find and even harder to maintain. The two leading actors are just brilliant, and thus Jet Boy is an authentic Canadian movie, a wonderful portrayal of genuine human struggles
Unrealistic but smashing entertainment
29 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is great. No, not because it deals with a realistic background or a too sophisticated storyline, but because it is very entertaining and elaborates on a far-fetched but likable idea.
Kenny Witkowski (played by Bill Switzer) is the protagonist. He is around 13 and dealing with the same problems almost all other kids his age have to deal with. His father is Jack Witkowski, an ordinary store worker; his family thus belongs to the lower Middle Class.
Then we have the President of the United States, who is currently running for re-election. This character is played by Randy Quaid. The latest polls show him way behind his opponent, who seems to have the better election platform and a higher credibility among ordinary citizens. The President is fairly depressed about the gradually growing loss of support. While struggling with this pressure and trying to find some fresh vigor for his campaign, he surfs the Net and encounters a character called "Big Jack W" in a chat-room.
This "Big Jack W" is of course Kenny. The two of them start a conversation, which finally results in Kenny giving the President (who uses a nickname too, thus the boy does not know who he is writing to) some ideas on political issues (taxes or commerce, I am not sure). The President finds the ideas very clear and easily understandable. So, in his next debate, during a situation in which his opponent challenges him and he does not really know how to react, he uses the simple-minded comparison Kenny came up with, which sounds so naive and utterly blunt that everyone is stunned. However, by using these simple comparisons, the President is able to connect to the public, and his approval rates gradually improve.
Soon afterwards he is stunned himself when he finds out that his political adviser is just an ordinary boy. However, he wants to meet Kenny, so he arranges a White House guided tour for his school class, during which he "kidnaps" him for a while. Kenny's ideas are so inspiring that the President invites him on a regular basis, until his political opponent finds out the truth.
The story is simply outstanding in its conception and wit. It is very entertaining to watch the President using Kenny's simple perceptions of politics for his agenda. Even foreign secret services start investigations on the mysterious "Big Jack W", which leads to hilarious scenes with Kenny's dad and some Russian and Chinese agents.
The movie is not to be taken too seriously however, its last third is surprisingly sincere and deals with the President struggling with abandoning his "kid adviser", who has become his friend by then. Kenny again finds himself increasingly alienated from his friends at school and eventually exploited and betrayed by the "Chief". His parents of course do not believe him when he wants to tell the truth, and his grades get worse as well.
So the last part of the movie requires the President to show some character and stand by Kenny, who he owes so much to. It is again an exceedingly entertaining scene when he visits Kenny and pardons - as the nation's chief executive - the house arrest his parents have imposed on him. Then again, he delivers a very honest speech in which he addresses aspects such as courage and credibility, honesty and trust.
So this movie has a deeper message, which shines through the entertainment aspect and makes it a wonderful experience. It is the combination of a witty story and interesting themes, all mixed up in an entertaining movie for the whole family, which makes this production a worthwhile experience.
Kenny Witkowski (played by Bill Switzer) is the protagonist. He is around 13 and dealing with the same problems almost all other kids his age have to deal with. His father is Jack Witkowski, an ordinary store worker; his family thus belongs to the lower Middle Class.
Then we have the President of the United States, who is currently running for re-election. This character is played by Randy Quaid. The latest polls show him way behind his opponent, who seems to have the better election platform and a higher credibility among ordinary citizens. The President is fairly depressed about the gradually growing loss of support. While struggling with this pressure and trying to find some fresh vigor for his campaign, he surfs the Net and encounters a character called "Big Jack W" in a chat-room.
This "Big Jack W" is of course Kenny. The two of them start a conversation, which finally results in Kenny giving the President (who uses a nickname too, thus the boy does not know who he is writing to) some ideas on political issues (taxes or commerce, I am not sure). The President finds the ideas very clear and easily understandable. So, in his next debate, during a situation in which his opponent challenges him and he does not really know how to react, he uses the simple-minded comparison Kenny came up with, which sounds so naive and utterly blunt that everyone is stunned. However, by using these simple comparisons, the President is able to connect to the public, and his approval rates gradually improve.
Soon afterwards he is stunned himself when he finds out that his political adviser is just an ordinary boy. However, he wants to meet Kenny, so he arranges a White House guided tour for his school class, during which he "kidnaps" him for a while. Kenny's ideas are so inspiring that the President invites him on a regular basis, until his political opponent finds out the truth.
The story is simply outstanding in its conception and wit. It is very entertaining to watch the President using Kenny's simple perceptions of politics for his agenda. Even foreign secret services start investigations on the mysterious "Big Jack W", which leads to hilarious scenes with Kenny's dad and some Russian and Chinese agents.
The movie is not to be taken too seriously however, its last third is surprisingly sincere and deals with the President struggling with abandoning his "kid adviser", who has become his friend by then. Kenny again finds himself increasingly alienated from his friends at school and eventually exploited and betrayed by the "Chief". His parents of course do not believe him when he wants to tell the truth, and his grades get worse as well.
So the last part of the movie requires the President to show some character and stand by Kenny, who he owes so much to. It is again an exceedingly entertaining scene when he visits Kenny and pardons - as the nation's chief executive - the house arrest his parents have imposed on him. Then again, he delivers a very honest speech in which he addresses aspects such as courage and credibility, honesty and trust.
So this movie has a deeper message, which shines through the entertainment aspect and makes it a wonderful experience. It is the combination of a witty story and interesting themes, all mixed up in an entertaining movie for the whole family, which makes this production a worthwhile experience.
Tell Your Friends