This is just a short comment but I stumbled onto this movie by chance and I loved it. The acting is great, the story is simple and touching, and the lines, especially from the 4-yr-old Desi, are so cute and sad. Seek it out.
Reviews
16 Reviews
Passion
(1996 TV Movie)
Extraordinary
22 August 2001
There's a number of different reactions that I can imagine a viewer could experience whilst watching this musical. My own was that of complete surrender to an intense and beautiful, if unlikely and dramatically heightened, story. But when a story is so stylised, when it is pushed as far to an extreme as possible, I feel that it can be permitted to go anywhere and twist *anything*. There is a line in Sondheim's PASSION goes, "Love that thinks everything is pure, everything is beautiful, everything is possible...," and this is precisely what we must understand before PASSION can make sense.
The score in itself could accompany a ballet, wordless, and still be beautiful, I think (and I'm no huge fan of ballet). The lyrics are so fitting and right that they add yet another layer. I saw this filmed production about a year ago for the first time, before I listened to the album... but since then, I've become used to just listening to the 70 minute condensed version. Watching this again today reminded me just how amazing Donna Murphy is as Fosca, how stylised the whole show is visually, and simply of the value of *seeing* a work *intended* to be seen as well as heard, something a lot of musical fans can easily forget when access to professional productions can be so hard and expensive.
Obviously there are those to whom this will not appeal. It asks you to believe in that entirely fictional kind of love, the kind that, if we ever *do* feel it, always feels false and embarrassing in retrospect. But Sondheim is better than any trash novel-writer and he deals with this ultimate extreme by pushing it even further so as to be so close to the ridiculous that it becomes something else entirely - the narrowminded might still laugh, but if you're prepared to risk going deeper, the investment is paid off. The actors in this production, particularly Donna Murphy, completely absorb themselves in their roles and truly give their all, the final scene between Fosca and Giorgio being perhaps one of the most intense, painful, and beautiful moments on the screen, merely from the exhausted, "hopelessly in love" expressions on both actors' faces. The movie is beautiful if you can find a way to let it in. You'll find yourself, in the end, seeing the movie's true beauty, repeating the movie's most profound line, "I don't know how I let you so far inside my mind, but there you are and there you will stay, how could I ever wish you away?"
The score in itself could accompany a ballet, wordless, and still be beautiful, I think (and I'm no huge fan of ballet). The lyrics are so fitting and right that they add yet another layer. I saw this filmed production about a year ago for the first time, before I listened to the album... but since then, I've become used to just listening to the 70 minute condensed version. Watching this again today reminded me just how amazing Donna Murphy is as Fosca, how stylised the whole show is visually, and simply of the value of *seeing* a work *intended* to be seen as well as heard, something a lot of musical fans can easily forget when access to professional productions can be so hard and expensive.
Obviously there are those to whom this will not appeal. It asks you to believe in that entirely fictional kind of love, the kind that, if we ever *do* feel it, always feels false and embarrassing in retrospect. But Sondheim is better than any trash novel-writer and he deals with this ultimate extreme by pushing it even further so as to be so close to the ridiculous that it becomes something else entirely - the narrowminded might still laugh, but if you're prepared to risk going deeper, the investment is paid off. The actors in this production, particularly Donna Murphy, completely absorb themselves in their roles and truly give their all, the final scene between Fosca and Giorgio being perhaps one of the most intense, painful, and beautiful moments on the screen, merely from the exhausted, "hopelessly in love" expressions on both actors' faces. The movie is beautiful if you can find a way to let it in. You'll find yourself, in the end, seeing the movie's true beauty, repeating the movie's most profound line, "I don't know how I let you so far inside my mind, but there you are and there you will stay, how could I ever wish you away?"
Evolution
(2001)
The reliable Summer movie
22 June 2001
Okay, first I should stress that this film was forgotten so fast that I almost forgot to write a review of it, but this is by no means a bad thing. Certain movies just aren't there for criticism, they *are* pure entertainment (for some, as the "Pearl Harbor" comments here have proven), and this is one such film, as you can imagine from the excellent poster (still gotta get me one of those).
It's from the same director of the 80s 'classic' "Ghostbusters", and he hasn't done anything quite as memorable in between. "Evolution" has elements of movies like "Galaxy Quest", "Men in Black", and "Independence Day", but resolves itself in the manner of what could have been a "South Park" movie sequel.
A meteor arrives on earth, and single cell organisms inside of it begin to evolve at a phenomenal speed (millions of years in a couple of days). Ira Kane (David Duchovny) and fellow college professor and cheerleading coach Block make the discovery but, inevitably, the info finds its way to the government (Kane used to work for them until he gave a large portion of the army 'Kane's Madness'), at which point Dr. Allison Reed (Julianne Moore, doing comedy again, at last) enters the movie. By this point the organisms are almost human, with a few dinosaur type creatures (the effects are *amazing*) thrown in for visual spectacle. All comes to a head when the military decide to napalm the meteor site, just as Kane and Block discover that fire will turn the organisms into... well, you'll have to see the movie to discover one of the most shamelessly hilarious final acts since, well, "South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut".
The score is by John Powell and the cinematography by Michael Chapman. I note these two since they seem to have reversed roles. John Powell used to do Hans Zimmer type clones for movies like "Face/Off" and "Antz", yet here he produces something which, though familiar, I found to be pretty astounding and will likely be getting the soundtrack. Michael Chapman, on the other hand, is one of the greatest modern cinematographers and seems, in my opinion, to be wasting his time on a visual effects extravaganza like this. Where's "Raging Bull" and "Taxi Driver"?
"Evolution" was always to me the most reliable Summer movie, and it delivers more than expected. Though the "Tomb Raider"s and the "Pearl Harbor"s have big bucks for advertising and stars, this one struck me as a firm concept backed by a capable crew. That it turns out having the audience I was in laughing their heads off every 5 minutes is, in this typical Summer of flaws, reassuring indeed.
It's from the same director of the 80s 'classic' "Ghostbusters", and he hasn't done anything quite as memorable in between. "Evolution" has elements of movies like "Galaxy Quest", "Men in Black", and "Independence Day", but resolves itself in the manner of what could have been a "South Park" movie sequel.
A meteor arrives on earth, and single cell organisms inside of it begin to evolve at a phenomenal speed (millions of years in a couple of days). Ira Kane (David Duchovny) and fellow college professor and cheerleading coach Block make the discovery but, inevitably, the info finds its way to the government (Kane used to work for them until he gave a large portion of the army 'Kane's Madness'), at which point Dr. Allison Reed (Julianne Moore, doing comedy again, at last) enters the movie. By this point the organisms are almost human, with a few dinosaur type creatures (the effects are *amazing*) thrown in for visual spectacle. All comes to a head when the military decide to napalm the meteor site, just as Kane and Block discover that fire will turn the organisms into... well, you'll have to see the movie to discover one of the most shamelessly hilarious final acts since, well, "South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut".
The score is by John Powell and the cinematography by Michael Chapman. I note these two since they seem to have reversed roles. John Powell used to do Hans Zimmer type clones for movies like "Face/Off" and "Antz", yet here he produces something which, though familiar, I found to be pretty astounding and will likely be getting the soundtrack. Michael Chapman, on the other hand, is one of the greatest modern cinematographers and seems, in my opinion, to be wasting his time on a visual effects extravaganza like this. Where's "Raging Bull" and "Taxi Driver"?
"Evolution" was always to me the most reliable Summer movie, and it delivers more than expected. Though the "Tomb Raider"s and the "Pearl Harbor"s have big bucks for advertising and stars, this one struck me as a firm concept backed by a capable crew. That it turns out having the audience I was in laughing their heads off every 5 minutes is, in this typical Summer of flaws, reassuring indeed.
Blow
(2001)
Depends on what you've already seen...
11 June 2001
Comparisons to Goodfellas etc. must be made, and the first hour of this new film from Ted Demme (Beautiful Girls) is the standard rise-and-rise montage that definitely gets boring before anything new happens. I was beginning to get disappointed by the movie up until about half way through, when I realised it was slightly different. Though Blow is no classic, it does deal a little differently with its subject matter (drugs, for those who don't know).
The movie tracks the rise and plummet of a bigshot drugdealer - but is most effective in showing the way he affects the lives of those around him, particularly his daughter Kristina. The best scene in the film occurs between George (Johnny Depp) and Kristina, when she 'visits' him in jail at the end of the movie (this never happened, and is presented here as a kind of delirious hallucination, George finally left alone in a hell he's created).
Aside from the emotion, there is little new in this latest drug epic. Ray Liotta plays a slightly different dad, one who clearly doesn't like his son being a drugdealer but who has no power to stop him, and also Rachel Griffiths plays a different mother, at least, slightly different (I found her calling in the police on George to be a somehow different scene for this kind of movie).
Johnny Depp, on the other hand, plays a kind of compilation of his other characters. Raoul Duke of Fear and Loathing is obviously in there, bigtime (particularly the voiceover and a great "drug dance" he does across a runway at the start of the movie, repeated at the end); as is even Edward Scissorhands to an extent (the youthful George arriving in L.A. for the first time, peeking slightly nervous through his mop hair at pretty ladies); and Donnie Brasco (Joe Pistone), too, and if we're being exhaustive, there's even a throw-away reference to crossdressing (Ed Wood); but he is Johnny Depp, afterall, so we forgive him.
Part of me wants to be cynical about this movie - it is so like what we've seen before (Goodfellas, Scarface, the last third of Boogie Nights...) but, as I've said before, I'm a sucker for emotion and this movie has plenty to throw around. "I thought you couldn't live without your heart," a young Kristina tells her father when he is arrested once more... before he's released, to promise her a trip to California, "I swear on my life..." which is pretty much what he gets; "None of that mattered," George murmurs in voiceover, referring to being betrayed by all his friends, "but I broke a promise..." over a shot of his daughter, bags packed ready for California. The scene between George and Kristina is a wonderful touch ("Daddy's a f**k up..."), not only because of its emotion but in its contrast with what follows... a reminder that crime doesn't pay, there are no emotional reunions, the breaks are permanent, and though it has its glorious peaks, it always ends with nothing.
Hence, my verdict is as follows: if you've 'seen it all', you could do worse than going to see this too - it does have some new stuff in there, new touches to the story, and Depp is great; on the other hand, if you're looking for the classic, rent Goodfellas for goodness' sake; if you're looking for a new spin on the rise-and-fall plotline, go and rent Boogie Nights, and as a bonus you'll find that the last third of the movie hooks up with a drug story too; if you want a new spin on the drug side of things, go and see Traffic; or, if you just think Johnny Depp is brilliant in anything and get excited by his very name, and perhaps just want a little cry in the bargain too, go and see Blow, it just might blow you away.
*Additional* : Over the weekend I read the tie-in book "Blow by Blow" by Ted Demme and Johnny Depp which features digital photos taken on the set by Demme, and mini-essays by George Jung. If you're in any doubt having seen the movie as to how much we should feel for the guy, this book does clarify things more. Yes, the guy is a criminal, but the knowledge of *life* which he has makes his story worth telling. I'd recommend this book almost more than the movie.
The movie tracks the rise and plummet of a bigshot drugdealer - but is most effective in showing the way he affects the lives of those around him, particularly his daughter Kristina. The best scene in the film occurs between George (Johnny Depp) and Kristina, when she 'visits' him in jail at the end of the movie (this never happened, and is presented here as a kind of delirious hallucination, George finally left alone in a hell he's created).
Aside from the emotion, there is little new in this latest drug epic. Ray Liotta plays a slightly different dad, one who clearly doesn't like his son being a drugdealer but who has no power to stop him, and also Rachel Griffiths plays a different mother, at least, slightly different (I found her calling in the police on George to be a somehow different scene for this kind of movie).
Johnny Depp, on the other hand, plays a kind of compilation of his other characters. Raoul Duke of Fear and Loathing is obviously in there, bigtime (particularly the voiceover and a great "drug dance" he does across a runway at the start of the movie, repeated at the end); as is even Edward Scissorhands to an extent (the youthful George arriving in L.A. for the first time, peeking slightly nervous through his mop hair at pretty ladies); and Donnie Brasco (Joe Pistone), too, and if we're being exhaustive, there's even a throw-away reference to crossdressing (Ed Wood); but he is Johnny Depp, afterall, so we forgive him.
Part of me wants to be cynical about this movie - it is so like what we've seen before (Goodfellas, Scarface, the last third of Boogie Nights...) but, as I've said before, I'm a sucker for emotion and this movie has plenty to throw around. "I thought you couldn't live without your heart," a young Kristina tells her father when he is arrested once more... before he's released, to promise her a trip to California, "I swear on my life..." which is pretty much what he gets; "None of that mattered," George murmurs in voiceover, referring to being betrayed by all his friends, "but I broke a promise..." over a shot of his daughter, bags packed ready for California. The scene between George and Kristina is a wonderful touch ("Daddy's a f**k up..."), not only because of its emotion but in its contrast with what follows... a reminder that crime doesn't pay, there are no emotional reunions, the breaks are permanent, and though it has its glorious peaks, it always ends with nothing.
Hence, my verdict is as follows: if you've 'seen it all', you could do worse than going to see this too - it does have some new stuff in there, new touches to the story, and Depp is great; on the other hand, if you're looking for the classic, rent Goodfellas for goodness' sake; if you're looking for a new spin on the rise-and-fall plotline, go and rent Boogie Nights, and as a bonus you'll find that the last third of the movie hooks up with a drug story too; if you want a new spin on the drug side of things, go and see Traffic; or, if you just think Johnny Depp is brilliant in anything and get excited by his very name, and perhaps just want a little cry in the bargain too, go and see Blow, it just might blow you away.
*Additional* : Over the weekend I read the tie-in book "Blow by Blow" by Ted Demme and Johnny Depp which features digital photos taken on the set by Demme, and mini-essays by George Jung. If you're in any doubt having seen the movie as to how much we should feel for the guy, this book does clarify things more. Yes, the guy is a criminal, but the knowledge of *life* which he has makes his story worth telling. I'd recommend this book almost more than the movie.
Pearl Harbor
(2001)
*What* a goddamn stinker!
2 June 2001
The trailer for "Pearl Harbor" left me in virtually no doubt that I would love it, weep over it, etc. The opening scene of the movie did nothing to prove me wrong - it's a brilliantly scored, brilliantly shot scene between the two "brothers" who will (unfortunately) become Josh Hartnett and Ben Affleck, and a fight with a father who served in World War I, where he saw plenty he wished he hadn't. It's like warning about the movie, really... I didn't take the hint.
The scene left me in no doubt that before the movie was out, I'd have shed many a tear. But when a movie is *so* bad in its first hour or so that you begin wishing the Japs would just *drop the bomb, for god's sake!*, it means one of two things: 1) I have ADD; or 2) Alert, we have a stinker here.
"Pearl Harbor" is "Jerry Bruckheimer: The Clip Show". It's two movies in one, with enough good moments to fit on one hand, in which anyone with slight movie knowledge (and let's face it, the guy only does blockbusters) can recognise such movies as "Crimson Tide", "Armageddon", "Top Gun", and "The Rock". What are the good moments? Alright, I'll list them:
The first scene: loved it. It was a nice turnaround when the kid called the father "German," and the fact that no more violence intervened made it absolutely clear how he felt about that word.
Cuba Gooding Jr.: The best actor in the movie by far, in two of his (not many more) scenes with the captain of his ship. First, he is told the ship is proud of him, and it bounces off his face wonderfully. Then, as the captain dies, he is placed in full command of the ship, but he tells the captain before the last breath "Everyone's where they should be - you trained us great." Loved it. Also, Cuba's face when firing the gun. I swear, against Hartnett and Affleck and anyone else, Hollywood needs more actors like Cuba Gooding Jr. who aren't afraid to expose some real emotion onscreen.
Most of the hospital stuff - very raw, very real. The key moment is when Kate Beckinsale forces herself to take control, and grabs a nervous doctor and says *so* firmly it almost got those tears from me, "Doctor- look at me - what do you need?"
Okay, technically all those won't fit on my hand, but that's about all there is folks. I know I can be really brutal on this movie because if you're taking issue with my words, you'll go and see the movie just to prove me wrong. I wish I had the strength to not go to Summer movies, but y'know, we just have to.
So "Pearl Harbor" absolutely stinks in my opinion. In parts it flows like a really bad soap opera (complete with Patrick Duffy style character resurrections), in parts like a simple compilation of the best of Bruckheimer.
Most striking of all is that in contrast to all the criticism of Hollywood being too "American" regarding historical movies, in this effort, the Americans are presented as a self-pitying, stupid, stuttering, nerve-jangling useless bunch of preppies. All, surely, to build that suspense for the bombing scenes (I'm sure I wasn't the only one who smiled when realisation dawned that *Action's finally approaching!* -- believe me, you *want* the Americans to lay down and die after the first hour). The love story is laughable, the score is mostly good but headachingly repetitive sampling chunks of "The Thin Red Line" and Bruckheimer's other hits, the actors are... well, simply put, the actors are no Tom Cruises or Gene Hackmans or Sean Connery. Bruckheimer has to realise that he has a package that doesn't yield to tinkering. Leave the serious stuff to Spielberg, keep the story, sure, but fill it with decent actors as usual. *Please*!
As to the battle scenes, if that's why you're going - don't bother. I read one magazine saying "you've never seen anything like it" - well, that's a lie, it's all been seen before. The only unique shot is the one you've seen, the POV shot from the bomb going down on Pearl Harbor. Everything else is like a video game. This is *not* the zenith of CGI, that won't happen until a good director uses them to realise a good script. If you can, resist seeing this movie. I'm so pleased that the average user rating on this site is lower than I expected it to be. It shows there's sense in the world. We deserve better than this.
The scene left me in no doubt that before the movie was out, I'd have shed many a tear. But when a movie is *so* bad in its first hour or so that you begin wishing the Japs would just *drop the bomb, for god's sake!*, it means one of two things: 1) I have ADD; or 2) Alert, we have a stinker here.
"Pearl Harbor" is "Jerry Bruckheimer: The Clip Show". It's two movies in one, with enough good moments to fit on one hand, in which anyone with slight movie knowledge (and let's face it, the guy only does blockbusters) can recognise such movies as "Crimson Tide", "Armageddon", "Top Gun", and "The Rock". What are the good moments? Alright, I'll list them:
The first scene: loved it. It was a nice turnaround when the kid called the father "German," and the fact that no more violence intervened made it absolutely clear how he felt about that word.
Cuba Gooding Jr.: The best actor in the movie by far, in two of his (not many more) scenes with the captain of his ship. First, he is told the ship is proud of him, and it bounces off his face wonderfully. Then, as the captain dies, he is placed in full command of the ship, but he tells the captain before the last breath "Everyone's where they should be - you trained us great." Loved it. Also, Cuba's face when firing the gun. I swear, against Hartnett and Affleck and anyone else, Hollywood needs more actors like Cuba Gooding Jr. who aren't afraid to expose some real emotion onscreen.
Most of the hospital stuff - very raw, very real. The key moment is when Kate Beckinsale forces herself to take control, and grabs a nervous doctor and says *so* firmly it almost got those tears from me, "Doctor- look at me - what do you need?"
Okay, technically all those won't fit on my hand, but that's about all there is folks. I know I can be really brutal on this movie because if you're taking issue with my words, you'll go and see the movie just to prove me wrong. I wish I had the strength to not go to Summer movies, but y'know, we just have to.
So "Pearl Harbor" absolutely stinks in my opinion. In parts it flows like a really bad soap opera (complete with Patrick Duffy style character resurrections), in parts like a simple compilation of the best of Bruckheimer.
Most striking of all is that in contrast to all the criticism of Hollywood being too "American" regarding historical movies, in this effort, the Americans are presented as a self-pitying, stupid, stuttering, nerve-jangling useless bunch of preppies. All, surely, to build that suspense for the bombing scenes (I'm sure I wasn't the only one who smiled when realisation dawned that *Action's finally approaching!* -- believe me, you *want* the Americans to lay down and die after the first hour). The love story is laughable, the score is mostly good but headachingly repetitive sampling chunks of "The Thin Red Line" and Bruckheimer's other hits, the actors are... well, simply put, the actors are no Tom Cruises or Gene Hackmans or Sean Connery. Bruckheimer has to realise that he has a package that doesn't yield to tinkering. Leave the serious stuff to Spielberg, keep the story, sure, but fill it with decent actors as usual. *Please*!
As to the battle scenes, if that's why you're going - don't bother. I read one magazine saying "you've never seen anything like it" - well, that's a lie, it's all been seen before. The only unique shot is the one you've seen, the POV shot from the bomb going down on Pearl Harbor. Everything else is like a video game. This is *not* the zenith of CGI, that won't happen until a good director uses them to realise a good script. If you can, resist seeing this movie. I'm so pleased that the average user rating on this site is lower than I expected it to be. It shows there's sense in the world. We deserve better than this.
The Ninth Configuration
(1980)
More refined than The Exorcist, and better for it.
2 May 2001
Very little has been written of this spiritual film by William Peter Blatty, author of the better-known THE EXORCIST, of which this is a sequel of sorts. Much praise ought to be given to the one person who *has* written on the film, Mark Kermode, whose praises are amply sung on this new UK DVD edition which probably wouldn't be on release if it weren't for his wonderful study of THE EXORCIST which is now in its second edition. There is so much more to be written of THE NINTH CONFIGURATION though. It must be stated how clear it is why the film failed to gain the success of THE EXORCIST - this is a far different piece of cinema - but it is wholly (in this version, certainly) Blatty's vision, a study of the nature of evil, the overwhelming evidence - or *lack* thereof - of goodness in the world, questioning our very existence with astonishing clarity of argument both ways.
The film does not set out to hook its audience - action eventually takes place in the thrilling climax, but this film opens with a dialogue-free sequence of guards in the rain outside "Centre 18", to the beautiful song "San Antone", a juxtaposition which somehow sets the hauntingly spirited tone for the rest of the film. Slowly we realise where we are, a mental institution, but the real question is quickly posed: who precisely is the therapist in this place? Colonel Hudson Kane, played by Stacey Keach with heart-wrenching emotion, seems almost as troubled as his 'patients' - he muses constantly about original sin, the nature of evil ("children with cancer, why should babies die?")
In this director's version (definitive, apparently), the imagery is all included - the giant moon rising behind the abandoned rocket launch ("there's nothing up there, I tell you!", "the moon is Roquefort and you know it..."), the three looming crucifixes, the ominous statues in the courtyard, the crucifix on the moon - imagery not often matched in cinema. The dialogue is razor sharp, plummeting the viewer into hopeless realisations of how bad the world can be, only to crack a joke so hilarious as to make us forget ("He said, 'here, take this, it's a suicide pill with a mild laxative side effect,' how's *that* for bedside manner?")
The way things are resolved are, for a Golden Globe-winning movie, very unusual. Blatty doesn't carefully allow the audience to question with an open-ending as we were forced with THE EXORCIST (was it the Devil? did Karras win? wasn't it all just psychological?). Instead, he ends on a freeze-frame packed with joy. The doubter here gets his proof of good, and we are given an example to counter the too-ample "advertising" of evil.
It is literally amazing that the film has gone so unrecognised for so long. Blatty apparently crafted 18 different cuts of THE NINTH CONFIGURATION, making sometimes drastic changes akin to the problems of THE EXORCIST (if a Catholic kills himself, that's going to ruin the message, so do we include the knife shot? etc...) I saw one other version which was only slightly different to this 'finished' cut. Now, in this new edition, it is certainly my hope (and evidently Kermode's and Blatty's) that it will receive the recognition it deserves. Of all religious movies made, including, dare I say, THE EXORCIST, never has a message been so powerfully conveyed without being preachy, uninteresting, or most-importantly, religion-specific. Blatty doesn't dazzle with dogma... his story is purely human, about the very basics of good, evil, and existence. When God is mentioned, it can be taken any way the viewer wishes. To me I take it to mean the higher power, to others it could easily be their deity, to athiests it is simply that which they don't understand... there is a character in the film to represent all beliefs, and all are finally given airtime and are bluntly questioned ("if all the evil in the world makes you believe there's a devil, how do you account for all the GOOD?", a line from Blatty's EXORCIST novel). The film is so complete, so wide-ranging in tone. Not many movies are this accomplished.
The film does not set out to hook its audience - action eventually takes place in the thrilling climax, but this film opens with a dialogue-free sequence of guards in the rain outside "Centre 18", to the beautiful song "San Antone", a juxtaposition which somehow sets the hauntingly spirited tone for the rest of the film. Slowly we realise where we are, a mental institution, but the real question is quickly posed: who precisely is the therapist in this place? Colonel Hudson Kane, played by Stacey Keach with heart-wrenching emotion, seems almost as troubled as his 'patients' - he muses constantly about original sin, the nature of evil ("children with cancer, why should babies die?")
In this director's version (definitive, apparently), the imagery is all included - the giant moon rising behind the abandoned rocket launch ("there's nothing up there, I tell you!", "the moon is Roquefort and you know it..."), the three looming crucifixes, the ominous statues in the courtyard, the crucifix on the moon - imagery not often matched in cinema. The dialogue is razor sharp, plummeting the viewer into hopeless realisations of how bad the world can be, only to crack a joke so hilarious as to make us forget ("He said, 'here, take this, it's a suicide pill with a mild laxative side effect,' how's *that* for bedside manner?")
The way things are resolved are, for a Golden Globe-winning movie, very unusual. Blatty doesn't carefully allow the audience to question with an open-ending as we were forced with THE EXORCIST (was it the Devil? did Karras win? wasn't it all just psychological?). Instead, he ends on a freeze-frame packed with joy. The doubter here gets his proof of good, and we are given an example to counter the too-ample "advertising" of evil.
It is literally amazing that the film has gone so unrecognised for so long. Blatty apparently crafted 18 different cuts of THE NINTH CONFIGURATION, making sometimes drastic changes akin to the problems of THE EXORCIST (if a Catholic kills himself, that's going to ruin the message, so do we include the knife shot? etc...) I saw one other version which was only slightly different to this 'finished' cut. Now, in this new edition, it is certainly my hope (and evidently Kermode's and Blatty's) that it will receive the recognition it deserves. Of all religious movies made, including, dare I say, THE EXORCIST, never has a message been so powerfully conveyed without being preachy, uninteresting, or most-importantly, religion-specific. Blatty doesn't dazzle with dogma... his story is purely human, about the very basics of good, evil, and existence. When God is mentioned, it can be taken any way the viewer wishes. To me I take it to mean the higher power, to others it could easily be their deity, to athiests it is simply that which they don't understand... there is a character in the film to represent all beliefs, and all are finally given airtime and are bluntly questioned ("if all the evil in the world makes you believe there's a devil, how do you account for all the GOOD?", a line from Blatty's EXORCIST novel). The film is so complete, so wide-ranging in tone. Not many movies are this accomplished.
Dancer in the Dark
(2000)
Another Masterpiece
4 October 2000
Lars Von Trier's "Breaking the Waves" is perhaps the only movie to have ever brought me to tears in a sequence which lasts barely a minute. When I heard his next movie was to be a musical, I was overjoyed beyond words, and "Dancer in the Dark" is no disappointment. It is everything "Breaking the Waves" was, and more, and more powerful.
Of the little I have seen of Von Trier's work, I've come to understood he works in very sharp contrasts. He will have joy one second which all too quickly becomes despair. What better way of visualising this than with big Hollywood musical numbers punctuated with harsh, dull, shaky handheld footage?
The story is similar to "Breaking the Waves" - Bjork's character Selma is slowly going blind, meaning she will lose her job as a factory worker, which she is doing overtime to earn money for an operation for a son so that his eyes do not suffer the same fate. As she earns almost enough to pay, the money is stolen by a greedy neighbour cop who is having money troubles. Things go wrong, and he ends up dead, and Selma goes to jail to await death by hanging. She dies, like Bess in "Breaking the Waves", because she is 'good'.
Yes, the ending is as bad as everyone says. If there is a cinema in the world where there was not the utmost silence before the credits rolled, well I'd be ashamed to be in it. There's no tears for this movie, just pure dispair, a feeling of being let down, but as the final title says "This isn't the last song unless we let it be." It's a small consolation, but what this movie is trying to say is, this is bad, but we only lose if we let it get to us. The songs in this movie will continue to come back in your head, so perhaps Von Trier succeeded in creating a tragic movie that will not go down. It's another masterpiece.
Of the little I have seen of Von Trier's work, I've come to understood he works in very sharp contrasts. He will have joy one second which all too quickly becomes despair. What better way of visualising this than with big Hollywood musical numbers punctuated with harsh, dull, shaky handheld footage?
The story is similar to "Breaking the Waves" - Bjork's character Selma is slowly going blind, meaning she will lose her job as a factory worker, which she is doing overtime to earn money for an operation for a son so that his eyes do not suffer the same fate. As she earns almost enough to pay, the money is stolen by a greedy neighbour cop who is having money troubles. Things go wrong, and he ends up dead, and Selma goes to jail to await death by hanging. She dies, like Bess in "Breaking the Waves", because she is 'good'.
Yes, the ending is as bad as everyone says. If there is a cinema in the world where there was not the utmost silence before the credits rolled, well I'd be ashamed to be in it. There's no tears for this movie, just pure dispair, a feeling of being let down, but as the final title says "This isn't the last song unless we let it be." It's a small consolation, but what this movie is trying to say is, this is bad, but we only lose if we let it get to us. The songs in this movie will continue to come back in your head, so perhaps Von Trier succeeded in creating a tragic movie that will not go down. It's another masterpiece.
Niagara, Niagara
(1997)
Extraordinary
28 July 2000
This movie is truly worth seeing - Robin Tunney excels and Henry Thomas proves that he's one of those rarities, the child 'actor' who grows up to become a real actor. The characters are perfectly drawn, and in the wrong hands because of their depth, they could have been unconvincing - but all the actors are simply astounding. The cast of this movie has to rank up there with that of "Girl, Interrupted" (both movies coincidentally star the brilliant Clea Duvall). The score and music selections fit perfectly, and there is plenty of action to prevent the movie becoming just a character study. If you want the story, you won't find it in this review, but I will say that the climax will haunt you for a long time.
Toys
(1992)
Surprising . . .
25 July 2000
I can entirely understand why many people might think this movie totally sucks, because when I started to watch this today for the first time since 1993, I found myself embarrassed, thinking "oh my, I used to *love* this movie!" Because the style of it is so unique, this can be an instant turn-off. But if you can stick with it for a while, it soon becomes easier to watch and by the last half-hour or so, I found myself thinking "how did I even consider this movie could suck?"
Aside from the great production design in this movie, I would pick out the great score by Hans Zimmer (and many others including Tori Amos who wrote a cool song) and as a close second, Joan Cusack, who I can now say without doubt can be perfect in absolutely *anything*.
I also think that there is definitely something about the screenplay to this movie that lifts it above what might be first perceived. The characterisations, though often stereotypical (but if you don't understand why that is in a movie like this, then the chance is you're never going to like it!), are sometimes perfect - the characters played by Robin Williams and Joan Cusack sit right on the line between totally insane and totally normal.
There's little to be said that might pursuade someone browsing this site to see this movie because there is something about Robin Williams movies that just divides an audience before anymore needs saying . . . but trust me, if you get a chance to see this movie, do watch it, you will not be disappointed. Or maybe you will . . .
Aside from the great production design in this movie, I would pick out the great score by Hans Zimmer (and many others including Tori Amos who wrote a cool song) and as a close second, Joan Cusack, who I can now say without doubt can be perfect in absolutely *anything*.
I also think that there is definitely something about the screenplay to this movie that lifts it above what might be first perceived. The characterisations, though often stereotypical (but if you don't understand why that is in a movie like this, then the chance is you're never going to like it!), are sometimes perfect - the characters played by Robin Williams and Joan Cusack sit right on the line between totally insane and totally normal.
There's little to be said that might pursuade someone browsing this site to see this movie because there is something about Robin Williams movies that just divides an audience before anymore needs saying . . . but trust me, if you get a chance to see this movie, do watch it, you will not be disappointed. Or maybe you will . . .
Left Luggage
(1998)
In its own way, almost as good as Schindler's List
20 July 2000
I know, I stick my neck out with that summary, but this was one of those rare movies that genuinely surprised me. I flicked onto it by accident and it seemed interesting, and I am so pleased I saw it - and I will be watching it many times again in the future. Laura Fraser, who I haven't seen in many other movies (certainly none as memorable as this), is simply astounding in her performance as a modern Jewish girl confronted by an old-fashioned Jewish family in the 1970s. She befriends a young boy and becomes very attached to him. This relationship, I felt, was built in a genuinely heartwarming way.
Laura Fraser is not the only surprise - there is also the performances of Maximilian Schell and Isabella Rosselini, not to mention the great supporting cast of adults and many children.
To bring this theme into a 'modern' setting (and though the film is set in the 70s it could almost be today) is a difficult task, and this film not only succeeds, it shines. If you happen to fall upon this movie, don't pass it by because you wouldn't want to miss it.
Laura Fraser is not the only surprise - there is also the performances of Maximilian Schell and Isabella Rosselini, not to mention the great supporting cast of adults and many children.
To bring this theme into a 'modern' setting (and though the film is set in the 70s it could almost be today) is a difficult task, and this film not only succeeds, it shines. If you happen to fall upon this movie, don't pass it by because you wouldn't want to miss it.
Gone in 60 Seconds
(2000)
Where's Angie?
19 July 2000
In recent years, or at least the recent year, I've become attuned to such issues as sexuality in movies and such things that only come from studying film in a college environment. So little things tend to leap out at me when watching even movies intended for consumption with popcorn, such as this one, Jerry Bruckheimer's (producer of The Rock, Con Air) latest MTV-edit action offering. The issue here that struck me was that the one female character in the movie - Angelina Jolie's 'Sway' - was barely onscreen for the film's duration. Here we have a major star (she stands on the poster with Nic Cage, only a little smaller than he), a major actress (a recent Oscar winner), a beautiful woman (watch 'Gia') ... but she's almost literally pushed off the screen by actors like Robert Duvall, Delroy Lindo, Giovanni Ribisi, not to mention of course, Nic Cage. Considering the screenwriter in question is Scott Rosenberg, who wrote the incredible female-character-oriented screenplay, 'Beautiful Girls', the blame for this blatant sexism can only fall to the obvious culprit, Mr. Bruckheimer, who is known for his testorone-fuelled blockbusters from Top Gun through Crimson Tide up to Armageddon and finally this (not to mention the forthcoming Pearl Harbor - in which I cannot imagine many strong female roles will appear).
That aside, the movie is fine. I've always liked Bruckheimer's movies, and I liked the director, Domenic Sena's, last movie 'Kalifornia' ... however, the formula becomes tired. A quick comparison to 'Armageddon' is easy - the gathering of 'the old guys' who have been scattered across America, the family bond (here brother to brother, there father to daughter), the all-too familiar score style, the flashy and often inane use of editing. It's easy to slip into liking, but easy to slip out to hating. So torn between a positive and negative opinion, I'm going to just sit on the fence because hey, this movie stars Nic Cage and Angelina Jolie and if you like these actors as much as I do, then you're going to go and see it. So go see it. It's worth it.
My opinion: it's Bruckheimer, go figure.
That aside, the movie is fine. I've always liked Bruckheimer's movies, and I liked the director, Domenic Sena's, last movie 'Kalifornia' ... however, the formula becomes tired. A quick comparison to 'Armageddon' is easy - the gathering of 'the old guys' who have been scattered across America, the family bond (here brother to brother, there father to daughter), the all-too familiar score style, the flashy and often inane use of editing. It's easy to slip into liking, but easy to slip out to hating. So torn between a positive and negative opinion, I'm going to just sit on the fence because hey, this movie stars Nic Cage and Angelina Jolie and if you like these actors as much as I do, then you're going to go and see it. So go see it. It's worth it.
My opinion: it's Bruckheimer, go figure.
Titan A.E.
(2000)
Misfire
19 July 2000
I've never been one to follow the animated pictures of Don Bluth, being an avid Disney disciple, but this looked like the kind of movie that could take animation in a new direction, it looked like maybe it might be more adult-oriented, maybe have some hard-hitting action, bringing the Manga style into mainstream Hollywood. But I was wrong - Titan A.E. is dreadfully dull, using an uninteresting story as a flimsy foundation for admittedly great animation designs. Overall however, it is nothing more than a Saturday morning kids cartoon, in the same league perhaps as 'Transformers' or 'Thundercats' (both of which I'd rather watch than this). There is little tension between either the bad guys or good guys, or even between the hero and heroine (one scene shows the heroine, voiced by Drew Barrymore, undressing behind a computer-generated shield ... the hero simply turns away and starts playing with a baseball). Where great things could happen, the filmmakers shy away all too often, particular in the action scenes. This movie should probably have been wholly animated by computers, like Toy Story, A Bug's Life, etc ... and I think this is its failure.
I wouldn't recommend this movie in a year when there are so many greater movies to see. Maybe take the kids, but if you're over 20 I wouldn't bother.
I wouldn't recommend this movie in a year when there are so many greater movies to see. Maybe take the kids, but if you're over 20 I wouldn't bother.
Amistad
(1997)
Less about slavery than about the nature of man
25 April 2000
The confusion that can arise when two separate parties cannot communicate is studied superbly in Steven Spielberg's "Amistad". Though Spielberg superbly presents us with a wholely-coherent 15-minute opening sequence devoid of English language, the rest of the movie is about the importance of communication. There is a wonderful scene between Matthew McConnoughey as the lawyer Baldwin and Djimoun Hounsou as the slave Cinque where each speaks their own language, but without knowing it they enact a conversation ("How can I find out where you come from?" McConnoughey asks, to which Hounsou responds in his native Mende, "You want to know where I come from...")
There are also many moments in the movie when we are made aware of how a single word can change the meaning of a statement. Baldwin asks a jury "Do you know the difference between a bear and a brick? a pole-cat and a president?" in an attempt to raise awareness of the fact that the origin of the slaves is so important to how they are to be treated. Even the word slave is questioned - the Mende translator points out that in Mende, the word for slave is closer to meaning "worker". The pay-off from this is that the slaves' prosecutor (Pete Postlethwaite)responds "what is the difference?"
The key point being made in Amistad is that history has been ruled by too many people who were not prepared to understand -- in this movie we see President Martin Van Buren tuning his harp while a slave fortress is destroyed, and we see Queen Isabella jumping on her bed whilst Civil War breaks out. Figures of authority have the finger pointed at them in this movie, and it is right this should be so. This is a movie about truth.
The ending is very hollow. Do not allow the upbeat music to fool you - instead, watch for Anthony Hopkins as John Quincy Adams as he grimaces at the empty court. Though the slaves are freed at the end of the movie, there is a real sense that it should never have taken place. As we watch Cinque and his fellow Mende return home, it is difficult to feel anything at all except hatred of the negative nature of man.
There are also many moments in the movie when we are made aware of how a single word can change the meaning of a statement. Baldwin asks a jury "Do you know the difference between a bear and a brick? a pole-cat and a president?" in an attempt to raise awareness of the fact that the origin of the slaves is so important to how they are to be treated. Even the word slave is questioned - the Mende translator points out that in Mende, the word for slave is closer to meaning "worker". The pay-off from this is that the slaves' prosecutor (Pete Postlethwaite)responds "what is the difference?"
The key point being made in Amistad is that history has been ruled by too many people who were not prepared to understand -- in this movie we see President Martin Van Buren tuning his harp while a slave fortress is destroyed, and we see Queen Isabella jumping on her bed whilst Civil War breaks out. Figures of authority have the finger pointed at them in this movie, and it is right this should be so. This is a movie about truth.
The ending is very hollow. Do not allow the upbeat music to fool you - instead, watch for Anthony Hopkins as John Quincy Adams as he grimaces at the empty court. Though the slaves are freed at the end of the movie, there is a real sense that it should never have taken place. As we watch Cinque and his fellow Mende return home, it is difficult to feel anything at all except hatred of the negative nature of man.
The Ugly
(1997)
Kinda like ... but good
19 April 2000
I don't think I'd usually compare a movie to a similar movie, but I think the comparison between "The Ugly" and "The Silence of the Lambs" has to be made (as it probably has already many times). We have a troubled female psychiatrist who interviews a serial killer and gradually gets pulled more and more into his world. The issues of gender are covered, with the killer recounting his various kills. The effects on the psychiatrist are far more deep than anything we see with Clarice Starling (if you think of this movie as "Silence of the Lambs" meets "The Sixth Sense" you can't go far wrong). However, despite the similarities, it is nevertheless an 'enjoyable' (if that's the right word) movie, well made and worth seeing. The ending in particular sent a shiver down my spine, and I still can't figure out exactly why, which makes it all the more scary.
Love's Labour's Lost
(2000)
Cute !
11 April 2000
I went for some great musical numbers, and on that expectation I wasn't let down ... the musical numbers in this movie are, for the most part, incredible. Especially Adrian Lester, whose solo stuff is fantastic. I found it kind of weird that Kenneth Branagh chose the combination of 30s music and Shakespeare, but I guess the whole story fits into the history pretty well.
The story is a little different to normal romances - but in a movie like this, who cares? This is a musical, and it's a success. And the ending should make you cry!! I did!
The story is a little different to normal romances - but in a movie like this, who cares? This is a musical, and it's a success. And the ending should make you cry!! I did!
Girl, Interrupted
(1999)
Excellent!
10 April 2000
A cool soundtrack is the first thing I noticed about this movie ... a haunting score contrasted with pumping 60s tunes like "Downtown" along with really gentle stuff like "End of the World" (which *has* to be the world's most depressing song, especially after the way it's used in this movie) ... Then there's the acting, and we all know how good Angelina Jolie is in everything, and in this - well, let me tell you that anything you've read about it (and her performance has been written about a lot!) is totally true, she's amazing in this movie. But that shouldn't be your only reason for seeing it. This movie has the best cast ever from the major roles to the minor roles like Vanessa Redgrave, Whoopi Goldberg (her best performance ever, in my opinion) and the *brilliant* performance of Angela Bettis as Janet (keep an eye out for her, she's the blonde who isn't in many scenes but is totally amazing).
The movie is kind of depressing in a lot of ways - if you've had troubles in life (and haven't we all) you'll find this movie is a real downer at times, like when they're all talking about how 'wonderful' an escape suicide can be and stuff ... but if you stick with it, you find a real positive message too. And, believe me, you'll be humming "Downtown" on your way out.
:)
The movie is kind of depressing in a lot of ways - if you've had troubles in life (and haven't we all) you'll find this movie is a real downer at times, like when they're all talking about how 'wonderful' an escape suicide can be and stuff ... but if you stick with it, you find a real positive message too. And, believe me, you'll be humming "Downtown" on your way out.
:)
Tell Your Friends