Change Your Image
ghostlife17
Reviews
Crash (2004)
witness for the prosecution
i rarely pan anything but i just have to say that if one truly wants to study the dumbing-down of America, look no further than this piece of tripe. "crash" pretends to be some searing indictment of race in this country and just fails horribly at it. to begin with, it is a none too subtle rip-off of "magnolia", "traffic", and several other better-made films and it doesn't even steal from them all that well. there are at least four too many characters here, none of which are developed enough for you to care deeply about any of them, including the better-known players. shoddy b-list acting from b-list actors here, let's be honest. don cheadle probably should have known better, but i'm sure he was well compensated for his work. but perhaps the worst thing about this train wreck of a film is that the overwrought and all too convenient plot simply goes nowhere and does nothing. the entire point of using this type of storytellling is to take the magic realism that you have created in order to make some grand statement about your chosen subject and it fails to do even that. what's the point here? that racism is alive and well? that there is a class system? that America is essentially unjust? ummm....no duh? most people figure that out somewhere around the seventh grade. it's called capitalism. i mean, what is going on here? but perhaps the most depressing thing about "crash" is how a film like this can now be hailed as visionary in today's society. FINGERS will be pointed! EARNEST DIALOGUES will be opened! GREAT DEBATES will rage! i mean, wtf? have we become so blinded and desensitized and beaten over the head with the constant idiocy in this country (particularly in our arts and letters) that a film like "crash" is now considered high art? wake up people. it's nothing more than pop psychology. it's dramedy. it's dr. phil. it's tight easy answers dressed up in sugary hallmark sentiment. most of all, it's crap. i know it and deep down so do you. what happened to artistic conscience? to those of you that should know better but are still falling all over yourself about this picture (and you know who you are), i would just like to ask you what happened to standing by the courage of your convictions or even having any kind of conviction at all about ANYTHING? i mean, #55 ALL-TIME????????? are you kidding me with this? "crash" is the very worst kind of film making, simply because it's pretending to be something it's not. "crash" telegraphed its intentions right from the get go. underneath all of the gloss and artifice and putting on of airs, "crash" is actually much closer to a film like "training day", another movie that could have been said so much more than it did. but at least "training day" wasn't screwing with its audience, selling them something other than what they paid for. to be fair, "crash" is pretty to look at, but not much more. it's a gauzy pig wrapped in velvet and gussied up with all the bells and whistles that you would expect, but it's a pig nonetheless. it's "urban realism" for the Saturday night date set. i could have just stayed home and watched music videos, so shallow and surface-y do i find the artistic statement presented here. and before you call foul, please know that i am of a minority background and that i do indeed live in a major urban center. i hate feeling that i have to provide a DISCLAIMER when stating my opinion on a film, but it feels like this is EXACTLY the case, so openly and irresponsibly does "crash" play the race card. how ironic. and rarely does a movie provoke such a visceral response from me either and usually when it does, it's because it's GOOD and i just haven't realized it yet. i can't tell you just how much that's not the case here. sorry.
Road to Perdition (2002)
Dear Sam
OK, first things first. I love "Alice in Wonderland", I mean "American Beauty", as much as the next guy. And like most people, I was all set to herald Sam Mendes as the new crown prince of American film making. I mean, "Beauty" is so friggin' great that I was literally salivating in anticipation of his latest offering. Had my bib on and everything, ready to dig in. They really had us chomping at the bit for this one, didn't they? So after finally viewing this long-awaited opus, I just gotta ask one question: what gives, man? There's something seriously wrong with this picture. Not horribly wrong, mind you, but wrong enough to be disturbing. It seems to me, and this is only an opinion, but it seems to me that there WAS an actual vision here once, a true, golden vision, but somewhere along the line it became corrupted and was sold down the river. And it's a pity.
For starters, Mr. Mendes, you could have had anybody, and I mean ANYBODY for the lead role here and you chose Tom Hanks. Pray tell, why? Tom Hanks as a hard-nosed yet tender gangster? That's a tough sell, any way you look at it. Plus, the guy's got more friggin' money than God at this point, so I don't think he really needs to be doing "art" flicks, an obvious early intention here. And like I said, it's such a blatant Hollywood miscast. Tom "King Midas" Hanks is like the curly-haired Jimmy Stewart of our day. You're just not going to buy him in this role. You're just not.
Secondly, you go to all the trouble of creating Maguire, a character not found in the original body of work. Then you get the always hypnotic Jude Law to play him. But then you give him so precious little to do! You treat him like a minor character (read: little development) when, in the context of the story, it's readily apparent that he's so much more. Metaphorically, Maguire represents all of the past (literally and figuratively) chasing all fathers and sons (literally and figuratively) down the road to perdition. And I know I'm not the only one who saw this, so for such a symbolism-happy director like yourself, this appears to be a misstep of sorts.
Beyond that, "Perdition" just feels like a movie that was supposed to make a grand statement of some kind, but got bogged down in its' journey towards relevance. The whole thing reeks of the worst kind of feel-good, dumbed-down Hollywood storytelling. Some of the devices employed here feel a bit forced and often artificial. It's kind of insulting, actually. Which begs the question, Mr. Mendes, are you going to be our genius director or a whore for the Company? Road to Perdition? More like Road to Hollywood Babylon. And who compared this piece of mediocrity to "The Godfather", of all things? Who'd they pay to say that nonsense?
I suppose I should say some nice things. There are SOME nice symbolic touches here, excellent cinematography and art direction throughout, and another outstanding score. And Paul Newman is great. You can never, ever go wrong with Newman. Especially the older, icily dignified version we get here. But again, the storytelling is the real downfall here. The pacing is SO forced. It's alternately slow (without being evocative) and then it's rushed and then it goes nowhere. But I'm sure you'll all be remembered come Oscar time, which is all that really counts, isn't it? Better to make a film that is well-received by the masses than an important, risk-taking one, I guess. So it seems we'll have to wait for Part 3 of Sam's Great American Novel to see if he redeems himself. Maybe he'll wise up and give us what we deserve. In the meantime, give me Fincher or P.T. Anderson even. At least disco calls itself disco. And smartly keeps its' heart where it belongs, on its' sleeve.
By the way, this is Kevin Spacey. Take care.
Fight Club (1999)
I may be paranoid, but not an android
You know, I've resisted honestly commenting on this movie for quite some time, even though it's a favorite of mine. I suppose I wanted to wait out the firestorm to speak. And there's so many wonderful comments here! Guess there's nothing like good old fashioned sex and ultraviolence to bring out the critic in people. Perhaps it's simply the divisive nature of "Fight Club" that will prove to be its' greatest contribution to the history of cinema.
So where to begin? For sure, it's problematic. To use a cliche that just happens to be true for once, "Fight Club" is a multi-layered film that works on a myriad of different levels. Consequently, this makes it somewhat difficult to encapsulate in just a few sentences, much less pigeonhole into a specific genre. In addition, the film is clearly directed at a rather narrow audience. And by "narrow audience", perhaps I should say "willfully invisible", at least until recently. See, it's important to realize that despite all the controversy surrounding it, "Fight Club", and its' inherent yet hidden messages, appeal mainly to a so-called seething core of "young people" (blah, blah, blah)that I propose we hereby rename "the silent generation". It's a GenX film, kids! High art for latchkeys. And within this restless, hyperaware, "unsatisfied" group of individuals, there exists wildly divergent opinions about "Fight Club". Yet it really only boils down to one central argument: you either love it or you don't it. And if you love it, odds are it's because you get it, in one way or another. The film as a statement likely seems fairly obvious to you. But on the other hand, if you don't love this film, it's safe to assume that perhaps you might have missed the delivery of its' central themes. "Fight Club" is about isolation, desperation, faceless (and helpless) automation, and above all, the endlessly creepy idea of oppressive consumerism as an ideal for living. Truly pathetic. So if this is your kind of movie, it's likely that you not only "comprehend" it, but you are also luckily in possession of the black, spastic humor often required of one's self to coexist in harmony with today's modern, modern world. You're awake. You're aware. You're coping. Good for you.
I love "Fight Club", in case you couldn't guess. Not just the finished product, but the entire project. It's a brilliantly open-ended satire, with first-rate performances from all involved. Palahniuk writes like an angel (exterminating), Fincher directs with a keenly evil eye, and Norton's quickly becoming the finest actor of his generation, bar none. Helena Bonham Carter is great here too, deliciously playing it for all it's worth. Even Mr. Pitt-Aniston out does himself here. So is "Fight Club" all about raging, unchecked egos? Sure. Is it about disillusionment and the disenfranchised? You betcha. Is it about fascism? Misogynism? Deadbeat dads? Rampant closeted homosexuality? Any of the stupid names we call ourselves each night? Well...do you want it to be? Like the film says, you determine your own level of involvement here. Get it? There's more than a few kernels of truth floating around in "Fight Club" which, as we all know, shall set your a** free.
A final note. If you're really into this movie (and you know who you are), I feel confident in saying that you're probably into darker, decidedly more intelligent things as well. You take "Fight Club" for what it is, a cleverly executed joke. Which makes dissecting it over and over again, especially with the uninitiated, somewhat redundant. So I apologize for this lengthy diatribe. But may I smugly suggest one final rule? The ninth, if you will. The 9th rule of Fight Club is "fights will only occur between those evolved enough to handle it". Thank you.
We are the dollars and cents.
The King of Comedy (1982)
I am Jack's opening monologue.
I recently revisited this and all I can say is WOW! This is a really, really special little film that got slighted way more than it deserved. "King of Comedy" is actually a bit of a precursor to more modern titles in that there's lots of little seeds germinating here that would later come to fruition. The twin themes of alienation and desperation and the effective, comic manner in which they are delivered would later spring to life in definitive 90's think pieces such as "Election", "Fight Club", "The Truman Show", and even in this year's flawed but visually precise "One Hour Photo". The acting's also great here. De Niro is really, really funny as Pupkin, proving he could do comedy well before "Meet The Parents. I like Lewis here as well, playing it straight for once. No offense to the French intended, but for my money, this is the only JLL movie worth watching more than once. Free of that often annoying, pre-Carreyesque shtick, Jerry has room to roam here, showing that he could actually act when he wanted to. And of course, Sandra Bernhard is genius in her hilarious, star-making performance. It's a shame we don't hear more from her big mouth these days.
Just as a self-indulgent aside here, I think it's interesting that ever-present punk diva/actress Courtney Love used to name check this pic alot. I remember reading interviews where she would flatly state that "there's a little bit of Rupert Pupkin in all of us". While this casual remark certainly speaks volumes about her life as a relentless self-promoter, it may well also be true for the rest of us. In essence, Rupert Pupkin is not only yearning for the elusive nature of fame to define him, but he is also driven by an almost unearthly ambition to achieve his goal. Are any of us celebrity-cognizant, film-watching internet surfers quite so different? Somehow I think not. See this if you haven't and if you have, give it a second look. It's worth every minute of your precious, precious time. Thanks.
One Hour Photo (2002)
Here We Go Again (I WISH)
MAN, this could have been so much better! A great idea + inspired casting (a sedated Robin Williams) should have equaled a creepy psychodrama that actually works. But it doesn't. And the technical pedigree alone should have guaranteed some results. The work of Fincher favorite Jeff Cronenworth (cinematographer for "Fight Club" as well as decent camerawork on "The Game" & "Se7en") plus a soundtrack by the guys responsible for the music in "Run Lola Run" should have added up to something more than this. But of course it doesn't. And it's really a shame. Because everyone knows there's really only a few choice movies made every year, movies that you'll actually spend your hard-earned cash on and more importantly, not feel bad about it. "One Hour Photo" was on my short list for 2002. I was truly looking forward to seeing it and came away mostly disappointed. Oh, believe me, I got the jokes. "Seymour and Parrish". Funny. Sy's reaction to Nina's non-committal response upon finding out a certain something about her husband. Very Funny. Great. But I didn't come to see Madcap Robin. And the narrative is weak. Why have the opening bit at all? And why have the ending, for that matter, if you're going to ruin it? The climax (or the lack of one, I should say) is transparent, heavy-handed, and ultimately, a letdown. Maybe they should have called this "One Hour Used Cars" because you end up feeling so cheated. In all fairness, I should say you can tell they tried, they really did. But the end result is a picture that looks beautiful, but not pretty enough to carry its' lackluster storyline. Better luck next time, kids.
L.I.E. (2001)
Looking for Daddy Dearest...
Sometimes I just wonder. This is another one of those over-hyped films that leaves you slightly impressed, but cursing under your breath later about how much better it could have been. This one's got a great premise, of course, and a great location (suburban NYC), and great acting throughout by Cox and newcomer Dano. I was so hyped to see this project, but ultimately felt cheated. It's not that I just wanted to see a dirty movie, or that I wanted to see a hot little expose on some forbidden taboo. From the reviews that I had read, I had thought that they had taken a rich but often-ignored subject and ran with it. And they didn't. And they could have. Who knows what really goes on in these kinds of relationships? Who is the predator and who is the prey? Is the victim sometimes the seducer? Is it a homosexual relationship 100% of the time? Or is it a twisted father-and-son one? If the film had explored or answered even one of these questions, I would have felt satisfied. As it is, the best thing was Cox. Oh yeah, and "Hurdy Gurdy Man".
Sexy Beast (2000)
Very British, very dark, but worth the investment.
This movie is better than you think it is. A rudimentary understanding of Britain's criminal Cockney underbelly helps. Ray Winstone nails it, as usual, and Ben Kingsley is just as mesmerizing as you've heard. I think maybe people don't like it because they think it's just supposed to be a crime film. There are a lot of different elements to "Sexy Beast", but first and foremost, this is a dark comedy. It's funny. It works. Better than Guy Ritchie's last one. The score is amazing, it really helps to characterize Kingsley's character throughout the film as well as Winstone's at the beginning (GREAT opening sequence). Good pacing here too. The film's not perfect, but it moves fast, and it's highly entertaining in a nonfat, sugar-free sort of way. Like stopping for a quick pint. It's a decent first feature for this director, and I'd risk money on his second one...
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
don't believe the hype!
OK, so its pretty good. Anything based on a book by Selby would have to be worth watching on pedigree alone. But despite what you've read, it's certainly not the best movie ever made. I think that if you watch tons and tons of movies, as most IMDB users undoubtedly do, then of course "Requiem" stands out from the usual, mindless dreck. But it's not all that. The performances are good, especially from Burstyn and Connolly, but I've seen this kind of thing done better, especially in "Last Exit To Brooklyn", another movie based on a Hubert Selby Jr. novel. You want to talk riveting, check out Jennifer Jason Leigh in that film. Editing's good here, as it was in "Pi". Is it just me or is Aronofsky making his reputation more on images rather than content? Pretty to look at, this film. My friend has severe ADD/OCD and she was even able to sit through it. All in all, "Requiem" is worth a look or two. Not a masterpiece, but I give it an 8.
The Virgin Suicides (1999)
Sofia, where art thou?
I don't get it. I really want to, but I don't. For a movie as beautifully filmed as "The Virgin Suicides", it sorely seems to be lacking a major theme. I enjoyed the cast, the performances, the score, the direction; but I just don't understand what Sofia Coppola is trying to say. At first I though it was a meditation on overly strict families, and then I thought it was trying to say something about how mean teenage boys are to teenage girls. Then I was confused as to whether it was a drama or a black comedy or both. I suppose it helps to read the work that it was based on, which I will do shortly, but in the meantime I mostly feel cheated. It seems that the appeal of this movie lies in either revealing something beautiful or something sinister about white, upper-middle class kids of the 1970's which #1 would give it a rather narrow audience, I suspect, and #2 it fails to do so simply because a main point to the whole thing is never clearly defined. It just left me feeling kind of empty.
I suppose I could be wrong, some of the greatest films I have ever seen I didn't like initially. I truly hope I am, because there's too much good stuff here for it not to add up to something.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Most ambitious movie ever made
Here's the thing. A lot of people don't get 2001 because they are viewing it strictly as entertainment. Not to say that it is not entertaining in its own way, its just that the movie is meant to provoke you. It is meant to inspire you, to confuse you, to spark dialogues, to make you argue with others. This is a new kind of movie made by a visionary director, and human being, who understood where we are headed. This is film as philosophy. This is a film about ideas. This is Aristotle and Plato and Socrates holding cameras. 2001 is the most ambitious movie ever made and will not likely be duplicated anytime soon. The fact that it makes one cry, or another smile, or another one p***ed off is exactly the point. I truly believe that film is the greatest art form ever conceived by man thus far, and that it is our purest. Done well, film is a perfect blend of all the other forms that have gone before it. 2001 is what film could be, should be, and hopefully someday, will be. Not only is it prophetic fiction, it's a painting. Not only is it poetry, but there's even a symphony! If you don't like it, pick up a camera and make your own movie. Stanley would have wanted you to...