Change Your Image
lduperval
Reviews
King Kong (2005)
King Kong Lives!
I saw this movie with my wife. It has been billed as a love story between Beauty and the Beast. I wouldn't go that far. My feeling was that Ann (Naomi Watts' character) loved Kong the way someone would love a pet that saved their life. And something similar was at work from Kong's point of view.
I won't dwell on all the soap opera theme. It was there, it brought dramatic effect, and it was needed. That's all good.
No, to me, the greatest accomplishment of this movie was how Peter Jackson managed to bring King Kong to life. It was amazing.
Last summer, I went to the Bronx Zoo. The Bronx Zoo has a unique display: the Congo Gorilla Forest. In this exhibit, roles are reversed: humans are stuck in a transparent tunnel while the gorillas run around freely and mock us.
When I went, it was somewhat warm and there was a beautiful scene going on: a female gorilla was propped on the plexiglas of the tunnel and was breast-feeding her baby. She seemed exhausted and somewhat sad. At the same time, some idiots in the tunnel were banging on the plexiglas, trying to get the gorilla to strike a pose for them. The primitive creature was *not* the one holding the camera.
When all of New York turned against Kong, when he started getting shot at the top of the Empire State Building, when he looked at Ann with those sad and weary eyes, all I could think about was how closely he resembled the mother breastfeeding her child.
Peter Jackson's great accomplishment in this movie is making the gorilla seem so lifelike and intelligent.
Finding Neverland (2004)
Beautiful story, beautiful setting, beautiful acting
This is easily the best film I've seen in the past twelve months. As I left the theater, it dawned upon me that I don't remember a bad Johnny Depp movie. The man has a golden touch and he knows how to pick his roles.
"Finding Neverland" is the story of James Barrie, the author of Peter Pan. It revolves around his relationship with the Llewellyn Davies family: Sylvia, the mother; her four sons, George, Michael, Peter and Jack; and Mrs. Emma du Maurier, Sylvia's mother. Sylvia and her four sons were his main inspiration for the characters in Peter Pan.
The movie is a particularly effective portrayal of what occurs in an author's head as he is developing a story. It shows how he takes little bits of his own life, and that of others around him, creates a metaphor for the events, and translates it into a story.
It also maintains the adage that an author must live through personal pain if he is to produce a masterpiece. In this case, Barrie has a difficult relationship with his wife. Try as he might, he cannot get her to embrace and accept the fantasies that inhabit his mind. Like Peter Pan, Barrie is a man that hasn't grown up. He lives in a world filled with Indians and pirates, crocodiles and sharks, fairies and flying children.
When he meets with the Llewellyn Davies family, he finds warmth, smiles and happiness that don't exist at home. He spends more and more time with them, at the expense of his wife. All the while, he is slowly crafting his masterpiece.
The acting is top-notch. All the characters are believable and draw you into their world. I was amazed by the various children's performance. The camera work is dazzling. I especially enjoyed the way certain scenes alternated between the real and the imaginary.
This is the kind of movie that stirs a deep longing inside of me, a longing to write something significant, touching, and entertaining. I'm not one to buy movies but as the credits started rolling, my first thought was "I have to buy this movie when it comes out on DVD." Hopefully that will be around my birthday.
"Finding Neverland" is a definite and very enthusiastic 10!
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
A superhero for adults (spoilers)
Warning: this review contains spoilers. If you hate spoilers and have not seen the movie yet, run, run, while you still can.
I need to bone up on my Spider-Man villains. So many names have been dropped in this movie that it's hard to tell where the next one will be coming from. Will it be Harry Osborn, son of the Green Goblin? Will it be John Jameson, aka Man-wolf? Will it be Dr. Connor, aka Lizard? Or will it be little, sympathetic, couldn't-possibly-hurt-a-fly-could-he Henry Jackson?
You know someone in Hollywood is doing his homework and is paying attention to the fans when you can't immediately see where the next villain is coming from. True, at the end of the movie Harry Osborn finds the lair of his late father, where he stumbles upon all of Norman Osborn's Green Goblin paraphernalia. But the kicker is this franchise has been so well done that it wouldn't surprise me if the Green Goblin didn't reappear before S-M 4 or S-M 5. I just hope they won't descend into a pit of ridicule the way they did with Batman. I thought the first one was excellent, the second one was definitely not and then the downhill slope just became steeper with every following movie. Spider-Man has kept up the quality in two movies. Dare I say it? The second one was better than the first one. There, I did.
Peter Parker's life is in shambles. He loves Mary Jane Watson but can't stay with her, in order to keep her away from his enemies. He lost his job as a delivery boy, he's not getting paid what he should by the Daily Bugle, his rent is way overdue. He misses class, he's under tremendous stress and that causes him to periodically lose his superpowers. Lesser men would have committed suicide, but good IL' Pete just keeps trucking along, just trying to survive.
He's late for an assignment for which he wants to interview Dr. Otto Octavius, a renowned scientist that works for Osborn Industries. Dr. Octavius will demonstrate a form of fusion that yields a self-sustaining form of energy. The demonstration will go bad. Dr. Octavius will become bad. It'll be bad for everyone and their mama. But that's standard superhero fare. Where Spider-Man 2 shines is with the human emotions.
Peter, as played by Tobey Maguire, is one tortured soul. More than Bruce Wayne or David Banner will ever be. He is ready to drop the whole superhero thing at the drop of a hat. And who would blame him? Everyone hates Spidey. His boss hates him, his best friend hates him, his aunt May hates him, his one true love hates him. Well, in the case of Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) she hates Peter, not Spidey. You have to be one strong-willed SOB to go through that kind of life without cracking under the pressure.
Eventually, Peter cracks. He drops the whole Spidey bit and gets to taste Life, if only for a fleeting moment.
Most of the movie is centered around the relationship between MJ and Peter. It's a big love story interrupted by some action here and there. This movie is not afraid to show a superhero with all his flaws and warts and shortcomings. He is the most human of all the superheroes portrayed on the big screen.
A few things bothered me, though. A lot of them attack the credibility of certain situations. For example, when Peter saves a baby from a fire and gives her to the parents, they are all calm and smiling and "koo-chi-koo-chi-koo" with the kid. Come on. Any normal parent would have been so happy that they would have at least thanked the kid's saviour. That is, if they didn't plain jump on the guy to show their gratitude. Also, when the train is running a 80 mph straight for a 50-foot drop, how come everyone is packed at the front? Normal human beings would have gone running to the back to push back the inevitable as much as possible.
There are some inconsistencies also. For example, when Doc Ock walks, the earth shakes... but the asphalt takes it without flinching and when he's fighting with Spidey, all that shaking' and groovin' stops.
Another annoyance is the amount of screaming women in this movie. Jeez. Instead of standing there yelling their brains out, why don't they just shut up and get out of harm's way as much as possible?
But like I said, these are details. The bigger stuff is more annoying. My personal beef with the whole superhero thing is that at the end of every movie, the villain must die. One of the redeeming qualities of Spider-Man and Batman, is that in the comic books, the villains they defeat keep coming back to haunt them. Of course, since they won't be doing as many movies as there are comic books, I suppose it shouldn't be that big a deal. But I find it too bad when they rub out good villains in the movies. The Joker, Doc Ock, and Darth Maul come to mind. The Goblin will come back, so we'll see how good he is. Will he really try to kill Spidey or will he chicken out, in order to spare his friend?
I thought SM had great visuals. In SM2, they greatly improved the Spidey-Cam. The speed at which Spidey travels in New York and the view he gives us is mind boggling. There are some great scenes of Doc Ock and Spidey fighting, tumbling down a building and rolling on a train. All very well done. There was probably something to fault in there, but I didn't find it since I was so mesmerized by the whole thing.
All in all, this is THE summer movie of 2004. Sam Raimi, the director, did a great job of transposing the comic book to the screen. Actually, I think Hollywood has realized the importance of making faithful adaptations of successful series, Catwoman notwithstanding.
One of the better parts of this franchise, and the reason I say this is a superhero for adults, is the relationship between MJ, Peter and to some extent, Harry. But now that pretty much everyone in New York knows that Spidey is just a kid, I'm wondering how they'll keep the frustration level so high in the coming episodes. Without the human frailties and frustrations of difficult relationships, Spider-Man could become just another special-effect laden splatfest for the kiddies. And that would be a shame.
Cidade de Deus (2002)
A vivid movie about hope and despair in Brazil's slums
Brazil's National Office of Tourism must have been non too pleased about this film. As a Northern suburbanite, to me Brazil has always meant soccer, samba and bossa nova. If I were to pick three destinations for a trip, Brazil would be right up there. Before seeing this movie, that is.
I remember reading a review of City of God last year. I remembered two things about the review: it was positive, and the image that accompanied it was the one that appears at the top of the DVD cover. I expected a story to match that picture: hot and sensual. Boy was I in for a surprise.
City of God follows the life of Rocket, a young boy trapped in the misery of Rio's slums. He wants to escape this so-called "City of God" and become a photographer.
The City of God is a favela, a slum, where Rio de Janeiro's poor are unceremoniously dumped, to "clean the streets". It's a tough place to live when times are good. It is pure hell when times are bad.
Rocket, Li'l Z and Bene were three childhood friends. They grew up but took different paths: Li'l Ze and Bene chose the path of crime. They become partners in the most powerful gang of the favela. Li'l Ze is the ruthless head of the gang, while Bene is the more level-headed right arm.
Rocket decides that a life of crime is not for him and that he would rather pursue his lifelong passion, photography. But in the slums, it's hard not to contribute to the violence. It's even harder to escape it.
The characters are entirely believable, they are well fleshed out and played marvelously by the actors, most of whom were acting for the first time.
The camera work in this movie is somewhat disconcerting. At certain times, it looks like a big budget movie. At other times, the jittery camera and ever-changing shot angles make it feel more like a documentary. The camera play adds a lot to the movie's intensity.
Another interesting trick is the way the director makes use of flashbacks. The movie is one big recounting of events, accompanied by flashbacks within The Flashback. Flashbacks are nothing new, of course, but the way it was used in City Of God was refreshing. I believe the reason for that is explained in the credits. I think saying what happens in the credits would be considered a spoiler, so I won't say anything about it. But if you're one of those people who turn off the DVD as soon as the credits start rolling, you would be wise to make an exception in this case.
This is an excellent but disturbing movie. The director did not try to sugarcoat the gang problem in Rio's favelas. As most people know, one of those problems is the prevalence of gangs of children committing violent crime in the city. They have a name, but I forget what it is. Well, the director does not shy away from using child actors in violent and crude scenes.
As a Northerner, seeing children being shot at point blank, screaming in pain and fear is unnerving. I'm sure if the movie had been made in America, there is no way such a scene would have been allowed. It would have changed the movie's rating to NC-17. That is, if they had allowed it to be released at all.
I'm not sure what issues Brazilian movies usually tackle, but I found this one to be particularly well made. I especially enjoyed the fact that it was distributed in original Brazilian Portuguese with subtitles, instead of being dubbed.
Even though I don't speak or understand Portuguese, I've never been big on dubbing. No matter how well they are made, I've never seen a dubbed translation that allowed all the subtleties of the original to transpire. Of course, subtitles are even worse with regards to content. There's no way to make the subtitles keep up with with the spoken text. But what you lose in content, you retain in atmosphere and feeling. To me, that is more important.
This is a movie about hopes and dreams, pain and despair. We've seen it a lot in ghetto movies from the '90s and the beginning of the '00s; think Boyz n The Hood and the like. But it has rarely been told so vividly.
Lost in Translation (2003)
Sleepless in Tokyo
By definition, any movie that begins with the shot of a woman's behind is a great movie. Unless it stars a Ron J. and a J. Rage and is directed by a Seymour B... Instead, put Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansonn on screen and Sofia Coppola at the helm and you've got a movie that shines.
Sofia Coppola is neither a prolific film writer nor a very active film director. This is her first film since 1999's The Virgin Suicides. Once again, she makes you stand up and take notice. She must not feel pressured to produce anything on a regular basis. This allows her to polish and work her ideas to perfection, before she unleashes them on an unsuspecting world.
Bob Harris (Murray) is a movie actor who finds himself in Tokyo to work on a publicity campaign for a brand of whisky. Two million dollars' worth of whisky publicity, to be exact. Back home, he's got a wife of 25 years and two children waiting for him. He's jetlagged, he has insomnia and he isn't all happy with his life.
Charlotte (Johansonn) is a semi-abandoned newlywed, stuck in Tokyo while her photographer husband runs around the country, working his craft. She's homesick, she's got insomnia and she doesn't know what to do with her life.
Bob and Charlotte meet. Bob and Charlotte fall in love. Bob and Charlotte live happily ever after. If this was a typical Hollywood movie, that would just about sum up the movie. Fortunately, Coppola's writing is much more intelligent than that.
There is no question that there is tremendous tension between Bob and Charlotte. It is this movie's lifeline. When will something happen between them? How will it happen? Will they regret it afterwards? The slow and intense building of their relationship is fascinating to watch.
I've never been a big fan of Bill Murray, I don't know why exactly. I have seen a few of his movies and they've left a bland taste in my mouth. In this movie, he gives the best performance of his career. He is touching, he is believable and he is funny, without stooping to the level of a Caddyshack or a Meatballs.
Scarlett Johansonn is a gifted actress. At such a young age, she's got an excellent track record, and promises to be one of the best actresses of her generation. And she's cute to boot!
The actors' play is enhanced by the exquisite dialogue. Sample this:
"I'm payed two million dollars to hawk whisky when I could be home doing a play instead. The good news is that the whisky works."
Or:
Lydia (Bob's wife): Bob, should I be worried about you?
Bob: Only if you want to.
Movies such as Lost In Translation are the only indication that there still is some form of intelligence and originality in Tinseltown. I just wish directors and writers would take a cue from Sofia Coppola and make less movies, of better quality.
La vita è bella (1997)
Love, courage and hope in the face
Italy. Late thirties. Guido Orefice, a Jew, decides to leave the country to make it big in the city. On his way to the city, he meets Dora, an angel litterally fallen from the sky, and immediately falls for her. Once settled in the city, he will meet her again by accident, when he almost runs her down with his bicycle. After the first two fortuitous encounters, Guido will give Lady Luck a nudge and provoke other meetings, until Dora finally falls for him. They will get married and have an only child, Giosué.
On the day of Giosué's fifth birthday, the Nazis take Guido and his son to a concentration camp. As they are about to be taken away, Dora, who is not Jewish, demands to be put on the train also.
As soon as he realises what is happening, Guido puts on a happy face and invents a game to protect Giosué from the horror of the concentration camp. His goal: keep his son alive and in good spirits while trying to let his wife know that both of them are still alive.
I was mesmerized my this movie. It has a flow that is unusual. Standard story-telling tends to put THE pivoting moment of the story during the first quarter of the movie. In Life Is Beautiful, the pivoting moment occurs closer to the halfway mark.
There also is a definite before/after feel to the movie. The first half of the movie is very upbeat, lively and comical. The second half is more demure, without being depressing.
The performance of the actors is excellent. Roberto Benigni's acting is a bit over the top at times, but he always remains credible. His wife, Nicoletta Braschi, plays Dora and the chemistry between them is palpable. Young Giosué is not as good, but at that age, we can let it slide.
I especially enjoyed the role of Dr. Lessing, a person completely obsessed with riddles. A telling moment of the movie shows Dr. Lessing's complete obliviousness to the situation faced by the prisoners in the camp. It is very revealing of the state of mind of members of the dominating force in a war. On a smaller scale, it also shows that we humans tend to focus a bit too much on our own little problems, while ignoring the predicament of countless others less fortunate.
Some have said that this movie is an insult to the memory of all the Jews that died in WWII. I wonder why. Is it because there is humour in the movie? It wouldn't be the first time that war-era comedy has been put on the screen (MASH, Hogan's Heroes).
Is it because one man is trying to trivialize the situation for his son? I think it's amazing that a father was able to forget about himself completely, in order to keep a smile on his son's face.
Is it because the movie is not depressing enough? In most movies about concentration camps that I've seen, there is a heavy emphasis on the plight of the people. The general atmosphere is usually extremely depressing. In "Life Is Beautiful" we are spared the gloominess of it all. Instead, focus is turned to the heroics of the father and the innocence and awe of his young son.
This movie touches you because of the love and attachment that is evident between Guido, Dora and Giosué. It touches you because of the improbable explanations Guido can invent, to keep his son in the dark. It touches you because it shows, once again, that no matter what the odds are, if a person really wants to achieve a goal and is ready to face the challenges on his way towards that goal, he or she can always pull through.
La gran vida (2000)
A man's fairy tale
Imagine, you feel as though life has lost all meaning. You want to end yours because you see no hope, no exit, no reason to go on living. Then a fairy godfather appears, with an unlikely proposition: I will give you 100 million pesetas (how many dollars is that? About 1 million?). The money will be loaned to you by a firm, which will ask you to refund it within a week, with 50% interest. If you don't refund, they will kill you.
So instead of dying a quick and painless death, you get to live The Big Life for a week, before dying. So why would you say no? Such is the plot of this movie. Cinderella is Martin, the fairy godmother is Salva and Prince Charming is... wait, should there be a Prince Charming, when you're on the verge of dying?
Well, that question and others are answered during the course of this movie. The concept is great. It actually reminds me slightly of Brewster's Millions. In a shorter time frame. And with Salma Hayek.
I thought the movie was fine. The actors were very decent, especially the actor who plays Martin. He has a pitiful face that plays well with the character. Salma Hayek was fine also, as the fiery and sexy Lola. Of course Martin and Lola will fall in love. It will cause Martin to think twice about dying, and set things up for the grand finale.
*possible spoiler ahead* And I guess the ending is what made me rate this movie a 7 instead of an 8. I can't really say what happens, unfortunately. But I found it somewhat unsatisfying. Too Hollywoodish, I found. But then again, if it is a fairy tale, it should have a happy ending. I'm sure I would have preferred an opera-like ending better.
I Capture the Castle (2003)
So that's what becoming a woman is all about!
A young girls turning 18 and discovering her womanhood. Her older sister, willing to sacrifice her life in order to get her family out of poverty. Their father, an ill-tempered and drunken author with a severe case of writer's block. Their stepmother whose livelihood depends on closeness with an artist. One dashing American who can marry one sister and take the whole family out of its plight. The American's brother, who doesn't necessarily agree with his sibling's choice. Set the story in England in the 1930's and you've pretty much woven the tapestry for this lovely tale of poverty, hope, dreams and love.
Cassandra, convincingly played by Romola Garai, is the pillar of this poor English family. A family that is constantly hoping and waiting for the father to publish a second great novel, the novel that will finally bring decent food on the table and acceptable clothes on their back. During this maddening wait, Cassandra writes her most intimate thoughts and feelings in her diary and brings us along the roller-coaster ride that is the passage from childhood to womanhood.
The movie takes place in rural England, in an old castle. The camera work is fabulous. Blazing sunshine in good times and rain and clouds as life becomes more of a burden. The 1930's costumes are impeccable and make you wish you could have lived then, when men still knew how to wear suits, and women could look feminine and sexy without looking trashy.
I haven't read Dodie Smith's novel, but I've yet to see a movie adaptation that was better than the book. By these standards, the novel must be a formidable read.
I don't know what it is with English films. Being in North America, I've always heard that the English have a stiff upper lip and that they don't show any emotions. Yet, some of the most touching films and love stories I've seen were English (Sense and Sensibility comes to mind, here -- OK, Ang Lee isn't technically English but the screenplay and novel were; that's close enough in my book).
If you like funny, emotional and touching stories, without the loud music, the fake emotions and the telegraphed ending, you will enjoy this film immensely.
Morvern Callar (2002)
Interesting but hard to follow
This is a story about an author's suicide and its effect on his girlfriend, Morvern Callar. In a nutshell.
This is an interesting, if somewhat darkish, movie. Morvern Callar is a woman who, to me, doesn't seem to be all there and her boyfriend's demise just pushes her a bit over the top.
Her deceased boyfriend leaves her everything he has, and she decides to live it up with her best friend, Lanna, by going to Spain. The idea is to escape the drudgery of a small Scottish town and to "have it all".
Excellent performances all around, the storyline is well drawn and moves along at a decent pace. Camera work is good.
Where it all falls apart is at the sound level: I had a lot of difficulty following the dialogue. Yes, part of it is due to the Scottish accent but a lot of it is purely technical. Sometimes, the voices aren't loud enough to cover the background noise or the soundtrack. I had to watch the movie with subtitles on, which is annoying when you understand the language.
It's a movie well worth seeing but only rates a 6.5 because of the audio problems.
Lucía y el sexo (2001)
¡Viva el cinema español!
Who would've thought I would become the artsy-fartsy type? I used to like big muscles, big cars and little dialog. The less sensical, the better. Now I like touching, moving and whimsical fare. And romance.
I have been seeing a lot more Spanish cinema lately and and I'm appreciating it more and more. Sometimes thought-provoking, always touching and rarely in-your-face. Pretty much the opposite of what has been going on lately in Hollywood.
(possible spoilers: you've been warned!)
Sex and Lucía is the story of how lives unknowingly intersect. An author hit by a car, his girlfriend, the owner of a Bed and Breakfast on an island, a deep-sea diver. All their lives are linked to each other, but none knows it or why. All the answers are on the island.
That's it, plotwise. Go see it if you want to understand what I'm talking about: I like to give as little detail about the plot as possible. Make it a surprise.
I found the performances of the actors to be top-notch. You can see the evolution of Lucía and Lorenzo's relationship over the course of the movie. You see and feel the strain and the desperation slowly setting in. You see and feel the pain of the mother when her child meets an untimely death. It's all there. No wonder it got nominated for a number of Goyas (Spain's equivalent of the Oscars).
Plus, there is beautiful camera work. Spaniards really know how to make their country shine on film.
This is the first work I've seen from director Julio Medem, but it definitely will not be the last. As soon as I can, I will try to rent Lovers of the Arctic Circle.
A solid 9/10.
Big Fish (2003)
A warm and fuzzy story on a bitterly cold night
I had the choice between Big Fish and Cold Mountain. I don't know how Cold Mountain stacks up, but Big Fish thoroughly met my expectations. This being a Tim Burton movie, I expected larger than life characters, implausible situations and great camera work. I got all that, plus a touching and fantasy-filled story. Just what I needed, with the wind howling and -30 C weather outside.
After seeing this movie, I realise that when my kids ask me what happened when they were born, I need to come up with something better than "Your mom was in labour for 24 hours, see, and she was screaming bloody murder and then you were born."
L
Les invasions barbares (2003)
Very good but no Palme d'Or here
I saw "Les invasions barbares" last night. It was a good movie and the dialogs were top notch but I found it to be a cerebral movie much more than an emotional movie. I'm not too surprised that it didn't win the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. People from Quebec seem to think that the world owes them so much recognition that I believe our collective vision was a bit clouded when it was announced that the film didn't win the top prize.
One of the things I'd heard before seeing the movie was that it was virtually impossible to watch it without crying. Well, I didn't cry. Not because I'm so macho or anything but because it didn't touch me deeply enough. However, my wife's cousin has a father who has cancer and she was completely overwhelmed by this movie. So it does touch people on various levels. Yes, there were some poignant moments but I think crowd effect has a lot to do with how you perceive this movie. Crying is much like yawning: if you see or think about people yawning, you will fee like yawning too. Same goes for crying. I'm sure it must be hard to fight back tears when hundreds of people around you are sniffling or outright crying (although thinking about it make me want to smile more than anything else). But I was in a big room with about 10 other people so the crying wasn't contagious.
Les Invasions is a very good movie. It is a cynical and pointed look at the state of our society. Denys Arcand condemns religious righteousness, the dilapidated state of our "modern" hospitals, unions, the slaughtering of First Nations, education, greed, corruption, police inadequacy in the war on drugs and many other subjects. I don't know what a translated version of this movie will bring but there are a lot of ingenious and inventive play on words that I enjoyed very much. There is much at play here, and I think seeing more than once will be beneficial to me. Notably, there is a play on camera which annoyed me while I was watching: a few times during the movie, there would be a 30 to 60 second scene then fade to black. Another 30-60 second scene and fade to black again. I found it annoying. My wife says it was a simulation of the dying man going in and out of consciousness. She must be right.
All in all, I highly recommend this movie. If you get a chance to see it in French, it will be even better. I still have images of movies like Moulin Rouge! and La Vita e Bella running through my mind periodically, several years after seeing them. I'm not sure I'll be able to say the same about Les invasions barbares.
Night at the Golden Eagle (2001)
Not a fun movie
This is definitely not your typical family fare. It's the story of a smalltime thug (Mic) with a bad temper, who gets released from jail. He's greeted at the gate by his longtime buddy (Tommy) who has decided to reform. He wants to go to Las Vegas and bring Mic along. Well, the fact that Mic has a bad temper and is an ex-con should tell you enough to know what will go on. The Golden Eagle is a rundown hotel full of poor, depraved people. A place where dreams come to die an ugly death.
None of the characters was very appealing, the filming is very dark and the story moves slowly. It's an exercise in character definition and acting. If that's what you're looking for in a movie, then this is the movie for you. However, my main problem with it, and the reason I rate it a 6, is that it's not entertaining. When I pulled the DVD out of the player, I didn't feel like I enjoyed myself, The movie didn't move me or make me think and that's a big failure in my book.
Comedian (2002)
A must see for all aspiring comics
As an aspiring public performer, I was fascinated by this movie. Basically, Jerry Seinfeld is mounting a comeback from being on the most successful TV series ever... or close to it, anyway. He decides that he's going to scrap everything he's ever written and start from scratch. At the same time, we get to follow the coming of age of another comic, Orny Adams (I don't know why they call him Orny -- maybe they chose the name right after seeing a Seymour B*tts movie).
You get to see everything that goes through these guys' minds as they are preparing to perform. You get to see the veteran and the newbie. The newbie is on edge, he's cocky, he thinks he knows everything and the world owes him. The veteran has respect for what he does, he understands his place in this field and he knows the efforts that are needed to succeed once again.
Both of them are constantly unsure of themselves. It's revealing to see the angst on Seinfeld's face before and after a performance. To see him beat himself up because he didn't deliver as he should have. When he bombs, he blames himself. When Orny Adams bombs, he blames the crowd. There's a lesson to be learned here. Who do you think will succeed?
I saw the extras after seeing the whole movie. One of the extras shows both comedians' standup routine in David Letterman. It's eerie how close the structure of their routines are (not the jokes). I wonder how my perception would have changed if I had watched the performances first, the movie second then rewatched the performances.
There are also a few other thing in the Extras which I didn't get to see. I will rent this movie again.
If you're planning on becoming a professional comic, don't rent this movie. BUY IT! Watch it over and over again until you understand what it takes to be a successful comic. And then, take the world by storm!
Just a Kiss (2002)
When Harry Met Sally it ain't!
Great movie! It starts out with two people about to kiss in a hotel room, with both of them admitting that this is going to be a big mistake. Buit they go ahead and do it anyway. After that, the rest of the movie deals with the implications of that kiss. But the way it is all presented is quite fun. There are the somewhat annoying uses of cartooning effects over the real actors. But the most enjoyable part was the way they played with the timeline. At any given time, you aren't really sure if you're in the present or the past. The first few times take you by surprise.
Not your typical love story, for sure. I thought the actors were fine, everyone lies, noone is perfect, which is the way life is. Just more so. As Sid Ceasar said, "Comedy has to be based on truth. You take the truth and you put a little curlicue at the end." And that's what they did with this movie.
A good 7.5 (8 on IMDB).
Moulin Rouge! (2001)
This story is about love
The greatest thing you'll ever learn is to love and be loved in return. This movie has passed "Life Is Beautiful" as my favourite movie of all time. It's got everything: romance, jealousy, heartbreak, revenge, sadness, happiness, DANCE, MUSIC! EVERY-THING! My biggest regret is to never have seen it in a theater.
I saw it for the first time almost a year ago, shortly after it came out on DVD. When I saw it, I was totally confounded by the first fifteen minutes of the movie. The camera work, the music, everything went by so fast that I had a hard time figuring out where Baz Luhrmann was trying to go. Then eventually, I caught up with the pace of the movie. I absolutely enjoyed it the first time around, and I watched the extended Tango de Roxanne over and over again.
The use of the music was ingenious and marvelously magical. (I must say, though, that I've been listening to the soundtrack almost every day for the past six months). I am rarely moved when I watch a movie but this one moves me to tears.
I don't like musicals (I did like Grease when I was still a kid, I watched about 10 minutes of Evita before turning it off, and although my kids watch The Sound Of Music on a regular basis, I have yet to see the whole movie). But this movie, with its simplistic storyline and reused music, is an absolute masterpiece.
I think the only way to really, truly appreciate this movie to its fullest is to watch it more than once. Baz Luhrmann has said that he wanted to recreate the confusion, the splendour and the craziness of the Moulin Rouge when it first opened in 1899. Nowadays, audiences are totally blasé. There is a preponderance of sex, violence and a total absence of innocence and bewilderment in our modern society.
Imagine entering into a world that is unlike anything you've ever seen before, something you couldn't imagine in your wildest dreams. That's how people probably felt the first time they went to the Moulin Rouge. In order to understand it and appreciate it, they needed to go back again and again. Luhrmann has succeeded in generating the same feeling with today's apathetic audiences. From the music, to the dialog, to the story itself, there are constantly two things going on at the same time. It is nervewracking and confusing but highly effective.
I believe this is one of those movies that will stand the test of time. After all, it's a movie about truth, beauty, freedom, and above all things, love!
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Chapter II does not deceive
A marvelous movie! It closely follows the spirit of the second book although there is some artistic license at work. In this second chapter, we follow three parallel stories: Frodo and Sam's attempts to enter Mordor, Pippin and Merry's capture by the Orcs and Aragorn's fight to save the Human Race. The pace is much faster than the first chapter with much more emphasis on action than on character development (as opposed to the first chapter). The special effects are stupendous although in certain segments, I found them to be a little too apparent -- not enough to be distracting however. I find Frodo and Sam to be a little one-dimensional as characters but the detail put into Gollum's character more than compensate for that. No other CGI creature comes close to what Jackson and his team has done in this movie. This movie rates a solid 9.5 for me... wait, I can't do that... Well, 10 it is!
L
Focus (2001)
Another great movie starring William H. Macy
Focus is another great movie starring William H. Macy. I first discovered Macy in Fargo and I've seen a few of his films and he hasn't yet deceived me. Macy is the archetypal "nice guy with something to hide". In Focus, he plays the role of Lawrence Newman, a loyal and hard-working stiff, who harbours his handicapped mother at home. The scene is set after World War II, at the height of McCarthyism. Newman is the head of Human Resources for a company which is basically, anti-Semite. After he accidentally hires a woman of Jewish descent, he is asked to buy a pair of glasses, to improve his failing eyesight.
Unbelievably, the simple act of buying glasses has great repercussions on his life and that of Gertrude Hart, his wife (played by a great Laura Dern). As the film unravels, Newman will begin to see a whole different world, where being Jewish is akin to being an animal.
The movie is disturbing in the way it shows that being racist was something fairly normal. The chilling thought is that in some places, it probably still is.