critic_at_large Reviews

Just Friends (I) (2005)

Some Funny Moments, But Mostly Stupid

[19 December 2005]

I'm sure I'm not the target demographic for this film, but it was still stupider than most in this genre. Anna Faris has been funny in past films. She is not here. Ryan Reynolds was okay, and the Mary of the film (as in Cameron Diaz' character in There's Something About Mary), worked as the high school hottie who 10 years later is still, improbably, hot and single. But the funny moments were few and far between, the slapstick comedy unbelievable and tired, and the impossible redemption of the central character inevitable. Chris Klein was good, but his small role was not enough to float this tanker. Finally, I'm still scratching my head wondering about the Ryan Reynolds solo that plays alongside the credits. Did someone actually think this bit was funny for more than 5 seconds? I stayed during this assuming there would be some choice outtakes. Nope. After what seemed like an eternity, and while Reynolds was still singing, I couldn't take any more and ran screaming from the theater.

Rent (2005)

Demonstrates Why Musicals Are Dead

[19 December 2005]

People wax wistful about the musicals from the Golden Age of Film, and not without cause, I suppose. But this film is really a demonstration of why the format no longer works in American Cinema. First of all, this is a direct translation of the play onto film -- so much so that I actually felt like I was watching a play instead of a movie. And that made me much more conscious of stage direction, lighting, scenery and dialog. Not a good thing.

In fact, nothing about this film worked for me. The plot is ridiculous, the dramatic developments cliché and the acting inexplicably stilted, as if the actors were trying to make sure the people in the last row could see their physical reactions to plot points. Hello, but acting for film is different. The audience can see your face just fine, thanks. We don't need a sigh or a posture change to communicate what you're feeling. I hope this is the last of the Chicago-copycat musicals - I know it won't be, but I can dream.

Saw II (2005)

If you enjoyed this film, please turn yourself in

[19 December 2005]

Really, if you enjoyed this film, you should call the police and turn yourself in, because you are one sick puppy.

This movie is beyond depraved - it's a new nadir in American film-making. I understand why the producers made this film - they were trying to get rich, and they did. But their children won't be seeing this film anytime soon, and neither should yours. Nor should you, for that matter. It has no redeeming value. If you're deep into gore, just go watch one of the original Living Dead movies. They're actually better films, and less dehumanizing. At least the zombies there are killing for food. Bad acting, bad writing, absurd killing machines, little real action, no real tension, and no cognizable plot. Avoid.

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

One gay cowboy movie too many

[19 December 2005]

Kudos to Jake and Heath for taking on this challenge, but not even Ang Lee's direction could save this hackneyed Harlequin novel from the trash bin. Leaving aside the distracting and unlikely gay cowboy gimmick, the plot and drama were both predictable and melodramatic. The score, sound and cinematography are spectacular, and for better or for worse, Ang Lee is skillful enough as a director to bestow unwarranted gravitas on thin material (think Crouching Tiger and Hulk). But make no mistake, this source material is thin: instead of flying martial artists and giant green mutants, we have gay cowboys from the 60s. It's like a Saturday Night Live sketch lengthened and converted to a drama. Give Cinderella Man the Oscar next Spring - this film doesn't deserve it.

The Incredibles (2004)

Perfect Family Movie

[19 November 2004]

This is one of those rare movies that could not be better. Great script, engaging characters, superb animation - what else could you want in a family movie? Kids and adults will enjoy this one - nothing crude, no explanations necessary.

When I got home I immediately rushed to IMDb to review the credits. Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter, and Samuel L. Jackson were excellent, but the standout here was the voice of Syndrome, the villain. He was totally off the hook. The sequel is perfectly set up in the closing scene and, unlike the usual sequel set-up bit, I didn't resent this one at all. I can't wait to see it.

Ghosts of the Abyss (2003)

Great Slideshow; Just O.K. Film

[8 June 2003]

If this were James Cameron's slideshow of his ocean vacation, we would all agree he did a great job. Unfortunately, this collection of nice pictures doesn't work well as a film. Moreover, the incredibly high technology that enables remote cameras to drop two miles to the sea floor without imploding is not matched by state-of-the-art 3D imagery. To fit in their sardine cans, the 3D cameras used for this film had to be very, very small, and they had to use extreme wide-angle lenses. The result is that, notwithstanding the IMAX format, the scale ends up feeling small. There are a number of shots of the giant, four-story tall engines that powered the Titanic, still intact at the bottom of the ocean. Amazing! These things should take your breath away. Somehow, they don't in this presentation. You just don't get a feel for their size. Also, the blue/red 3D technology borrowed from the 1950s is not in the same league as the new polarized 3D technology used in, for example, the most recent Space Shuttle IMAX film. Disappointing. Also, Bill Paxton was not the right choice (yes, I get the whole "life imitating art" thing, but he added exactly nothing to this film). Rod Serling's narrations for the Cousteau films were interesting because, well, he was Rod Serling, but also because he had interesting things to say. You didn't hear Rod saying "look at that" or "wow" or "I can't believe we're really here." Finally, a crew member describes seeing an object on the ship that really brings home the humanity of the tragedy. Do we get to see the object (I am not identifying it here so as not to spoil this part of the film)? No. A waste. Now the good: the computer graphics are terrific, the reenactions are good, and the lighting, expert commentary, and photography are engaging enough to remind us of how many souls were lost in the Titanic disaster, the heroism and cowardice along the way, and how terribly sad and unnecessary the loss of life really was. Worth seeing, despite its flaws.

Dreamcatcher (2003)

New Career Lows for Kasdan and Goldman

[9 April 2003]

SPOILER ALERT: This review uncharacteristically contains spoilers because I feel a civic duty to warn you away from this film. THE REVIEW: I couldn't wait to see this movie. Director Lawrence Kasdan has a habit of making films that I really like, and so does screenwriter William Goldman. Put them together with a Stephen King premise and you can't miss, right? Wrong. Way wrong. This movie is horrible. I'm still struggling to understand the connection between the Dreamcatcher and anything else about this film. There were like, I dunno, five movie premises in this film, all strung together, totally unrelated, and ultimately worthless in their conglomeration. A creepy group of dreamcatchers backed by an Indian legend? Cool. Guys in the woods with a past and a mysterious connection to a mysterious little boy? Well, okay, I suppose that works too. Spooked animals with some kind of strange disease? Cool, but umm.... Dead and dying people wandering aimlessly through the forest. Uhhh...... Weird premonitions? Ummm.... A shapeshifting alien who speaks through an inhabited body with a natty English accent? Now wait a minute..... An epic military battle between human and alien that has been going on for decades under our noses? Hey, what the...? A three dimensional characterization of a man's memories as a group of rooms in a basement? Whoa, Nelly! A second, hidden alien presence that teams up with. . . . Now just a darn minute! A climactic finale involving a brave guy who inexplicably freezes while trying to save the world? Stop. Stop!!!! STOPPP!!! I think William Goldman himself said it best in his book Adventures in the Screen Trade: "nobody knows anything." Obviously, Goldman didn't know enough to stay away from this stinker. You know better. Avoid.

Phone Booth (2002)

Suspenseful Script, Great Acting by Farrell

[8 April 2003]

Joel Schumacher has directed so many bad movies I was certain this would be yet another notch on his bad movie belt. Instead, it was a pleasant surprise. The script was solid and suspenseful--which is no mesne feat given that virtually every scene takes place in a phone booth on a street corner. Farrell believably takes a call that he can't refuse. He displays tremendous range and control in this film, which is made all the more remarkable by the fact that he was holding a phone to his ear pretending to talk to someone on the other side of the line for probably 10 weeks of shooting. Okay, I realize that the premise is pretty far "out there," but the writer does a fine job of glossing over that fact and focusing on the credible portions of the script. Impressive. Sadly, Radha Mitchell gives perhaps her worst performance ever, and Katie Holmes is unusually bland, even by teen movie standards, but Farrell more than makes up for their shortcomings. Amazingly, his Irish brogue is nowhere to be found. Now will somebody explain to me why Leonardo DiCaprio got the lead in Gangs of New York instead of Colin Farrell? Casting is still a mystery to me. Sigh. Well, at least this film is worth seeing.

The Life of David Gale (2003)

Astonishingly Bad Movie with One Bright Spot

[8 March 2003]

Gosh this movie was bad. I'm still reeling. I must have made seven trips to the snack bar during this film just to get away from it for awhile. Where do I begin? Let's start with the script: Charles Randolph is no doubt a very smart man with very strong feelings about the death penalty, but he is not a screenwriter, at least not here. The concept of this film is clever--too clever to suspend disbelief, really--but the greater problem is that it is so rife with cliches, contrived dramatic tension, gratuitous pontification and Rube Goldberg plot setups, it is silly. Next, the direction: I had difficulty believing the director is the same Alan Parker responsible for Angela's Ashes, Mississsippi Burning, Birdy and other decent films. In fact, I was thinking "first time director" through the whole film. Instead, Parker has a dozen movie credits at least. Stunningly ham-handed direction here. Parker manages to coax some of the worst performances ever from an otherwise talented cast. I mean, come on--Kevin Spacey, Laura Linney, Kate Winslet? This is a dream cast. Yet their performances in this film are flat and breathtakingly unconvincing. The script is bad, to be sure, but Parker has to share some blame here. Also, Parker's bizarre use of "crazy serial killer" (and seemingly random) words scratched and scrawled into various points of the film (I'm not kidding--you have to see it to believe it) is not only inappropriate, it is distracting. Now, the acting: Kevin Spacey can't act with children. I realize that the script is stupid, but he just doesn't seem to get how to believably interact with kids. Irritating. Also, when he plays drunk, he comes off as especially gay. I had more trouble believing him as a straight man here than in any other movie. Kate Winslet is at once ditzy and stone-faced idiotic. Might be the script or the accent, I don't know which, but she doesn't work here. Laura Linney is an irritating character, but she is in every film--that's her thing, that's what she does, so she wasn't as bad as the rest. In fact, she was better than the rest. Also, Spacey's lawyer was charismatic and engaging in this film. One of the few characters who got your attention when you watched. Now, the one bright spot of this film: Rhona Mitra (I think that's her name), the girl who played femme fatale Berlin is just impossibly stunning in this film. From the first second she saunters onto the screen until the last second we see her, she just burns up the screen-- she is that hot. This girl is a star--the mystery is how she lost the screen role of Lara Croft to Angelina Jolie (Rhona was the model that Lara was based on in the video game). I would have cast Rhona hands down, and I'm a Jolie fan. Somebody get Rhona a lead role--please!!

The Good Girl (2002)

Good, not Great

[12 February 2003]

How many movies can John C. Reilly be in this year? He is ubiquitous these days, which is good, because he's always a pleasure to watch and this film is no exception. Jennifer Aniston's performance is, of course, the one most talked about because she is not Rachel Green in this film (as she is in most every other film she appears). Here, she is blase and subdued, but not necessarily interesting or compelling. It's hard to categorize this film, but I guess it belongs more in the black comedy family than in drama. I was unmoved by the dramatic aspects of this, but there is a fair amount of wry humor that makes the movie worth seeing. Jennifer is such a treat for the eyes that I could watch her doing gardening videos, but even if you're not a fan, the movie is quirky and dry enough to be entertaining. Worth seeing.

Life as a House (2001)

Suspend Your Disbelief and You'll Like It

[12 February 2003]

By Hollywood standards, this is a good film. But life doesn't work like this - a broken home and a long-broken parent/child relationship simply cannot be mended this simply, and the choices made at the end of the film are not realistic. Label me a cynic, but I had to suspend quite a bit of disbelief to make this film work. That said, Kevin and Hayden are excellent in their roles, and the initial premise works. I admit I choked up at the end of this, so on that level the film works. I'm just warning you that you and I both know that life is not like "Life as a House."

Don's Party (1976)

Hysterically Funny Slice of the 60's

[12 February 2003]

Don's Party is a really funny film. It also is a glimpse at how the 60's sexual revolution invaded suburban Australia. The dialogue is taut and sharp, the characters both quirky and realistic, and the setup funny in a tawdry, Blake Edwards kind of way. A fun rental well worth seeing.

The Party (1968)

No Remake Necessary, the Original is Perfect!

[12 February 2003]

The Blake Edwards/Peter Sellers team was at its peak in this film. Yes, it is silly at times, and yes, the film is dated by the late 60's Hollywood costumes and cars, but that is part of the appeal. The beautiful Claudine Longet is a goddess in this film, Sellers' timing and sweet, naive appeal is priceless, the premise is a thing of beauty, and the supporting actors nail their respective parts. With rumors of a remake in the works, I can't help but fear the result at the hands of modern Hollywood. Better buy the original before you no longer can.

About Schmidt (2002)

Engaging Film, But Jack's Been Here Before

[11 February 2003]

Jack is still at the top of his game. Somehow, despite his wealth and fame, he is able to credibly portray the role of a misunderstood common man without derision or caricature. But Jack has been here before. In "As Good As It Gets," he was this man, as he was recently in "The Crossing Guard," to a greater or lesser degree. Jack makes this film work on all levels. Kathy Bates also adds her typically excellent work, and the script is both funny and poignant in a slow, understated way. All in all, this is a great film well worth seeing, but if you're expecting to see Jack stretch out and occupy a new role worthy of an Oscar nomination, look elsewhere.

Road to Perdition (2002)

Not the Godfather, But a Good Film

[11 February 2003]

Unfortunately, Hanks does not have enough intensity to believably portray the lead in this film. Hanks was miscast, and the film was too long. Beyond that, the plot was strong, the cinematography was superb, and the direction was stylish. Jude Law was particularly excellent in the role of the heavy. Stanley Tucci was perfect in his role, as he always is, despite his reluctance to play mobsters. This film was certainly one of the best films of 2002, but it is not "The Godfather." Worth seeing, but ignore the hype - it's no masterpiece.

The Pledge (I) (2001)

Jack is Great, Film Is Almost Great

[11 February 2003]

You can add this role to the list of Jack's best. Subtle yet powerful, driven but patient, Jack's performance lifts this film past the ordinary psychological thriller, which it otherwise could have been. The plot itself is fairly simple. But the pacing is slow and menacing, and the suspense builds quietly. Director Sean Penn has come into his own with the directing thing, and he seems more confident here than in "The Crossing Guard." Still, the film is not without flaws, as Jack's motivation for his pledge was never clear enough to me. I understood that his pledge was necessary to advance the plot, but I just didn't quite understand the reason for it, and that is a big problem for a film. Tom Noonan is, of course, brilliant as the slimy monster, but he always is (he has played this character in "Manhunter," "Last Action Hero," and one or two episodes of the "X-Files"). The scenery is spectacular, the pacing hypnotic, the acting wonderful, and the ending satisfying. Not perfect, but well worth seeing.

As Good as It Gets (1997)

Beautifully Acted, Depressing Film

[11 February 2003]

The acting here is textbook by all three leads. Jack inhabits his role as an unbalanced loner, and Helen Hunt and Greg Kinnear provide believable, understated support. I left the theater with one more expression in my vocabulary, which is the notion that maybe, this is "As Good As It Gets." This is a depressing thought, unfortunately, and that is the point of this film. The Hollywood-style redemption we all hope for and expect was only partially, conditionally delivered by this film. This film is a fine counterpoint to the pablum Hollywood typically serves up. Be sure to see it.

Getting Hal (2003)

Funny, Flawed Comedy

[10/10 · 10 February 2003]

This film has funny moments, but its odd structure distances the viewer and prevents a greater payoff in the end. The premise for this film is serviceable (girl meets boy, boy rips off girl, girl and cohorts hunt down and attack boy), but it is arranged in an unconventional manner that just doesn't work for me. Act I of a comedy is typically where we get to know the hero and villain in their state before the first major reversal. And, consistent with this classic structure, Lanza (the hero) and Rowe (the villain) are portrayed in the opening scene as a happy couple well on their way to comedic bliss. But the reversal comes a very short time later and the exposition of their pre-reversal relationship comes only in an abbreviated, fast-motion flashback. Had the flashback footage been slowed down and placed at the front of the film, I might have been drawn deeper into the romance. I'm all for innovation, but in my view this structure sucks the life out of the central romantic betrayal, disengages the viewer and takes much of the satisfaction out of the ending. It also leaves Lanza, the emotional center of the film, glum and dejected for the rest of the film--which is a shame because she is interesting, extremely pretty, believeable as the girl-next-door with an edge, and a good match for the hunky Rowe (who recently served as the beefcake on NBC's short-lived "Leap of Faith" TV series). The odd story structure also leaves a gruff Brian Doyle-Murray carrying the film with a number of supporting actor setups that simply don't work, through no fault of his own. Screenwriter Doug Stuart's acting work is solid, but he seems to have saved many of the best scenes for himself (he plays a key character in the film). Brad Rowe is good in his turn as a villain, and the supporting team of Gaffney and Fielder are perfect as two dullard private investigator wannabes. Director Tony Markes (who played a great would-be actor in "Welcome to Hollywood") makes a funny cameo, and there are a number of other bits that work, but in the end, this film left me flat.

Adaptation. (2002)

Funny, interesting film - Cage shines

[10 February 2003]

Nicholas Cage is superb in this film, believeably portraying twin brothers with very different personalities. The film is less masterful, but still a funny take on the screenwriting process, especially for fans of Charlie Kaufman (who is one of the twin brothers portrayed by Cage). The script bashes the Hollywood production mill as tactfully as it lampoons the anguish of Kaufman as he tries to wring a screenplay from a "book about flowers." Many funny moments. Well worth seeing.

Dead Calm (1989)

Suspenseful Thriller, Stupid Heroine

[10 February 2003]

I hate movies with stupid heroes. The Fugitive - now that was a movie - you had a smart hero and a smart quasi-villain. In Dead Calm, Nicole Kidman plays a smart heroine who makes a series of very stupid decisions, each of which

advances the plot in some necessary way. Stupidity as a plot device is lazy screenwriting and it really frustrates me. Um, why don't you call the police? Um, maybe you shouldn't split up? Um, why not lock the door? Um, you

probably shouldn't walk right past the body in case he's not really dead. You know the rest. This movie is filled with ridiculous decisions that lead to disaster. That said, this is a well-directed and well-acted film that delivers on suspense and claustrophia. I remember Nicole Kidman from when I first saw this film. As a result, I have never been able to understand how she transcended B-movie

scream queen and became a mega-star. Nor can I understand how Billy Zane

got so firmly typecast in this kind of villainous role. Sam Neill I get, because, well, he has no charisma, which makes him the perfect cuckold. All in all, a day at sea, lonely, scared and frustrated is a decent way to spend a cold night, so this is actually worth seeing. But I hate stupid heroes, and I bet you will too.

Chicago (2002)

Just Didn't Get This One!

[7 February 2003]

I'm sorry, I know this film has gotten raves from many others, but I just didn't get this. Moulin Rouge I got. This one, no. The concept of this film seems derivative of Moulin Rouge, the acting isn't as strong, and the music was less interesting for some reason. The blend of theater and screen just made me wonder "Why? Why do this? Is it a play? Is it a movie? If it's a play, why are we watching a movie of a play?" Call me shallow, call me uncultured, but this one escaped me.

Gangs of New York (2002)

This Is a Great Film. A Great Film.

[7 February 2003]

I stole the tag line for this review from the film. Daniel Day Lewis, in his own inimitable manner, describes his nearly fatal brawl with Leonardo DiCaprio's father using the line I copped: "This was a great man. A great man." I loved the line and I loved this film. Impoverished, brutal New York in the mid 1800s could not have been more beautifully recreated. You really feel like you were there at the end of this film. Daniel Day Lewis didn't so much act the part of Bill the Butcher -- he literally became him. His performance was subtle, poignant, maniacal and terrifying all at once. This is a film you won't forget. Unfortunately, Di Caprio just doesn't have the presence to carry a masculine role like the one he got here, and so his acting became a distraction. He's not a bad actor really, he just comes across as such a lightweight compared to Daniel Day Lewis that you notice him every time he's on screen - which is a lot. No matter. Go see this film anyway, it's a history lesson and a great film!

One Hour Photo (2002)

Good, Gripping Thriller

[2 September 2002]

If Robin Williams weren't so funny as a comedian, he would be considered

one of America's greatest dramatic actors. He is superb in this role -

subdued and menacing in a quiet, simmering kind of way. It is hard to

believe it took Hollywood this much time to deliver a good thriller about a

photo developing lab - having known people who worked at such labs, the

truth is that the people on the job do in fact look at your photos, and one

can easily see how Robin Williams' fixation on the Yorkins' could "develop"

so to speak over years of service. Because the premise is credible, and the

characters' actions and reactions to each other are credible (with one glaring exception necessary to advance the plot), this one really hooks you and

keeps you on the edge of your seat. Gary Cole - who so perfectly nailed

Mike Brady in the Brady Bunch movie - managed to make me forget that

role for a few minutes and consider him a dramatic actor - no easy feat. A

good film well worth seeing.

Windtalkers (2002)

Historically significant; cinematically not

[2 September 2002]

Let me preface these remarks by noting that I am not a John Woo fan.

Prior to this film, I had not seen a Woo film that actually hit me on an

emotional level. This one does, largely because of its subject matter, but

also because of a few soap opera/tear-jerker setups along with a couple of

genuinely poignant moments. Ultimately though, in the end, I was

unmoved by the relationship between the guardians and the windtalkers,

and I felt that this central relationship was what the film tried the hardest to explore and sell to the viewer. At the end of the film, as at the beginning, I would have had no trouble "taking the shot" that Cage's character was

duty-bound to take, and that was deeply troubling to me. Either I am a

cold-hearted snake, or I just didn't buy the characters. I suspect the latter. In my view, this is an historically interesting film, but not an especially

engaging work. A for effort; C for result.

Welcome to Hollywood (1998)

Dead-on Satire of Hollywood

[2 September 2002]

Full Frontal - which Steven Soderbergh describes as a "satire" of

Hollywood - does a fine job of sampling the seedy, sexual, shallow and

sycophant side of the entertainment business. But the earlier Welcome to

Hollywood does an even better job skewering a different side of

Hollywood. Spend a few days following an actor/waiter/bartender around

town on the circuit of headshots, casting director workshops, agent

searches, auditions, and bit parts, and you will more deeply appreciate the

bitter sarcasm of this film. Tony Markes - a former casting director - nails the part of everyman Nick Decker - a talentless wannabe trying not to

drown in a sea of negativity. Adam Rifkin nails the role of the name

director who would cheerfully dump his friend in a trash bin in order to

advance his own career. Together, Markes and Rifkin manage to scam their

way into the Oscars and collect cameos from big-name Hollywood actors

who clearly think they are talking to the entertainment press, not two guys

trying to make a movie about Hollywood. It's a clever stunt with a clever,

funny script, and it is right on the money. Most of the "actors" in this film are real agents, real casting directors, real actors, directors and producers playing themselves. It's not a documentary in the strict sense, but it

accurately and gleefully depicts the reality of what goes on in Hollywood.

If you have any interest in seeing how the process works (or doesn't), see

this movie today.