saska-3 Reviews

Samurai Champloo (2004–2005)

Hip-hop stir-fry samurai action..

[7 October 2004]

Samurai Champloo is the long-awaited next project from Cowboy Bebop director Shinichiro Watanabe. His two short films in the Animatrix compilation (Kid's Story and Detective Story) give American audiences a sneak peek at the phenomenal art style of this series, but they barely hint at the jaw-dropping action and unorthodox blend of history and music contained therein.

The similarities with Bebop end at the fact that the series has three protagonists: the vagrant swordsman Mugen, the rogue samurai Jin, and the tea-shop waitress Fuu. This unlikely and volatile trio begin a road journey through post-shogunate Japan (ca. 1780), brought together by circumstances best seen to be believed.

"Champloo" means mixed-up or stir-fry, and that's what this series is: a stylish blend of old school values and situations, meshed with more modern sensibilities, fighting styles, and visual design. Over the lush, dynamic art, a soundtrack of some of the best hip-hop from modern Japan plays. Though it's a noticeable device in the first few episodes, it doesn't take long before the music feels like second nature despite the anachronism.

Champloo is many things: a mature drama, an action series, an uproariously funny comedy and a visual feast. Watanabe-san demonstrates here that the success of Cowboy Bebop was uniquely his, and no fluke - fans of that series will not be disappointed, despite how radically different the two story lines are from one another.

As the title card of the first episode of Samurai Champloo says, "Just shut up and watch."

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

Highly entertaining homage to martial arts films, short on story but long on style

[8/10 · 19 October 2003]

KILL BILL I is many things: a lovingly-researched homage to the Hong Kong action flicks of the modern era, a showcase for Uma Thurman, an example of beautiful production design, a fun popcorn flick with a little of the old ultra-violence thrown in to discourage the squeamish. There are also many things it is not: a well-crafted story, a genius-level example of time-shifting narrative, two hours of witty repartee.

Knowing what it would not be going in, and also knowing what it was supposed to be, helped me manage my expectations. Wo Ping's fight choreography is becoming so well-known in America that some of the sequences here will be familiar to the audience as more than just homage - specifically, a few look recycled. Tarantino's time spent lingering on his heroine and her prey in staring matches tends to dissipate the tension rather than increasing it. In addition, his penchant for showing the narrative out of order is unnecessary here, and further drains the story of the buildup that's part of the joy of revenge tales.

My biggest complaint was how much quick-cut editing happened in the fight scenes. From reading interviews, it appears Uma Thurman was up to the task of the long sequences, and that she pulled them off. Many times, I wished for a longer take, a better opportunity to see the grace of the martial artists working through their moves.

Even so, this was a fun time. The anime sequence is beautifully drawn and compelling. Since the beginning of film, animation has been used to show us stories that would be too horrific and graphic in live action, and it works very well here. The over-the-top violence and gore are laughable at the right moments, as they were in PULP FICTION - giving the audience a collective moment of reprieve just when the tension is at its highest. Uma Thurman shows flashes of better acting than I'd seen her do in the past, most often when she's not speaking. And to be fair, while the stare-downs are buzzkillers, I appreciated the moments of wary sizing-up that happened in the middle of fights - this is more like what a real fight to the death would feel like. Characters are given a moment to contemplate whether their next move will be their last. Music is used well, as in Tarantino's previous efforts.

KILL BILL I earns an 8/10 for me based on how much fun I had. The real verdict won't be in until the story concludes, however.

Mystic River (2003)

Eastwood sees men through a glass darkly

[8/10 · 7 October 2003]

MYSTIC RIVER is full of excellent performances. Sean Penn resembles Robert DeNiro so much it makes me wonder if some Hollywood fling brought him into the world. Kevin Bacon has matured and for the first time in many years, turns in a performance that is both dark and sympathetic. Marcia Gay Harden plays haunted better than anyone, although we don't see a great deal of range from her in this film.

Tim Robbins was perhaps too obvious a choice in his role, but he delivers exactly what JACOB'S LADDER and ARLINGTON ROAD showed he could do before, so the choice can be forgiven. He chews a bit of scenery, but always when it's called for.

The film is worth seeing for the acting alone. Eastwood directs like a man in love with his actors and his scenery, employing long takes and two-shots to give the story a sense of real time that is too often eschewed by younger directors in favor of interesting angles. In the end, while this is a great performance showcase, it bogs down a story that holds relatively little suspense, as it lumbers on toward the inevitable horrific conclusion that plays out over perhaps 40 minutes at the end of the film. (It is not unlike that last long, ponderous sentence I wrote. I'm still in the rhythm of the movie.)

MYSTIC RIVER is not a police procedural mystery. It is a mystery about human behavior, about these men and their pasts and their relationships with women and their world. It is only about their relationships with one another as those relationships are colored by external events. As such, this is safe territory for a "guy movie" that plumbs deep emotion without feeling anything too personal. It's a story about what Real Men dream of doing, and how it feels when the dreams become real.

With all this weight, I can't imagine what the composers were thinking while scoring the film. Certainly, of something happier and more uplifting than what played out on the screen. The score was at times so utterly out of place as to be insulting, and I cringed more than once when the refrain played.

I can't address any issue in the plot without unraveling the tapestry Helgeland weaves in his screenplay. I can say that this film is full of disturbing moments, sucker-punches, and anguish, and it will not apologize to you after the beating. But sometimes, a beating is worth it for what you take away, even if the lesson is that such a beating is better fantasized than delivered.

8/10 for the performances, screenplay and Eastwood's steady hand; points deducted for a too-indulgent pace and the ridiculous score that snapped me right out of the moment a half dozen times and made me grateful for moments of silence.

The Governess (1998)

An unintended cautionary tale?

[3/10 · 3 October 2003]

THE GOVERNESS is a moody period piece, the meandering story of a Jewish woman who, upon the death of her father, sets out to 1830's Scotland, posing as a Gentile to get work to support her family in London.

Rosina - or Mary, as she calls herself in a none too subtle piece of symbolic writing - is a rudderless child, a socialite with dreams of being an actress. She strikes up an alliance with her employer, and by accident solves a crucial problem in his research with photography. Giddy with success, they begin a halting and uncomfortable affair while the eldest son of her paramour falls hopelessly (and inexplicably) in love with her.

And like a child, she fails to understand the consequences of her actions - in the end, betraying those she deceived in order to make a life for herself.

Many claim this is something of a feminist manifesto, but I disagree. Whether intended or not, this film only resonates with me if I think of it as a cautionary tale. In the end, Rosina's greatest disappointment is the truth - that she lied, happened upon a way to help a man she wanted to be both her father and her lover, and in the end contributed nothing but destruction. As such, the end of the film gives me the impression that nothing she did, no one she used, made her happy - and that is exactly as it should be.

Did I need a movie this long and langorous to teach me this lesson? Not at all. On the contrary, had it not been for excellent cinematography, unique score and my hope that she'd get her come-uppance, I wouldn't have stuck with it to the end of the film.

Fans of Minnie Driver will likely be disappointed by her uneven performance but may wish to see it anyway; I doubt young female fans of Jonathan Rhys-Meyers will be able to stay awake for the payoff they expect, and I can't help thinking this holds too little cultural detail to be of interest, even to photography buffs. The 3 points I award the film are solely for its visual style and score. On the strength of their other work, I assume the actors' performances are so disappointing because of a poor script and worse directing, but they are, in the end, unremarkable.

Bubba Ho-Tep (2002)

*This* is the feel-good movie of the year.

[9/10 · 24 September 2003]

If this film is a comedy, neither Ossie Davis nor Bruce Campbell felt it necessary to play their respective roles for laughs. And it is funny - laugh out loud, leave with a s**t-eating perma-grin so people on the street look at you like you are crazy funny - but it is also deeply poignant and moving, no doubt a quality of the short story painstakingly preserved.

I won't rehash the plot here - it's available online if you need it. What's important - especially in light of how the plot sounds in synopsis - is that we aren't given the director and actors' tongue in cheek interpretation of the story. It may sound outlandish and absurd, but by god, they're going to tell it to you with a straight face and the sort of free expression that comes from everyone thinking they're crazy anyway. As a result, if there's melodrama or comedy or camp, it's in our own minds, in our jaded knee-jerk reaction to too many popcorn screwball comedies. This story is about a mummy the same way Pogue and Cronenberg's THE FLY is about a guy turning into a fly - that is to say, superficially, but other than that, not at all. BUBBA HO-TEP is about redemption, age, wisdom, the chances we don't take, the friends who are true friends, and how any little thing that matters to us can galvanize us to accomplish feats we never thought possible, and that no one would expect of us.

The film is an adaptation of Joe R. Lansdale's Bram Stoker Award nominee short story. However, the best way I can describe it is to say that Stephen King is all over this thing, in the best way imaginable - not the Stephen King of the mainstream cinema, reduced to single "thriller" or "horror" or "coming of age" genres, but the Stephen King of the page, funny, scary, campy, and deadly serious by turns, with perfectly-timed reversals and reprieves.

I am still smiling as I write this. Without question, BUBBA HO-TEP is the best film I have seen in 2003. Hail to the King, baby.

Don Juan DeMarco (1994)

unabashedly amorous and sweet

[7/10 · 13 August 2003]

DON JUAN DEMARCO lives in the comedy section at my local Blockbuster. I suppose that is the best place for it; it does not suffer under the weight of its psychiatric-evaluation plot device, is exultant and exhilarating, and includes some truly laugh out loud funny lines.

For the most part, though, DJDM is a romantic fable with lessons not just for men (about how to seduce a woman touching nothing but her hand, for example), but for women as well (about how romance can exist in our everyday lives, even if we never encounter Don Juan).

Johnny Depp plays Don Juan DeMarco, the world's greatest lover - a 21 year old man in Queens, NY when we meet him. He has nothing left to live for and climbs to the top of a billboard to await a worthy adversary who will end

his life. Instead, he gets a somnambulistic psychiatrist on the verge of retirement (Marlon Brando), who convinces him to come down and promptly commits him for observation.

In tone, the film is similar to CHOCOLAT (which also stats Depp) and LIKE WATER FOR CHOCOLATE; its environment of a psychiatric hospital where the young Don Juan must prove his sanity reminds me of the grandfather in A PRINCESS BRIDE. It gives us a point of reference in our own world and prevents the unbridled romanticism of Don Juan's monologues from getting out of hand.

No man other than Depp could sit squarely in this modern-world fishbowl and deliver the lines of Don Juan. He insisted on working with Brando on the film, but he outshines the cinema icon in every shared shot. His physical beauty is less important than his utter sincerity - a sincerity so convincing that even my "I hate chick flicks" husband can watch with a straight face and come away in a better mood.

As Don Juan says, "there are only four questions of value in life: What is sacred? Of what is the spirit made? What is worth living for? What is worth dying for?" By the end of the film, he has proven his point: "the answer to each is the same - only love." Not that the story answers all of its own questions...

Is Don Juan a pathological liar and a schizophrenic? Is he troubled but sincere? Does Brando's Dr. Mickler really get conflicting evidence from Don Juan's family, or has he slipped into a daydream fueled by his desire to recapture the part of himself Don Juan represents? No matter how many times I see the film, I end up believing *in* Don Juan, even if I do not *believe* him.

DJDM gets a 7 in spite of being one of my favorite films. The reason: Brando can be nearly intolerable at times, but Depp picks up his slack. Highly recommended to romantics of all ages - one of the sexiest movies in my collection, despite its PG rating.

And Your Mother Too (2001)

Coming of age in any country

[10/10 · 3 August 2003]

On this, the opening weekend of the third AMERICAN PIE movie, I voted with my feet and instead chose to watch a different coming of age film - Alfonso Cuaron's Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN. Why I waited so long, I don't know.

American filmmakers expend tremendous energy, dreaming up "coming of age" tales that center around the external, working-world-like concerns their young protagonists must face. In the end, they are often just writing forced metaphors for the sexual awakening that ushers a young person into the social world of adults. When AMERICAN PIE came out, it was hailed for its honesty and its likeable characters. It's such a telling example of what is wrong with American cinema that the fim's rating came down to how many thrusts Jason Biggs was allowed to give a pie.

Doubtless, some American viewers will either find MAMA too prurient to contain any value, or they will be so uncomfortable as to laugh at all the wrong times. But Cuaron has made a film in which we are encouraged to laugh, to hold our breaths in anticipation, to feel the blows to the gut of betrayal and to remember our own most painful experiences of sexual awakening. This is the story of two young men who are full of hormones and lust; they create and idealize rules of behavior for themselves that they cannot possibly satisfy.

It is also the story of Luisa, an older though not much wiser woman, who takes a journey through rural Mexico and sexual maturation with them. Her intentions are questionable, and even when we learn that she sought to affirm her own sense of life, we wonder if she was careless in the way she went about it. The film will not answer this question for us, which by itself would earn it the kiss of death from American censors. Luisa is the catalyst throughout the story, and it is only at the end that we become aware of her own journey as well. Maribel Verdu's frank, playful and layered performance is likewise the glue that keeps the story on track.

Cuaron makes an important documentary about rural Mexico in between the lines of his trio's road trip. The voice-over narration is critical for American viewers to understand the subtext; and for some reason, Mexican directors can pull off this conceit that feels like a cop-out in american movies (as in COMO AGUA PARA CHOCOLATE). As with the story of the three protagonists, this documentary is not judgmental, but it raises difficult questions and demands consideration.

What surprised me most, an hour after the film had concluded, was that I found myself in tears as the ramifications of the film's events pieced themselves together in my mind. My actual sexual experiences may not have mirrored those of the characters, but I and many of my generation have been down the road where the mysticism, power and necessity of intimacy are painfully defined through trial and error. More than anything else, Cuaron captures not just the honesty of this journey, but the hard truths that result from it. And yet, the truths I took away were the ones I knew already, as I am sure they will be for each individual viewer.

Viewers who are offended by sexual behavior we are all told is "wrong" will miss out on the beauty of this film, but I do not recommend it to them. Instead, I reserve my high recommendation for those who can understand that sex is part of life, and of growing up - and who can appreciate fine filmmaking that does not sidestep that great truth. Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN joins my very short list of 10/10 ratings.

Benny & Joon (1993)

whimsical and affectionate, like its characters

[9/10 · 3 August 2003]

BENNY & JOON seems, at its heart, to be an allegory about the different ways people can be out of touch with their fellow human beings, and the ways in which that dischord can be healed.

Benny owns an auto shop and takes care - both financially and physically - of himself and his sister Joon after the death of their parents. Other than weekly poker games, Benny's is a life of servitude, and this is the source of his isolation. He longs to be free to have other relationships, but is wracked by guilt at the idea of leaving Joon in anyone else's care.

Joon is an artist and is also mentally ill, a schizophrenic who has good and bad days and who depends on Benny to provide routine in her life. She has run out every housekeeper to be found in town, but cannot function without assistance and supervision. The film does a superb job of differentiating between mental illness (from which Joon clearly suffers) and stupidity (which is not a problem she faces).

Into their lives comes Sam, a cousin of one of Benny's poker buddies. Through a clever conceit, Sam moves in with Benny and Joon. Sam is undereducated, partially illiterate but a comedic genius who studies Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton, knows catalogs of old movies, and has perfected the art form (kudos to Depp for the grace and conviction of this part of his performance). Like Keaton and the great silent film stars, Sam rarely speaks to communicate, and this combined with his illiteracy condemns him to be considered stupid as well. The great sneaker quality of Depp's performance is to show that Sam is always watching, always listening, and that he's no dim bulb by any stretch.

In Sam, Joon finds a person who makes her laugh, lives by his own rules, and cares for her deeply. In Joon, Sam finds a woman who appreciates him as he is, but he also knows a relationship with her is taboo. In a particularly revealing scene, he asks Benny, as one man to another, "How sick is she?" We know he is wrestling with his feelings for her, but Benny does not, and his offhanded answer comes across as callous and almost mocking.

While the handling of Sam and Joon's budding relationship may seem trite, and the humor applied to Joon's illness might seem cruel, in my experience the people who make those judgments know little about living day to day with a mentally ill - not to be confused with unintelligent - human being. There is deep and abiding truth in the idea that laughter and love can cure the incurable; people who seemed unable to function before can make great strides when they are shown trust and respect. And although the psychiatric issues were glossed over in this film, it has at its core an honest message of hope. One of my favorite films, for Depp and Masterson's outstanding performances and a true depiction of imperfect people on the journey to becoming whole. 9/10

Equilibrium (2002)

Enjoyable, but heavy-handed and flawed

[7/10 · 2 August 2003]

EQUILIBRIUM features an unexpectedly strong performance from Christian Bale, great production design, an ambitious concept, and an admirable moral. Its hyper-real and accelerated fight scenes, featuring both martial arts and gun battle, are the prettiest violence I have seen outside of Keanu Reeves' and Carrie Anne Moss' wirework in the Matrix films.

This is the story of a near-future world in which the aftermath of World War 3 brought about the mandatory usage of a drug called Prozium, a drug that dulls the feelings of hate and jealousy, as well as their polar opposite, love. There is no place for art or indulgences; it is difficult to determine what the members of this supposedly utopian society do each day, except in the case of those who enforce the mandatory daily dose of the drug, and of those who make it.

Enter John Preston, a cleric who enforces the laws against "sense offense", and who also possesses the skill of detection - which any human in our world can instantly name as empathy.

Unfortunately, EQUILIBRIUM displays the telltale symptoms of a film conceived as a moral statement around which a story was constructed.

John Preston's new partner shows far too much zeal for a man devoid of feeling; John's son is too fanatical to be under the influence of mind-controlling drugs. At the core of this fable is the flawed logic that humans without emotion (and therefore without ambition or fear) could construct and enforce a system of involuntary control over other human beings.

In all honesty, I followed, enjoyed, and was not disappointed by the two hours I spent with this film. I give it 7/10 for the strong production and performances. But I strongly recommend the much superior GATTACA for a near-future utopian film of the recent past, as well as 1984 and FAHRENHEIT 451 - classics of the genre. And a far more carefully considered fable of better living through chemistry can be found by reading Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World".

The Ninth Gate (1999)

average work from Polanski and Depp

[6/10 · 2 August 2003]

Some readers may feel this review contains minor spoilers.

THE NINTH GATE is in many ways a typical Roman Polanski film - an examination of flawed people with weaknesses of greed, whether that greed be for power or money. The main character, Dean Corso, is a rare book dealer who knows his profession well, but seemingly out of necessity. His behavior around the legendary and unique volumes he trafficks is careless to the point of making me cringe - smoking, reading a priceless text in train's a dining car with a glass of wine inches away. This is perhaps the only subtle method in which his character is fleshed out - the rest of our opinion of him comes from exposition so unnecessary that he actually attempts to shush a client prattling on about his unscrupulous, cutthroat business practices, echoing my own feeling about the dialogue.

Corso is sent to authenticate a Satanic text for a client who is one step ahead of him. He finds his life in danger almost immediately, and makes a half-hearted attempt to back out - ultimately, another throwaway scene that does more to confuse our opinion of him than clarify it.

I half expected the DVD of this film to contain the mysterious missing scenes that would make up the thrilling part of this thriller. I have no complaints about the pacing of the film, which draws on Hitchcock and film noir as its influences; it is appropriate and used properly. However, I never found myself invested in the journey of Dean Corso to the extent I should have been, and most of all, I felt as though the second act's manipulation of my opinion - making Corso a sympathetic character - was a wasted exercise. What we do not see is the transformation into the Dean Corso at the end of the film, and if we are supposed to believe his final course of action, he should have remained a constant, or else we should have seen his revelation. Instead, I was left at the end wondering when and how he changed his course and goal, though I saw clearly what it had become.

In the featurette that accompanies the film on DVD, Depp talks about enjoying characters to whom the audience reacts with changing opinion. He has a firm grasp of how the story should have progressed, but unfortunately, I feel that Polanski lacked that same perspective, and the film suffers for it. 6/10 for tremendous production values, a beautiful score, and strong performances of all the primary characters in a story that ultimately fails to satisfy.

From Hell (2001)

pretty and boring

[4/10 · 2 August 2003]

This misguided attempt to bring a beautiful graphic novel to the screen hopes that viewers will be so blown away by its visual richness, they will forgive its weak execution of story. Not to be confused with plot - which, from the graphic novel, is unique and intriguing - story is the execution of the plot, and in this film it fails miserably.

Perhaps the Hughes Brothers felt they had to write down to a level below their own intellect, or feared their film would be disliked if the average moviegoer didn't understand what was going on before the characters reached the same conclusions. But this dumbing down amounts to a film with no character-centered surprises, and a surprise based on what feels like a red herring plot twist leaves me very cold indeed.

Within the first twenty minutes I had deduced the identity of the man Fred Abberline was hunting, and I literally spent the next two hours waiting to be proven wrong. My disappointment at finding that the big surprise was not who, but rather why, knew no bounds. If this is the device by which to save an already-solved murder mystery, it must resonate as a shock and a means to empathize with the murderer. It is the fault of the screenriters' and directors' execution that this ending, which is so shocking and powerful in the graphic novel, falls flat and feels unfinished here.

Johnny Depp's layered portrayals can save nearly any film from the wasteland of 5-and-below ratings, but here he is powerless to resurrect the story. He is not given enough to do, though what he does, he does well. Unfortunately, the filmmakers set him up as a fool, which the character clearly is not, and this takes the legs out from under Depp's redeeming power.

Spoilers follow:

By limiting the history, background, and purpose of the Freemasons to a couple of pretty but empty scenes, the viewer is robbed of any investment in the institution as a character in its own right. Moore's twist on Jack the Ripper as a politically motivated murderer, rather than the first modern serial killer, is a truly unique perspective deserving of a read. But the graphic novel, though you may know the ending of the film, will still surprise you, and I recommend it as an antidote to any disappointment you experienced here. 4/10

25th Hour (2002)

fantastic performances in a meandering collage (minor spoilers)

[6/10 · 29 July 2003]

In "25th Hour", we follow Monty Brogan (Edward Norton) through his last day as a free man before a 7 year maximum security sentence. Brogan is a drug dealer - his economic status reflects a man who has done we'll for himself for a long time. This last-day device plays fast and loose with legal procedure, since someone convicted of his crime would not likely be free, nor would he still have his posh apartment. As a result, I wondered from the beginning if the entire story was a fantasy sequence, but the numerous fantasy-sequence narratives throughout suggest we should believe this is in fact his reality.

Putting that aside: Brogan spends his last day walking his dog, visiting his father, and arranging to spend an evening with his girlfriend Naturelle and his two oldest friends, Elinsky (a teacher) and Slaughtery (a stockbroker). We are provided tantalizing glimpses into Elinsky and Slaughtery's characters that ultimately do little to inform their perspectives on Brogan's situation, but make up interesting subplots nonetheless, and give both actors the opportunity to flex their acting muscles.

I have not read Benioff's novel, though I suspect it is excellent. Unfortunately, in adapting the tale for the screen, he demonstrates that he is a writer who depends on his prosaic skill to help him through weak points in his story. It feels as though he wanted to ensure his favorite bits of writing made it into the film whole, and although the two longest monologues are powerfully delivered and well written, they take the short (or long, as the case may be) route to illustrate character development by amounting to minutes of exposition. Film is the medium in which a story unfolds before the viewer, who is called upon to ascribe meaning to what's seen. Little opportunity to draw our own conclusions is provided when it comes to internal conflict, and instead the ambiguity lies in the actual events that take place. I consider this the essential weakness of "25th Hour".

Spike Lee plays Benioff's game with montages and clever devices to illustrate the long speaking pieces. But these are devices Lee is known for, and I don't think he stretches too much as a director in this picture. (To be fair, if I wanted a director to do a good job with my dialogue-heavy character study, I would call on Tarantino or Smith; I suspect Benioff worked with Lee because he knew his vision of his novel would be respected.)

A truly excellent musical score runs throughout the film, slightly more than background but ageless enough that it will not seem dated later.

If Lee had taken the initiative to give us some kind of character arc for any of the film's characters, my rating would be much higher. But the conflicts Brogan faces are weakened because we have too much information; there is never a sense of urgency because his suspicions of his betrayer are refuted at every turn. When we do learn the truth, we do not have enough invested in that character's identity to be shocked or even relieved. This makes the pace flag and the end seem anticlimactic. Perhaps it is supposed to be - maybe the point is that the last day of freedom is just a day like any other day and the end of it is still the end, but I need more from a film's story to really be satisfied.

I give "25th Hour" a 6 for strong performances, with a cautious recommendation that it is worth seeing once, but probably not again.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

A summer blockbuster that will stand the test of time

[9/10 · 27 July 2003]

It's bizarre, if you think about it.

Millions of people are crowding theaters to see a movie about pirates - that famously dead genre that nonetheless gets resurrected by a studio executive every few years, to the same crushing defeat. Yet "Pirates" is slipping by minor percentages each week in the box office, outperforming sure-fire blockbusters that opened after it did, and garnering repeat viewings in what must be record numbers.

How did this happen?

Start with two brilliant character actors who are both over-the-top and yet utterly within character, and who shine in equal measure when they share the screen: Johnny Depp and the not-oft-enough-mentioned Geoffrey Rush.

Add the archetypal forbidden romance between members of different social caste, who have loved one another since childhood and yet are destined to be apart.

Throw in a swashbuckling score, plenty of well-executed swordplay, great special effects and enough humor to keep all the melodrama from eliciting groans.

These are the elements of a box office phenomenon.

For those of us who look for more in our movies than "that was fun", there's plenty to keep us in our seats (or get us back in our seats, as was the case with me):

The story is intricate, the legend well-developed and fully explained, and the execution consistent. I've heard every question raised pertaining to the plot of this film, and every one of them is answered within the film. I think those subtle details get missed because there's not a tremendous amount of exposition - which would bog down the movie's pace. Instead, other than a comic diatribe describing the curse of the Black Pearl, we must get our information in bits and pieces, paying close attention to the movie throughout the entire running time. This is the hallmark of screenwriters who care, and who participated in the movie's development. It is also the result of a director who cares about story, and who insisted on getting it right all the way through.

In addition, there are moments of brilliant and unusual cinematography that keep the otherwise-tedious swordplay interesting. Watch the first swordfight between Will and Jack for all the background set details, the movement of the machinery in the blacksmith's shop, and the camera angles. Later, when the curse is in full evidence, the seamless special effects provide visual spice throughout the longer sequences.

On second viewing, the score was a bit heavy-handed (though nowhere near the constant amusement-park calliope of the "Harry Potter" films), and really, it's allowed - we must remember that this film is in part an homage to the ride at the Disney theme parks, and the music is a great way to give a nod to that feeling.

I'll agree that the final 20 minutes or so of the film lag a wee bit - there's one more skeleton-pirates-fighting-melee scene than I personally needed, and everything after that is clearly set up for a sequel. But I won't say I didn't enjoy those 20 minutes, nor can I point to any single part of them that I think the film would have been better without.

I'm a movie buff, but I'm picky. This one will be in my collection, and frequently re-watched, when the DVD comes out. And I have this funny feeling I'll be back to the theater again before it leaves the big screens. 9/10

Gangs of New York (2002)

A watchable offering that wanders too much

[7/10 · 27 July 2003]

I confess embarrassment that I had not seen this film until it came out on video. Having a 2 year old can present obstacles to seeing a film so pervasively violent in the theater.

Thus, fresh from the DVD viewing, three things come immediately to mind:

1. I am really glad I could pause this and go to the bathroom. I may not have gone back into the theater if I'd purchased a large soda and found myself unable to stay until the end.

2. A budget this big, and this many huge names on both sides of the camera, have made a beautiful and epic movie that loses its way in the story and would never have been greenlighted with a first time director.

3. The fact that this part of American history has been swept under the rug for most publicly-educated citizens makes it hard to follow and even harder to swallow.

Regarding the first point - "epic" can mean sweeping and engaging, or it can be a polite way of saying "really frigging long". Kind of like a one-bedroom, half-bath beach house is "cozy" or "charming". Off the top of my head, I can map out perhaps 15 real story beats, but a great deal of superfluous environment creation is going on that makes the film 3 hours long. I was so unclear as to the protagonist's intentions during the second act of the film, I had no idea when or if we were going to get to the end. And when we did, it wasn't in the environment I expected, and the payoff was diluted. If this were based on a true story, I'd accept it, but the fictional characters were developed inside the structure of history, so there's no reason why we couldn't get the kind of ending the buildup seemed to promise.

Regarding the second point - I think Scorcese was really allowed to run with this. I know there are rumors that huge parts of the film were cut out, but if that's the case, the fault lies with the director for not cutting the right things. He seems enamored of the period in history - as I would probably be if I had researched it extensively - but the development of characters suffers for it. We are left to draw our own conclusions about what should be carrying the plot: the people we are offered as our points of view.

Regarding the third point - I have no idea how to solve this issue. It's not a movie about a single rarely-discussed battle in a war we all know about tangentially. It's a movie about (a) religiously-divided gangs in 19th century New York City, (b) fierce nationalism in a newly formed country ,(c) the political and social implications of a draft in a society of newly-arrived immigrants, and (d) a revenge tale carried out across generations between two men impacted by points a-c above. If this had not been Scorcese, and if he had not gotten DiCaprio and Day-Lewis and Diaz, this film would never have gotten off the ground. It could have used some pruning before it did.

With all of those complaints out of the way, I still gave this movie a 7 (and this is high for me - I rarely award 9's; only three 10's are in my entire IMDb voting history). The costuming and set design are fascinating. The battle scenes are bloody, and they might seem over the top, but I suspect that's what it looked like when people hacked each other to death using large handheld implements. The acting is stellar in some cases (Day-Lewis is great, although not as astounding as I expected from the reviews) and passable in others (DiCaprio has relatively little to do, given the fact that I don't feel his character develops, but he's good at what he's doing). I can't comment on Diaz's performance because it feels as though her character's entire arc was cut out of the film, leaving only a series of random actions that don't seem consistent. I think I give it this rating because it did eventually get around to closure, and it showed tremendous attention to detail. I just didn't like how it got there, and I wondered if some of the detail clouded the overall point.

Story is king in great movies. "Gangs" is good, but not great.

7/10

Phone Booth (2002)

Not so much wrong as not right...

[6/10 · 27 July 2003]

PHONE BOOTH is an interesting film-school exercise adapted for the big screen with a big star. Its short running time is merciful, although my complaint is not with the performance of Farrell, who is required to carry the movie entirely on his shoulders and manages admirably.

My major issue is that the film's hook - that of spending 84 minutes watching Stu talking on the phone with a madman - calls for irritating split-screen and picture-in-picture execution, which is used continuously until we're accustomed to it. Then, for no reason that I can discern, the director abandons the device for long stretches of time - 45 seconds, a minute - during which the protagonist, as near as I can tell, does nothing.

I could overlook how fast and loose the story plays with police procedure (no photographs taken of a body at the scene before it's carted off in a coroner's van, for example), but not how fast and loose it plays with its own supposed theme. (Potential spoilers follow.) We are supposed to believe that Stu is in the same league with other victims of this sniper, who seem to have deserved their executions; however, Stu is neither so nice as to gain our sympathy nor so bad as to deserve what he's getting. The point of the film, therefore, seems to be that "everyone is guilty of something and will hate themselves for it if enough pressure is applied." I'm not sure I needed to spend 84 minutes of my life being told that.

This may be worth watching for Farrell's performance, depending upon whether you're a fan, but I don't recommend it as a great film. 6/10.

Primal Fear (1996)

a must-see film for Norton's performance

[7/10 · 9 July 2003]

Edward Norton earned his stripes in this crime thriller that sees him transform from actor to character. Although I will voice criticisms in this review, I must start by stating that any serious movie fan should see the film for Norton's performance. It is a benchmark by which all young modern actors can be judged.

Although other films do a better job of portraying the intricacies of courtroom drama, and the police procedures are shoddily written, those elements are not the heart of this movie; struggles for power - Gere's Vail struggling for notoriety, Linney's Janet struggling for independence, Norton's Stampler struggling for control of his own destiny - are central, and play against one another to form the momentum of the plot. That they play out in court seems merely to be a function of several of the protagonists' chosen profession as lawyers.

Aaron Stampler is arrested, covered in blood, after he flees the scene of an archbishop's murder. True to 1996 California (I know, I was there), the chase and capture was carried live on several local news stations. Stampler's guilt is a foregone conclusion in the public eye, despite his lack of a criminal history or any apparent motive. His presumed guilt is unimportant to the publicity-seeking Vail; indeed, it's established in the opening scene that Vail would rather not know his clients' status of guilt or innocence. He finds himself compelled by the stuttering, soft-spoken Stampler, though, and we sense that this conviction of a client's innocence might be a wholely new experience for him.

This part of Gere's performance is subtle, nuanced and ultimately believable. Where he misses the mark is in his interactions with his former partner (Linney), to whom he merely condescends and bats his eyelashes when he's not trying out his stable of lawyerly tricks on her. For her part, Linney plays Janet as a woman in over her head; how she got to her position seems unclear given her shaky portrayal of a supposedly confident prosecutor. What should be tension between her and Gere instead plays as wooden discomfort. It's hard to understand from what we see on the screen why Gere still pursues her.

John Mahoney plays the DA Shaughnessy, a man with too many private pursuits to be a public servant. He is a believably rancorous old boy, and it's a pleasure to see him sharp and unflinching. Younger viewers who know him from Frasier will be shocked by this layered portrayal.

Alfre Woodard also provides great support as the presiding judge, and earns our respect by keeping Vail in check when he's flamboyant, but ultimately being fair.

If you're prone to nitpicking the details of a police procedural, Primal Fear is likely to give you fits, but despite the 7 I rated it, I still believe it's a referential and influential film, not to be missed.

Office Space (1999)

Does for office workers what "Clerks" did for clerks...

[8/10 · 30 June 2003]

I don't feel so guilty for laughing in spite of myself at Beavis and Butt-head, now that I've seen what else Mike Judge can do.

This review contains minor spoilers.

"Office Space" is the story of Peter Gibbons, a mild-mannered software engineer in a mid-sized company, and his two co-worker friends: the unfortunately-named Michael Bolton and the unpronounceable Samir Nayeenanajar. I take issue with other reviews and synopses that say this movie is about getting revenge for being laid off - that's such a pedestrian view of the situation. At least 75% of this movie is about office life seen through the eyes of someone who manages to be mentally removed from the office grind and politics - and it's in this realm where we find the most comedy and insight.

You see, a hypnotic suggestion makes Peter permanently believe all of his work-related cares are unimportant. Office politics and job performance no longer matter.

I believe that only a disaffected office worker can truly understand and enjoy this film - we are the ones who double over laughing with tears streaming down our faces, the ones who nod mutely in sympathy and agreement, the ones who quote it day in and day out, even when you have no idea we're doing it. But there is plenty of humor here for everyone, including Jennifer Aniston's perfectly-toned turn as a waitress at Chotchkie's ("wait, I think I can see a T.G.I. Friday's menu in the background of that shot!") Restaurant, and Stephen Root's impeccable performance as Milton Waddams, the man nobody got around to firing.

"Office Space" is for office workers the way "Clerks" is for retail employees. It knows all the in jokes, feels your pain, and crosses the line just far enough to be exhilarating when you get to watch someone do what you've always wanted but never been able to do.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this movie - which has been viewed so many times in our house we might actually wear out the DVD - is how it feels like it's maintaining a level of calm and a deliberate pace (despite the outlandish events throughout). This is a testament to Mike Judge's skill as both writer and director - he infuses the entire film with the peace and serenity Peter gains through his hypnotic suggestion, in the midst of the madness.

A true sleeper, a cult classic, and in my opinion, a 9 out of 10.

Kiki's Delivery Service (1989)

Two brilliant but different films on the DVD

[29 June 2003]

I saw "Kiki's Delivery Service" for the first time on the Disney Channel, and fell in love - with the story, whose pace is perfect and whose events are natural progressions rather than overblown set pieces, and with the characters, who evoke sympathy and pride as they travel through the tale. In the Disney-released American version, Kirsten Dunst voices the plucky young Kiki, leaving home at the age of 13 to hone a special skill for a year in accordance with the tradition of witches. Her best friend and traditional black-cat sidekick Jiji is voiced by Phil Hartman as a cautionary (bordering on neurotic) counterfoil to Kiki's optimism, providing comic relief and a sounding board for Kiki - except at the most critical time in her growth. My love for Phil Hartman's legacy is such that I find a lump in my throat whenever I hear his voice, and I treasure this film for his performance.

Compared to Miyazaki's more recent films released stateside, this is a tame though no less imaginative tale. It is appropriate for even the youngest of children, and I am constantly amazed (as with all Miyazaki films) by the quality and depth of the animated world. Kiki's chosen city is an acultural mix of European and Japanese coastal towns, realized in minute detail. The theme of flight, also present in every Miyazaki movie, is central here - it is Kiki's lone skill as a young witch, and the one she must use to make a life for herself. She faces a crisis of confidence that can be solved only with her own patience and the gentle guidance of an artist who has also faced challenges in her life's most important skill.

When I purchased the special-edition DVD, I experienced a second film! This DVD includes the original Japanese language track with English subtitles. Although reading the subtitles takes away from the opportunity to enjoy the art, it's worth doing at least once. Miyazaki's original movie contains very little of the "adventurer and sidekick" Disney formula that was implemented in the American version. True, Kiki and Jiji are alone together in their journey, but Miyazaki's Jiji is a quieter, gentler guide with less of a personal agenda. When watching the American version, note how rarely Jiji is in the frame when Hartman is speaking dialogue (this is true for Dunst as well - she has far more lines than the Japanese Kiki), and how on occasion we hear Hartman and see Jiji but Jiji's speaking is not animated. The original Japanese version has great tolerance for silence, both in terms of dialogue and musical interlude. It is calmer, more natural, more willing to let us see the two characters in the comfortable solitude of lifelong friendship while they explore a new place.

I can't claim, having known and loved the American version first, that one film is superior to the other - they are strikingly different. Owning the DVD has given me the opportunity to experience and love them both. No doubt this movie will remain a favorite in our family's large collection of animated children's movies, both American and Japanese.

Like Water for Chocolate (1992)

Gorgeous cinematic experience that defies categorization

[10/10 · 26 June 2003]

Perhaps it is fortunate that I saw "Como agua para chocolat" before I read the novel on which it was based; too often I hear criticism of the film not living up to the book, and feel badly for the viewers who were so busy comparing the two in their minds that they were unable to enjoy what was, for me, one of the best cinematic experiences of my life.

I learned from "Como agua para chocolat" that American movies are constrained by their existence in a single genre. This film is a drama, an achingly tragic romance, a lighthearted comedy, and a fairy tale. It gives equal screen time to each element, without gravity during the "realistic" scenes nor too much levity during the "fantasy" sequences. It tells the story of Tita, the youngest daughter of a wealthy landowning Mexican family, whose fate according to tradition is to care for her mother and live a spinster's life. It is Tita's misfortune to fall in love with - and be loved by - a man she cannot have; he chooses to marry her eldest sister in order to be able to remain in the house with her. The film follows Tita through this pain, her mental breakdown, her return to sanity and her displaced love for her American doctor, who she later marries. It threatens to climax with a happy ending we know we don't deserve, and even when it turns dark, we're left with a sense all the main characters got exactly what they wanted in the end. In an American movie, these actions would either have consequences (and therefore be a drama), or they'd be farcical (and it would be a romantic comedy). Alfonso Arau gives us a history lesson, told with Laura Esquivel's wry wit and deep emotion.

The cinematography and direction are also outstanding; sweeping Mexican landscapes ground the film in both time and place while reverence is paid to the traditions that form the basis of the story. An achingly beautiful sequence details the dressing of the marriage bed for Tita's sister and her new husband. Later, Tita's madness is gently revealed when she is shown staying awake nights knitting a blanket, and is later carted away to a sanitarium wrapped in that same blanket, which trails behind her horse-drawn carriage well beyond the edge of the frame.

Some of the cinematography is lost when reading the subtitles with the film, but I strongly recommend watching this DVD with English subtitles (rather than the English dub) if you do not speak Spanish. There is a richness of delivery in the Spanish dialogue that does not translate in the dub.

I read Laura Equivel's novel several years after I first saw this film, and cooking plays a much greater part in the novel than the film. However, I believe the film wisely centers on the human emotion of its human protagonists, and I am glad the adaptation was in the original author's hands. She knew what she was up to all along.

Sid and Nancy (1986)

Masterful performances by Oldman and Webb

[9/10 · 23 June 2003]

When I was 15, I loved this movie because I loved the Sex Pistols and everything punk. Now that I am twice that age, I love this film for its unflinching portrayal of two people's lives, despite how uncomfortable it makes us, how little we sympathize with them as people, or how hard it is for us to comprehend the choices they made. I personally believe at least part of the discomfort comes from the fact that at some level, we DO understand Sid and Nancy, their love for each other, and the choices they make beneath the haze of addiction.

I realize, seeing it with adult eyes, why my parents were so shocked I was watching this film in 1987. But ironically, it was the best anti-drug message I could have seen in my teenage years. In performances so masterful they make me wince, fight off nausea, and weep for their misfortune, Gary Oldman and Chloe Webb constructed characters no one would ever want to be. The supporting cast deserves accolades as well - in particular, Andrew Schofield turns in a seamless portrayal of Johnny Rotten, who, unlike Sid, knows full well Malcolm MacLaren created him.

Having read "And I Don't Want To Live This Life" by Debora Spungen, and having seen more than a handful of documentaries with live footage of the band throughout the years, what impressed me most was the consistency of tone that Oldman and Webb bring to their performances. They are spot-on, not just in stupor and excess, but in tenderness and rare moments of clarity. The movie's ending was unique among biopics where the truth is in dispute, in that it did not profess to know the answer to that burning question (did Sid kill Nancy?) any more than Sid knew himself.

Why watch a film about a couple of junkies who came from unremarkable backgrounds and disappeared into the bleakness of drug addiction? We seem to want our films to be about something loftier than ourselves. I view "Sid and Nancy" more as a play than a movie - we allow our plays to be about uncomfortable subjects and unhappy people, but seem to think that celluloid must be as bright as the projector light behind it. This film is a study in love and dysfunction; its characters are painfully imperfect but perfectly portrayed and we cannot help but respond, even if our response is the deep, squirming discomfort that leads us to say we disliked the whole experience.

I rated this film a very rare 9.

Never Cry Wolf (1983)

A voyeuristic pleasure with a valuable message

[9/10 · 3 June 2003]

This movie premiered at an age in my life when I was fascinated with wolves and their impact on nature - at 10 years old, I met a researcher while on a trip with my parents who actually lived with wolves for 9 months out of the year. On his recommendation I read Farley Mowat's "Never Cry Wolf" and finagled my theater-phobic parents into taking me to see the film shortly thereafter.

Its impact on me, partially because of my love for the subject matter, has been lifelong.

Although the film does not always capture the humor of Mowat's narrative, it does a brilliant job of portraying, with patience that may grate on the nerves of blockbuster-seasoned moviegoers, the experience of its protagonist. Complaints that the film does not focus enough on the wolves are understandable, but the book and the movie are about one man's journey to understanding the wolf's place in a natural ecosystem. He must learn to be like them, understand their behavior (which mirrors humans' in so many ways), and ultimately choose a loyalty to one or the other species.

It is advisable that the viewer adopt expectations similar to those for a National Geographic documentary, although the story is only loosely based in fact. Sometimes things happen slowly in the arctic. Sometimes they don't happen at all, or the things that happen are not what you'd want out of the "plot". Cinematography and the environment are stunning. Charles Martin Smith's Tyler is a regular guy, without spectacular heroics (but brave enough to tackle activities "Fear Factor" contestants won't touch for a pile of money).

Because it was filmed entirely on location and without pretense of special effects, its visuals stand up very well in comparison to the films of today. Its pace is the sticking point that will make it unpalatable to some viewers, but I give it a rarely-awarded 9 rating for its beauty, social conscience and thorough enjoyability, taking away 1 point only for its somewhat heavy-handed finale that is less palatable than Mowat's original message.

Finding Nemo (2003)

Thoroughly enjoyable, but the sum does not equal the parts.

[8/10 · 2 June 2003]

Fresh off a viewing in a packed theater of kids and parents, my initial impression of "Finding Nemo" was that I had a great time throughout, but don't necessarily remember why. The film is similar to the "Toy Story" pacing, in that we follow two different protagonists in their attempt to return to one another. In brief summary, Marlin the overprotective father clownfish must overcome his own fear of open ocean to try and find his only son, Nemo, who has been captured by a diver and transplanted to an ocean-view dentist's office fish tank.

The visual impact of "Finding Nemo" is unparalleled in animated film. At its best, it compares to the experience of seeing the sweeping landscapes of "Fellowship of the Ring" for the first time - not until we own the DVD and my son has watched it a dozen times will I really have an opportunity to see the details crammed into the lush backgrounds of the coral reefs. It was noticeable, however, that frequent close-ups in open water were used to reduce the amount of time spent rendering those brilliant backgrounds. In comparison to Pixar films like "A Bug's Life", where every moment of the film includes rich textures and detailed background perspective, this seemed jarring at times. It should be noted that this is true to what the ocean looks like - if you're not diving in a coral reef, you are probably seeing a lot of floating detritus and gray water - but it's worth mentioning that the fish tank environment of Nemo and his fellow captives is, at times, more interesting than the open ocean.

Pixar took chances (or else saved money) with many of the voice actors used in the film. It was refreshing not to instantly "know" a voice was familiar in the case of many of the characters - all of them did a serviceable job, although the well-known actors also turned in some of the best performances. Ellen DeGeneres had no fear as the voice of Dory, gleefully pulling off vocal pratfalls that would have been hampered by someone else's sense of dignity. I can think of only one other actress - Julia Louis-Dreyfuss - who I think would have been able to do Dory well. Kudos to Ellen. Willem Dafoe is also noticeably brilliant as Gill, and it's a bonus that the animated character he plays is gorgeously realized. John Ratzenberger does a hysterical turn as the school of fish we all saw in the previews.

I am surprised at the number of characters whose voices are not credited in this film. I wanted to know, among others, who voiced Mr. Ray the schoolteacher and the trio of parents with whom Marlin banters.

I laughed out loud frequently and heartily throughout the film, but at the end, I looked back and wondered how those moments of amusement added to the story. Many people have commented that they loved the 12-step program for sharks ("Fish are our friends, not food!") but in the final analysis, it added very little to the arc and seemed out of character (I realize I'm stating the obvious). The frequently-dropped comedic digressions were the weak point in this picture, especially compared to "A Bug's Life", where the funniest moments of the film are all critical to the progress of the protagonist and impact the end of the story.

My 2 and a half year old son was frequently frightened to the point of crying out and grabbing on to me during the movie, and he followed the primary issues easily. At a particular moment in the film when things seemed hopeless, I heard dozens of young children beginning to cry. If your child is very affected by scary or dramatic moments in movies, you may want to talk with them about "pretend" versus "real" and prepare them for the eventuality that everything will turn out all right well before you go into the theater. His final analysis was that "the fish movie was good!" - so take it under advisement if you have kids of similar age.

I give "Finding Nemo" an 8 out of 10 on the strength of its visual lushness, its enjoyable voice work, and its moments of perfectly timed humor. It does not, in my opinion, match the strength as a *film* of earlier Pixar offerings, but even in its innocuous state, it's higher quality than most of the family films I've seen in the past 3 years.

Someone Like You (2001)

Missing the catalyst

[5/10 · 9 May 2003]

One can smell the Meg Ryan and Nora Ephraim essence lingering, though they've obviously left the room long ago, in this film that attempts to expose the commitment phobias of both men and women. If it had been as over the top as its visual emphasis on cattle and its crackpot neofeminist theory, this might have been a laugh-out-loud comedy - with a de-emphasis on the "romantic" part of the genre. By trying to give it a happy (and yet somehow ridiculously predictable) ending, it fails both as romance and comedy.

I can't fault the director for wanting to capitalize on the talents of Ashley Judd, Greg Kinnear, and Hugh Jackman, but the chemistry is non-reactive between Judd and Kinnear, and I suspect the only chemistry I saw in Jackman was the magnetism he wields regardless of the identity of his onscreen partner. Whatever catalyst - whether pure good acting rapport or device of script - was needed to make this film complete never got introduced. Judd seems lost and uneven as the befuddled and dumped Jane, deeply convincing only when she's sad and phoning it in when her character is supposed to be experiencing joy and love. The payoff at the end of the film - which you're expecting within the first 20 minutes - is too long in coming and too abbreviated to be worth the wait. The one true surprise of the film also comes too late to capitalize on the kind of tension and intrigue it might have allowed if revealed earlier.

On the other hand, it's the little touches that made watching the movie fun even while I was knitting my brow at its mistakes. (The very sensitive might consider the following spoilers.) There's nothing subtle about the womanizing Eddie living in a loft above a meat market, but it has its snicker value, as do the various shots of cows all throughout the film, underscoring Jane's "old cow" theory. There are some excellent musical choices, including a very surprising few bars of the Magnetic Fields' quirky ballad "Absolutely Cuckoo". Marisa Tomei's best-friend role is probably meant to provide counterpoint, but she really only succeeds at comic relief. Ellen Barkin is believable and enjoyable as the older, wiser woman of the film, although her viewpoint is relegated to a single speech and we develop an interest in her far too late.

Above all, this movie is watchable for Jackman's Eddie - I am not sure whether it was a choice or serendipity that, through the whole film, we can never quite bring ourselves to dislike him, despite how we are constantly led by the nose to believe we should.