Change Your Image
ncarmadilloman
Reviews
Le battement d'ailes du papillon (2000)
"Impossible to Grasp in One Sitting? You Tell Me!" (Not a Spoiler)
The first time I saw this film I wasn't entirely overwhelmed, but I did like it well enough to watch it again almost immediately. Thank goodness for that, because I've probably seen it four times now and each time I seem to see what translates to an almost entirely different movie. From numerous observations, my single most unexpected discovery is the fact that, along with the primary cast members, every single secondary character interacts in a minimum of two of the multiple, and seemingly unrelated, situations that are taking place.
In terms of a film with a story line that's nearly impossible to absorb in one sitting, I compare this to the 1985 flick "After Hours", which was directed by Martin Scorsese and is still one of my all time favorite comedies. Don't misunderstand though, while "Happenstance" is successfully comedic, romantic and dramatic, its primary function is based on the uncharacteristic cinematic element of coincidence. Oddly enough, on an initial basis, coincidence may be its most difficult trait to fully distinguish.
Hats off to those of you who were able too fully grasp the entire scope of intricate relationships and interconnecting roles of these characters in only one viewing session. However, if you've only seen it once I tend to believe that, like my first impression, you simply aren't aware of the degree to which they exist.
This may explain, at least in part, some of the commentary I've read that sum this up as a pretentious version of a poor man's "Amélie", (not the first of actress Audrey Tautou's more recent works to be accused of this). First of all, I'm still not exactly sure how to define the term pretentious in relation to a movie. Secondly, while subtle similarities do exist between these two films, they are far exceeded by their differences. Unfortunately, comparisons to her role as Amélie may be an unfair curse that haunts Tautou until she's completely successful in making a distinctive mark in other areas, as she began to do in the 2002 film "Dirty Pretty Things".
In my opinion, this is an all around success for writer & director, Laurent Firode's. The script is filled with creative energy and his directorial effort was enhanced greatly by a superb cast. Just remember, it's a very rewarding experience when you, yourself, learn to make an educated hypothesis to determine the movies that you're most likely to enjoy. From there, it's up to you to decide, without relying on the feedback and criticism of others, whether or not you really liked it.
The Killing Fields (1984)
"A Wonderful New Film for All Future Generations!" (Not a Spoiler)
This is a terrific biographical action drama set in an American conflict that few of us know anything at all about. Like its subject matter the film has crept into relative obscurity, despite its seven Academy Award Nominations, including one for Best Picture. It won in three of these seven categories, including Best Cinematography and Best Supporting Actor for Dr. Haing S. Ngor.
It takes place in the post Vietnam era, during the Cambodian Revolution when the Khmer Rouge took power and it provides us with a behind the scenes look the highly unpublicized American involvement. It's primarily based on the relationship that develops between Pulitzer Prize Winning New York Times Reporter, Sydney Schanberg and his guide, interpreter and fellow journalist Dith Pran, (Ngor). Sam Waterson, who received an Oscar Nomination for Best Actor in a Leading Role, portrays Schanberg, whose relentless determination leads to accusations and profound feelings of guilt for compromising the safety of Pran by delaying his evacuation.
Much of the remainder of cast is impressive as well. John Malkovich is splendid in the role of Al Rockoff, an American photographer on assignment with Schanberg, Julian Sands as British journalist Jon Swain and many others.
This is the film that taught me to put my closed captions, for the hearing, (and listening), impaired, to good use. Even with an exceptional home theater system, (which is probably as effective as any one found in the cinema in 1984), I found it impossible to understand much of the dialogue, due to the thick Cambodian accents. The second time I saw the film I used my captions, as needed, to be sure that I not only heard, but also understood every word. What's the old saying? It was like watching it again for the very first time. Since then it's been my policy that any movie worth watching twice is worth hearing once.
The graphic violence is extreme and in that respect, may well have paved the way to the future for such award winners as "Platoon" & "Black Hawk Down". I suspect that this is due, at least in part, to the fact that the screenplay was written based on the actual accounts from journalist who experienced this war from its frontlines. Schanberg & Pran, in particular, might just as well have been fighting themselves.
I no longer own this movie and it's been sometime since I last saw it, therefore I apologize if some of my facts are not in order. Prior to writing this I did make an effort to rent it, not so much to refresh my memory, but more to revisit an old friend. Unfortunately, it appears as though the largest video rental establishment in the Southeast has forgotten this flick as well, at least in their Charlotte stores. Part of the irony here is appropriated in the film's tagline, "Every so often, there is a film that is destined to be talked about and remembered for years to come". What I do remember, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is the fact that this is a magnificent film that depicts the horrors and extremities of war, while illustrating a genuinely interesting drama, as well as any I've ever seen.
Red Dragon (2002)
"Rules Are Made To Be Broken" (Revised to hopefully meet IMDb Criteria (Not A Spoiler)
Realistically, this is a good "middle of the road" suspense thriller. "Red Dragon" is a remake of the 1986 film "Manhunter", but more importantly it's the story that chronologically precedes "The Silence of the Lambs". While it's a far cry from being in the same league as it's immediate successor, it's a lot closer to being as good as "Silence" than it is to being as bad as "Hannibal".
My primary reason for commenting on this flick is to hopefully illustrate a point. It's a known fact that, with very few exceptions, it's far more rewarding to make your cinematic selections based on the directors, or even screenwriters of films that you previously admired, as opposed to the actors and actresses that appeared in them. Think about it, there are very few actors and actresses that produce quality works with any degree of consistency and unless they're directing the piece themselves, it's virtually impossible for them to have control in the overall outcome of its success or failure. In this film I found, by my standards, another one of the few exceptions to this rule.
Prior to watching this flick I was not familiar with its director Bret Ratner. However, in addition to Anthony Hopkins, there were three high profile actors, Edward Norton, Harvey Keitel and Ralph Fiennes that played prominent roles in the film. If I had thought specifically about this issue before watching, I probably would have given these three guys an equal chance of falling into that rare category of artist.
Unfortunately, only one of the three made the grade. Ralph Fiennes role, which will remain classified for the benefit of those of you who have not yet seen it, was head and shoulders above the performances of the remainder of the cast. Fiennes had almost no direct interaction with Norton and Keitel and it was difficult for me to believe that the same director was responsible for the final results of the separate scenes.
That's when it dawned on me, I've seen Fiennes, who is not extraordinarily versatile, in movies that I didn't particularly care for, but I've never seen him in an individual performance that I considered to be poor, or for that matter average.
Hopkins is impressive in yet another role as the cult character Hannibal "the Cannibal" Lecter, who is called upon by The FBI to assist in the apprehension of the culprit. Sound familiar? I thought so. Norton portrays a brilliant but traumatized FBI special agent and Keitel, Norton's boss, Jack Crawford, (Scott Glenn's role from "The Silence of the Lambs"). Although both of these guys get the job done in their respective roles, it seems at times as if they are doing nothing more than going through the motions, the results of which translate to performances that are average at best.
Help educate yourself by paying attention to the commonalties and consistencies of your favorite movies in terms of filmmakers, actors and actresses. This should ultimately result in a significant reduction of the time and money you waste at the theater and in front of the tube.
The Straight Story (1999)
"Extraordinarily Uncon-Lynch-tional!" (Not a Spoiler)
This is a biographical account of an amazing journey made by seventy-three year old Alvin Straight in the mid-nineteen nineties. Straight is struggling to come to terms with his own mortality when he learns that his estranged brother is also having health issues that may ultimately leave them with unresolved issues.
All of his associates seem to agree that Alvin remains of sound mind and, for the time being, that seems to be enough to counter balance his rapidly advancing physical deficiencies. That is until he reveals the unconventional and extremely dangerous method of travel that he plans to use to make the approximate three hundred and fifty mile trip to visit his brother Lyle.
I can't imagine that there's anyone in Hollywood who could have played the leading role of Alvin Straight better than Richard Farnsworth, whose performance earned him an Oscar Nomination for Best Actor. Sissy Spacek's portrayal of his mentally challenged daughter Rose, is phenomenal as well. They never pinpoint her affliction, but I'm guessing that it's some form of autism. She stutters badly and is somewhat slow-witted, but highly independent and has an uncanny knack for remembering facts, historical and otherwise. The brevity of her on screen appearance may well have been the only thing that kept her from receiving yet another Academy Award Nomination for her work here.
Prior to seeing the opening credits I had no knowledge, whatsoever, of the actual making of the film. When I saw the "G Rating"; I was surprised. When I saw that it was a Walt Disney Production, I was intrigued, but you could have knocked me over with a feather when I realized that David Lynch was its director.
This only helped to confirm what I'd felt all along. David Lynch's talents, in terms of style and imagery, are bound by nothing, including his lack of involvement in the writing of this piece. Despite the limitations of the MPAA rating and the guidelines of Walt Disney, which I imagine are at least somewhat restrictive, this was Lynch in his classic style and at his finest. What he's done, in effect, is produce a work for all ages and cinematic taste without compromising his own technique. By the way, those of you who aren't familiar with his other work have no idea what I'm talking about. I hope that those of you who are can relate.
Although I only recently saw this film, over the years I had heard many wonderful things about its subject matter from individuals whose taste in movies I fully trust. With that in mind, there was little doubt that I would consider this to be anything less than tube time well spent. However, nothing anyone ever told me could have prepared me for the degree to which it would touch me on a personal level. Alvin Straight reminded me very much of my grandfather, who had a third grade education and is still the smartest man I've ever known. This film eloquently illustrates the patience, wisdom, courage and yes stubbornness of a generation that is all but extinct. While the elder generations are and will always be, in essence, living history, individuals like Straight are all but gone. Soon the option to listen and learn about past events, first hand, from the accounts of our contemporaries who remain uncorrupted by the influence of the modern age will be gone as well.
Dazed and Confused (1993)
"No Obligation to Vomit Really!" (Not a Spoiler)
This flick is well worth watching and a pretty realistic look at the last day of high school in 1976, or in general for that matter. That is with some obvious exceptions such as looser liquor laws, along with the absence of cell phones and multiple body piercings. However, tons of blue eye shadow, hip-hugger jeans, some nice classic muscle cars and an awesome soundtrack more than makeup for the lack of modern day electronics and obscurities.
In the traditional sense, it's inconspicuously void of some of the characteristics that we've come to expect from teen hyjinx films. I say inconspicuous because I watched the film, absorbed it and decided that I liked it before I realized that these features were missing. For instance, there's romance but no actual sex or nudity. There's drinking and mild drug use, but nobody blows chunks or passes out. It's comforting to know that in 1993, a film of this nature could be made with some degree of dignity and still be worth watching.
Richard Linklater, the writer & director, does a good job of making the most of a cast that is pretty low key. By today's standards, Ben Affleck & Matthew McConaughey, who play prominent supporting roles, are the biggest names that appear. Jason London and Wiley Wiggins do a good job with the primary parts, although Wiggins seems to overplay the immaturity level in his portrayal of a freshman on the verge of having the rare privilege of being accepted by the upcoming seniors. He appears to have some sort of problem with his septum. He keeps shaking his head then dropping it and grabbing the bridge of his nose with his thumb and index finger. I mention this because it was really the only feature that annoyed me about the flick.
I don't own the soundtrack but it has to be phenomenal. Possibly the best Classic Rock & Roll compilation ever produced for a film.
If you're in the mood for some uncharacteristically intelligent teen humor then give "Dazed and Confused" a try. If nothing else it's considerably better than the majority of garbage that's produced in this specific area of the comedic genre.
Swimming (2000)
"Thank God for Intuition!" (Not a Spoiler)
Unfortunately I don't have the time, energy or allowances of words on this website to list all of the reasons why I'm glad that I saw this film. However, there are two primary reasons that I bought it under very uncharacteristic circumstances, knowing nothing about it aside from what I read on the back of the cover in the video store.
One is familiarity. It's set in Myrtle Beach, SC; I was raised in Charlotte, NC and spent practically every one of my childhood vacations there.
Two is Lauren Ambrose who plays the leading role as Frankie Wheeler; an awkward introverted young adult who is extremely confused sexually and otherwise. She finds herself torn between the charm of a manipulative newcomer and her loyalty to a childhood companion, who feels threatened by her newfound friendship. All the while she's desperately seeking the means in which to buy a car so as to escape from the confines of her hometown.
I never saw her in "Six Feet Under", (the role for which she is primarily known), and I grew fond of her based on her prominent appearance in "Psycho Beach Party". That's saying something! I'm far more tolerant of parodies than most and even I admit that "PBP" was horrible. Still I find myself glued to the tube every time it's on. It's comforting to now, after watching this film, that Ambrose is very definitely for real.
This film is filled with unique characters portrayed superbly by an otherwise unknown supporting cast that combine to deliver a message that's heartwarming and true. I know what you're thinking. This is a "Chick Flick", (no offense intended), Right? Maybe so, but if it is I can more than justify my affection for it based on the fact that it's literally filled with gorgeous bikini clad women.
My Cousin Vinny (1992)
"An Insult to Automotive Enthusiast Everywhere!" (Major Spoilers Herein!)
Prior to watching this film some years ago, I was told on numerous occasions and by various individuals, how painfully funny it was. It was painful all right, but in my opinion, it was anything but funny. In fact it's only equal in terms of heralded comedic disappointment is the disastrous "Get Shorty".
First of all, hat's off to Ralph Macchio who took yet another step toward becoming one of Hollywood's all time whiniest actors. Secondly, Joe Pesci his agent or someone at the studio should have known better. I have a great deal of respect for the man and all that he's accomplished, but let's face it, he's tried on a number of different levels and comedy simply isn't his forte.
Marisa Tomei's performance was refreshingly amusing, but not nearly enough to make the film worth watching, much less earn her an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. This brings me to the first of two reasons that I decided to Contribute my two cents toward such an awful movie. I recently saw a film in which Tomei plays a similar comedic yet provocative supporting role. "Slums of Beverly Hills" is a must see for her many die-hard fans, it's far less popular than this one, but considerably more humorous.
The second reason for my commentary is Tomei's trial testimony, which leads to the immediate acquittal of Macchio and his partner. The fact that the case was closed with no evidence other than the "positive traction" tire marks from a crime scene photograph is absolutely ludicrous, not to mention an insult to anyone who knows better.
The film was released in 1992 and set in the same time frame. The car they choose to use was manufactured the late 60's or early 70's. Under normal circumstances, there's probably a fifty percent chance that the rear end in this automobile would have been changed in that length of time. The chances of someone making such an upgrade to the drive train of this particular vehicle are unlikely and would probably be purely incidental, but far from impossible. I grew up in the Mid 1980's, a time when working on your own car was not only an option, but for a teenager it was a privilege and in many cases a necessity. I'm not a mechanic, nor do I play one on TV, never the less I performed this very function by myself at age sixteen.
I realize that this was supposed to be a comedy and that hauling the jury out to the impound lot for a test drive could have further enhanced the awkwardness of its ending, but if that doesn't work then try something else. Here's a thought, have Macchio's Auntie Em, or whomever, remind him prior to leaving for his vacation, that the car he's taking has less than fifteen miles on it and that it's only been driven to church, (next door), and to the grocery store, (next door
other direction). Bottom line, the filmmakers had the opportunity to give us the benefit of not assuming that we all share the same degree of automotive ignorance. By failing to do so they further damaged an already irreparable film and have successfully wasted a little more of my time.
At Close Range (1986)
"You Gotta Start Somewhere!" (Not a Spoiler)
This is a terrific film that, in my opinion, is highly underrated. I attribute this, in part, to the fact that in 1986, one principal cast member had not yet come of age. At any rate, it's a timeless piece that I revisit often and each time I find it to be a genuinely rewarding experience.
The plot and story line are based primarily on a true story of a family of thieves in the Midwest. The biographical aspect dramatically enhances the piece from a psychological standpoint, although I've always wondered how precisely the facts are portrayed. Don't get me wrong, this is a very good movie under any circumstances, I just believe that if the actual occurrences were as barbaric as they are illustrated here, the Whitewood family would be a household name nationwide. In fact, to this day I'm always on the lookout for biographical info on the family.
Director James Foley brings out the absolute best in this star-studded cast, the core of which consists of Academy Award Winners, Sean Penn and Christopher Walken along with Mary Stuart Masterson. The supporting cast is impressive as well, featuring Chris Penn, Tracey Walter, Crispen Glover, Kiefer Sutherland and many others.
As usual, Walken totally submerges himself into his character, the result of which should have earned him nominations for numerous awards. In retrospect this seems to be the point at which Sean Penn began to make his mark as a truly great, up and coming actor. His performance is sincere and passionate beyond anything he'd done previously. The film was made during the blissful period of his romance with, then wife, Madonna, who wrote and performed several hits for the soundtrack. I hate to admit it, but one tends to wonder how much influence she may have had on the dazzling success of his eventual achievements. She may very well have been the one who encouraged, even taught him to focus so deeply and channel his energy toward the burning performances for which he is now famous.
In his adolescence, Penn's character, who has been raised in a poverty stricken environment, is reunited with his estranged father, (Walken), who lives in a near by town. He's already found the girl of his dreams, (Masterson), and is prepared to do whatever's necessary to provide a more comfortable lifestyle for the two of them. His newly found association with his father appears to be his ticket to their financial freedom. From there, the story evolves into a nightmarish tale based on a clan with strong family ties and a code of conduct similar to that of the Mafioso.
There was one particular scene in the film that bothered me; it just didn't make sense. It involves a violent act from one of the primary cast members toward another and provokes a certain reaction from yet another. Again, It didn't make sense; the antagonist had to know, to some degree, what the consequences of his behavior would be. I couldn't understand why, in a film that was otherwise well structured, they felt the need to include this particular action. Then it hit me, this is a biographical piece and the assailant was obviously a psychopath. If this really happened it was far too important to ignore, no matter how illogical it may seen to the viewing audience.
Any commentary, of the positive nature, that I produce is directed exclusively toward lesser-known films. After all, what's the point in my telling you how much and why I was enthralled by a flick that three quarters of the population has seen, or is planning to see. With this in mind, I honestly don't believe I'd be commenting here had this film had been released in the recent past. Considering the degree of respect that Penn's performances of this caliper have come to demand, I wouldn't have to. Most of you would already have seen it.
What's Up, Tiger Lily? (1966)
"When Cautious Becomes Costly!" (Not a Spoiler)
Very recently I passed on the opportunity to purchase this flick at a ridiculously low price. Ironically, if I'd known nothing about the film aside from the fact that Woody Allen was involved, I probably would have bought it without hesitation, if for no other reason than to have in my collection. Unfortunately I knew a little bit about its origins and I've always been too reluctant even to rent it. As luck, or a lack thereof, would have it, I caught it on one of the classic movie channels less than a week later and I've been kicking myself in the a __ __ ever since.
Originally this was a Japanese espionage film and was purchased by an American studio for $66,000 with the intent of dubbing it verbatim for release here in the US. Instead they turned it over to Woody who completely rewrote the screenplay and turned it into a parody centered on the dependence of an entire culture based on their abduction of a recipe for the worlds greatest chicken salad. Doesn't sound very funny? Obviously I didn't think so either, but by my standards, I was very wrong! I can't remember when I've laughed so hard, and now I'll have to pay the price, (literally), to find out whether or not it was really that funny. Meaning, with a flick of this nature I'm never 100% sure whether the overwhelming humorous effect was genuine until I watch it a second time. For instance, the first time I saw "Scary Movie" I was in tears. The second time around
well, there was no second time; I could never quite figure out how I sat through it the first time.
This was only Allen's second feature length film and was a collaborative effort, in terms of writing as well as directing. Apparently, Woody wasn't swinging a very big stick around the studio at the time. It's my understanding that, from his point of view, the end result was a considerable disappointment due to his lack of creative control. Even so, this is definitely a significant portion of the root structure that we now know as "Classic Woody Allen". To some degree it epitomizes the term "Slapstick Comedy", lots of great one liners, very silly, but extremely creative never the less.
Prior to seeing it for yourself, it's virtually impossible to fathom the precision requirements that must have been involved in making such an unconventional film. As a matter of fact, there's an on going amateur debate as to whether or not Woody ever actually read the original script. Based on the deliberate actions of the characters in accordance with the revised script, it's hard for me to believe that he didn't. In other words, If you didn't know any better, and weren't a Japanese lip reader, it would be very easy to assume that this was a Japanese comedy dubbed in English, word for word. Understand? There's substantial irony in the fact that the very reason that I avoided this film for so long is a big part of why I now highly recommend it. Even if you don't find it overly funny, the small amount of background information that I've given you here should allow you to watch and, at the very least, appreciate the creative energy required in its making.
Dirty Harry (1971)
"Shouldn't They Have Left Well Enough Alone?" (Not a Spoiler)
In my opinion Clint Eastwood's performance as "Dirty Harry Callahan", in this film, is as good or better than any other in his career. This includes his role in "Unforgiven" for which he received an Oscar Nomination for Best Actor in a Leading Role. Those of you who have, thus far, and plan to continue to avoid this flick based on the myriad of dreadful sequels that followed
don't! This is a very good crime drama.
Trust me, there are no scenes where Eastwood walks down the middle of the street picking off armed criminals who are mesmerized on the sidelines like sitting ducks. As a matter of fact, he is actually quite vulnerable in a number of scenes. A good example is when four out of shape middle aged guys mistake him for a peeping tom. They nearly beat him senseless before his partner arrives on the scene to break it up. In the sequels I imagine he could have given these guys a stern round of stares, instantly sending each and every one of them into a coma.
Andrew Robinson plays the role of the psychopath to a tee; his character is intriguing and genuinely creepy. The only thing that really bothered me about the story was one particular scene where a debate ensues between Eastwood's character and the district attorney, regarding probable cause versus the rights of the criminal. Based on what little I know about the law, Harry was at least partially right! Even if you're not fond of him, in any capacity, I think most of us have come to terms with the fact that Clint Eastwood is a better suited to direct films as opposed to acting in them, particularly at this point in his career.
I'm sure that the sequels to "Dirty Harry" made millions, and in Hollywood you can't argue with that. Unfortunately in the process they tainted the reputation of a pretty good film.
Blue Velvet (1986)
"So Who Won?" (Not a Spoiler)
Ethan & Joel Coen's "Blood Simple" & David Lynch's "Blue Velvet". I've always associated these two wonderful films with one another. Partly because they're somewhat similar, and partly because I saw them for the first time back to back. Sometime in the late eighties a friend recommended them both to me at the same time, so I rented and watched them together a short time after. Back then I didn't associate movies with directors or screenwriters, so I was totally unaware of the fact that these were to become a group of my all time favorite filmmaker's.
Both of these flicks can be accurately categorized in the mystery / suspense genres and both illustrate, very eloquently, how to make the most with the least. Meaning, they were very successful, in their own right, and were obviously made with modest budgets. Both are very dark and mildly comedic. They were made in the mid-eighties and at the present time, they are rated equally on this website. "Blood Simple" has a mind-boggling plot and story line that are driven by jealousy, greed, and fear. This was not only the Coen's first feature length film; it was the first for their find and eventual Oscar Winner, Francis McDormand. I'd love to know what she was paid for this flick versus some of her recent work. That, in itself, may be mind boggling.
This one has a surprise waiting around every corner, and at the end, when everything comes unraveled all at once, it's almost beyond comprehension. In fact, I wasn't completely sold on it until I heard the last, and only lines spoken between McDormand and M. Emmet Walsh. Over the years "Blue Velvet" has developed something of a cult following and Lynch was already pretty well established when it was released.
Dennis Hopper, whose character, I'm guessing, has some serious Freudian issues, and Laura Dern, the sweet innocent high schooler, are the only two household names that appear. One of the "neatest" things about this film is the fact that, if it weren't for some of the clothing and automobiles, you would automatically assume that portions of it were set in the fifties. Quite a bit of the dialogue is purposely wooden, kind of corny, like something you'd hear on "Leave it to Beaver". When coupled with the dark elements of the film this creates and broadens an effect that becomes all the more surreal.
If this hadn't been the Coen's first, I would swear that these two flicks came to be with the three of them, (Lynch and the Coen Brothers), sitting around a bar 1983. David looks at The Brothers and says, "You guys couldn't produce a decent suspense thriller if I wrote it for you!" Ethan turns to Lynch and says, "How much man?! Bring it on and we'll kick you're a __ __!" And there you have it, my first monitor play. Unfortunately, these selections aren't for everyone. If you require computer graphics and explosions with your murder, these are probably a little too bland for your taste. Unfortunately, If you've become a Coen Brother's fan in this decade, based on such works as "O Brother Where Art Thou", this is not a definitive indication as to whether or not you'll enjoy these either. It's pretty simple actually, if you thought "Reservoir Dogs" was as good as, or better than "Pulp Fiction", then you're half way home.
Blood Simple (1984)
"So Who Won?" (Not a Spoiler)
Ethan & Joel Coen's "Blood Simple" & David Lynch's "Blue Velvet". I've always associated these two wonderful films with one another. Partly because they're somewhat similar, and partly because I saw them for the first time back to back. Sometime in the late eighties a friend recommended them both to me at the same time, so I rented and watched them together a short time after. Back then I didn't associate movies with directors or screenwriters, so I was totally unaware of the fact that these were to become a group of my all time favorite filmmaker's.
Both of these flicks can be accurately categorized in the mystery / suspense genres and both illustrate, very eloquently, how to make the most with the least. Meaning, they were very successful, in their own right, and were obviously made with modest budgets. Both are very dark and mildly comedic. They were made in the mid-eighties and at the present time, they are rated equally on this website. "Blood Simple" has a mind-boggling plot and story line that are driven by jealousy, greed, and fear. This was not only the Coen's first feature length film; it was the first for their find and eventual Oscar Winner, Francis McDormand. I'd love to know what she was paid for this flick versus some of her recent work. That, in itself, may be mind boggling.
This one has a surprise waiting around every corner, and at the end, when everything comes unraveled all at once, it's almost beyond comprehension. In fact, I wasn't completely sold on it until I heard the last, and only lines spoken between McDormand and M. Emmet Walsh.
Over the years "Blue Velvet" has developed something of a cult following and Lynch was already pretty well established when it was released. Dennis Hopper, whose character, I'm guessing, has some serious Freudian issues, and Laura Dern, the sweet innocent high schooler, are the only two household names that appear. One of the "neatest" things about this film is the fact that, if it weren't for some of the clothing and automobiles, you would automatically assume that portions of it were set in the fifties. Quite a bit of the dialogue is purposely wooden, kind of corny, like something you'd hear on "Leave it to Beaver". When coupled with the dark elements of the film this creates and broadens an effect that becomes all the more surreal.
If this hadn't been the Coen's first, I would swear that these two flicks came to be with the three of them, (Lynch and the Coen Brothers), sitting around a bar 1983. David looks at The Brothers and says, "You guys couldn't produce a decent suspense thriller if I wrote it for you!" Ethan turns to Lynch and says, "How much man?! Bring it on and we'll kick you're a __ __!" And there you have it, my first monitor play.
Unfortunately, these selections aren't for everyone. If you require computer graphics and explosions with your murder, these are probably a little too bland for your taste. Unfortunately, If you've become a Coen Brother's fan in this decade, based on such works as "O Brother Where Art Thou", this is not a definitive indication as to whether or not you'll enjoy these either. It's pretty simple actually, if you thought "Reservoir Dogs" was as good as, or better than "Pulp Fiction", then you're half way home.
Star Wars (1977)
"Amazon Women on the Death Star"
I watched this film for the second time today. The first time was in the
theater when I was twelve years old. I think after having not seen it in
so many years that I may have developed some sort of phobia. My
girlfriend bought the box set several years ago and I've been starring
at the plastic wrapping ever since. The aftermath of hurricane Francis
has me grounded today so I figured, "what the heck".
I have, nor do I seek any credibility in terms of my film critiques;
therefore I have nothing to lose by submitting a review for this film
that is not entirely flattering. Re-watching it was an exciting and
enjoyable experience, although I found much of the film to be laughable.
I attribute this, in part, to having seen "Spaceballs" much more
recently and more often. I couldn't help relating certain comedic
aspects of the parody to the real thing. For instance, every time they
said "Force" I was expecting to hear "Schwartz", and so on.
Then there was the squadron of Jedi Fighter Pilots who assembled to
attack the Death Star. One guy was at least a hundred pounds over weight
and hadn't shaved in a month. Another was fifty pounds over weight and
pushing sixty years old. These two must have been George Lucas'
brother's cousin's stepfather's former roommates. That or "The Force" was short of a much-needed physical fitness program.
Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal of respect for the
accomplishments of this film in terms of special effects, sound effects
and the fact that these, along with other features were displayed here
eons ahead of their time. I thought it was deserving of all of its
Academy Awards Nominations with the exception of one, that being Best
Picture. Again, it was entertaining, but one of the top ten films of all
time
Please! In 1977, does it rank as the best movie that the average
twelve-year-old boy has ever seen? Absolutely!, but lets grow up and get
real. I understand that this is sacrilege, but in my humble opinion, and
speaking from a dramatic standpoint, you simply can't compare this story
or the performances of this cast to sci-fi films such as "Alien", or for
that matter, "12 Monkeys".
Most feel that the sequels, "Return of the Jedi" and "Empire" are much
better, (I'll soon find out). If this is the case then it's highly
unusual, as most sequels aren't worth the laser disc they're burnt on.
Considering the recognition that these two films received it's obvious
that they're well worth watching, at the very least. However, they may
also help to prove my earlier point regarding the strengths and
weaknesses of this type of film. While both made their mark in terms of
Academy Awards, they were completely void of any acclaim in the
individual performance related categories.
I'm obviously not a hard core sci-fi buff, but I am glad that I finally
motivated myself to see "Star Wars" again. It brought back many fond
memories and I'm sure I'll see it again very soon. In the mean time, if
you find spelling or grammatical errors in this review, don't give me a
hard time. I used the force of Microsoft Word.
Hable con ella (2002)
"Can You Help Me Understand?" (Spoilers Herein!)
"Talk to Her" was painfully slow, which I have no problem with, as long
as the filmmaker's wow me at the end. To truly enjoy a film I don't
require an ending that stuns me, or for that matter, one that brings
closure to all issues, and certainly not one that's necessarily happy.
Just do one of two things; either entertain me while I'm watching or wow
me at the end. Unfortunately, this film did neither. The contents made
me wonder why I continued to watch and the ending just left me flat. I saw this film for the first time just recently, and I'm afraid that my
expectations may simply have been too high. I think so much of Pedro
Almodóvar, who wrote and directed the piece, that I bought it, (didn't
bother to rent it), without a recommendation from anyone who had
actually seen the film. I'm sure I'll watch it again sometime, this time
hopefully with a more grounded point of view that may help me appreciate
it more.
Based on the fact that the film wasn't in complete chronological
sequence, it was surprisingly easy to follow, especially considering the
foreign language issue. I'm sure this wasn't done on purpose to cater to
the American Public, or anyone else for that matter.
I have read a number of reviews here and not one has commented on the
one possibility that left me feeling like I hadn't wasted my time. Based
on their behavior toward one another in the final scenes, I feel like
Almodóvar meant to imply, at least to some degree, that Marco might be
the one who raped Alicia and that Benigno may have been in love with
Marco. By that time I was reduced to just hoping for a miracle. Some
huge dramatic twist that would come to light and leave me saying, "So
that's why I've been sitting here for almost two hours", but it never
did. Then again, if it happened and I had already anticipated it, that
probably wouldn't have satisfied me either.
If there is one of you out there who has detected something that I may
have missed or misinterpreted then please let me know. Below are a few
questions that, if answered, I hope might help me understand and
appreciate this film as much as the majority of you who commented
favorably on it. If you're so inclined, please provide me with answers
or at least your opinion for these.
Thanks,
1.) When talking to Marco from his prison cell, Benigno never denies
raping Alicia. Does this indicate beyond any doubt that he was, in fact,
the culprit?
2.) Was anyone else expecting Benigno to confess his love for Marco in
his suicide note
3.) How does a foreign Language film win an Oscar for Best Writing,
Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, get a nomination for Best
Director and not receive a nomination for Best Foreign Language Film?
This seems to be very unusual to me, am I right?
4.) What was the real significance of Rosario Flores' character, Lydia
González? Was she something aside from a tool that allowed these two men
to officially meet one another and become friends? If not, why did
Almodóvar waste so much time developing her character in the beginning?
After I found out that, prior to the incident that left her comatose,
she was about to dump Marco I stopped relating to her all together
anyway. Come to think of it, I didn't think that her character was
anything special prior to the incident. Am I wrong?
Riding in Cars with Boys (2001)
"The Truth Will Set You Free!" (Not a Spoiler)
I really liked this film. Apparently, Roger Ebert and my mother may be
the only others who share my enthusiasm. If you saw it and found
yourself unable to relate to the heartfelt message that the cast and
crew attempted to deliver, it may well have been for one of two reasons.
Either you were fortunate enough to have been born with a silver spoon
in your mouth, or more importantly, you were not raised in a broken
home.
Director Penny Marshall does a wonderful job of craftily structuring
this film. The chronological breaks are cleaver enough to keep it
interesting for anyone, but not artistically modified to the point of
repelling the more common viewers, who are prone to be its biggest
supporters.
Drew Barrymore is terrific in her portrayal of Beverly D'Onofrio at age
fifteen and beyond. If the film was rigidly based on a true story then I
am particularly impressed with the fact that D'Onofrio, (who wrote the
book), didn't sugar coat her inability to be a good mother, young or
otherwise. Many parents who are brutally neurotic or behave selfishly
throughout the upbringing of their offspring don't even realize it, and
are certainly not likely to publicize these facts as explicitly as she
does here. She encounters a whirlwind of negative factors, which include
a sea of disappointment and heartache that plague her throughout her
young life. With this in mind, it might have been easy enough to depict
herself as a model parent and still produce a book worth being
published.
Whenever relevant, whether or not a film is based on a true story
carries different degrees of weight with me. For instance, "Saving
Private Ryan" was very good, but had it been based on a true story; it
would have been phenomenal. On the other side of the coin, the validity
of "A Beautiful Mind" is grounded exclusively on the basis of reality.
Had it been based purely on fiction it would have been garbage. Yet
another example includes films like "Life is Beautiful", it wasn't based
entirely on truth, nor did it need to be.
The first time I saw "Riding in Cars with Boys" I missed the opening
credits and was unaware of the fact that the story was based on actual
events. After seeing the film a second time, with the true story aspect
in mind, it took on an entirely different meaning for me.
From the standpoint of non-violence based biographical dramas that
successfully deliver a message that is heartfelt and true, I compare
this to some of my favorites. If you've seen "Mask" (1985), "Stand and
Deliver" (1988), "Awakenings" (1990) or "Remember the Titans" (2000),
then there's a good chance you'll embrace this film as well.
Unfortunately, "Riding in Cars with Boys" may be the most popular among
these recommendations so keep in mind the reverse is true as well.
Some other non-biographical considerations to keep in mind when deciding
whether or not you might enjoy this film are, "Fried Green Tomatoes"
(1991), "Steel Magnolias" (1989) and "The Spitfire Grill" (1996). If you
found any, or all of these to be worth while viewing experiences then
"Riding in Cars with Boys" may be right up your alley.
The World According to Garp (1982)
"Thank Goodness it wasn't a Drive-in!" (Not a Spoiler)
To the best of my recollection this was the movie that turned it all
around for me. I saw it for the first time in the theater when I was
junior in high school, and as well as I remember it had more influence,
in terms of altering my future movie going choices, than any other film.
At the time I was dating a young lady who was mature beyond her years
and she insisted on our seeing it together. Me, I was still awestruck
from having recently seen "Escape From New York", (which I still
consider a really good film taking into account the time frame & genre).
As I recall I didn't put up a great deal of resistance, after all with
"Mork" playing the title role how bad could it be? Little did I know
that I was about to see the first film that I would come to consider
truly timeless.
With all this in mind I may be somewhat biased when I say that this is
more than a film, to me it's a work of art. It probably wasn't the first
artistically driven film I'd seen, but it must have been the first one
that I was old enough to understand and fully appreciate. All I know is
that I left the theater that night intent on broadening my cinematic
horizons.
At the time I had no concept of the significance of the Academy Award
Nominations that would follow. Now I look back and I'm stunned that only
two portions of this wonderful work were deemed worthy of Oscar
Nominations.
Glenn Close received acclaim with a Best Supporting Actress Nomination
for her portrayal of the single mother of T. S. Garp, (Robin Williams).
In spite of her son's literary aspirations, she becomes a novelist of
iconic proportions, she is more than a little eccentric but a loving
mother never the less. John Lithgow was the other nominee for Best
Supporting Actor, and was phenomenal in his role as an, ex-NFL tight end
who has become an emotionally frustrated transsexual and close family
friend.
This is one of those rare movies that I've seen time and time again over
the years, and it never seems lose any of the rare qualities that
dazzled me from the start. Needless to say it gave me a completely new
outlook on the seemingly limitless abilities of Robin Williams. For me
it's virtually impossible to nail down a specific, or even a dominant
genre where this flick is concerned. It's dramatic, comedic, romantic,
and tragic and, in my opinion, it conveys all of these qualities with a
great deal of equilibrium and success.
Donnie Darko (2001)
"Destined to Become a Cult Favorite!" (Not a Spoiler!)
This has become one of my all time favorite flicks, even though I'm not
a fanatical about the fantasy or sci-fi genres. To genuinely appreciate
this film, you don't have to be either. It contains elements of drama,
comedy and romance that are as dominant and effective as any other.
This is the sparkling debut of young writer, director Richard Kelly as
his first feature length film. Along with being superbly written and
directed it is also very visual, as the cinematography is phenomenal.
Also, if you're into 80's music then you should love the soundtrack. As
if all this weren't enough, the film is also superbly cast.
Jake Gyllenhaal, who is fantastic in his portrayal of Donnie Darko,
became a household name and received considerably more notoriety for
his work in the more recent film "The Good Girl". This is unfortunate
considering "Donnie Darko" was a much better flick. Don't take my word
for it; consult the IMDb top 250 films. As of August 14, 2004, "Donnie
Darko" is ranked number 93, "The Good Girl", (which wasn't bad), doesn't
place in the top 250. Between his roles in these two films Gyllenhaal
managed to illustrate a substantial amount of versatility, although the
part of Darko seemed to be a significantly better fit for him.
Strangely, only the title role in this film can be specifically
categorized as a lead. However, the supporting cast lends as much to the
overall achievement of this piece as any I've ever seen. There are a
host of cast members, including Mary McDonnell, Jena Malone, Drew
Barrymore, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Noah Wyle that play integral roles,
which are vital to the success of the film. A prime example is Patrick
Swayze's cameo in which he may have finally found his niche. He plays
the part of a Cheese Ball who turns out to be a Sleaze Ball. Who knows,
If he had confined himself to this type of role at the beginning of his
career he might have become one of my favorite actors.
One thing in particular that added to the ambiance of this flick, and
something that I found quite puzzling, is the fact that the story line
is based, in part, on time travel, and is set in 1988. Under normal
circumstances the basis for such an effect would be to allow some
portion of the story to relate to the present, (the time in which the
film was actually made). Here, this is not the case at all. The time
travel element, which is far from conventional, is based on a period of
less than a month. This is fascinating to me because when people watch
this film twenty years from now, and they will, most will automatically
assume that it was made in 1988, not 2001. In effect, Kelly has created
a period piece for no apparent reason.
I've encouraged a relatively significant number of people to watch this
movie and the results have been extraordinary. This may be the only
recommendation I've ever made to ten or more individuals without
receiving any negative feedback. Don't get me wrong, I have yet to boast
about the film to any of my associates who choose to confine their
viewing choices to the Lifetime Network.
Read the plot outline and if it doesn't impress you, force yourself and
watch it anyway. There's a good chance that you'll be pleasantly
surprised. I know I was!
Der Krieger und die Kaiserin (2000)
"Patience, in this case, was truly a virtue!" (Not a spoiler)
"The Princess and the Warrior" is one of my favorite foreign language
films. Still I can relate, to some degree, to the negative press that
surrounded it, therefore I don't intend to make an all out effort to
justify the fact that I disagree. Instead I'll try to focus on the
positives and hopefully influence others to watch and make their own
judgement.
It wasn't particularly creative from the standpoint of cinematography or
direction. I did think that the performances of some of the actors, in
both key and supporting roles, were exceptional. It was, however, Tom
Tykwer's writing efforts that I found to be truly extraordinary.
In the beginning and on the surface this movie seems shallow, inhibited
and fairly predictable, but eventually the story becomes like a flower
coming into bloom. About two thirds of the way through the film there
are certain distinctive features that come to light, which are based on
seemingly meaningless details from earlier in the story.
As the film progresses it's almost as if the plot and story line are
slowly turned inside out. What are initially perceived to be the most
significant features of the piece are gradually replaced by underlying
elements that become more consequential, and are difficult, if not
impossible to anticipate. As the drama unfolds it's almost as if you're
watching the pieces fall in place for a puzzle that you didn't know
existed.
Another impressive feature is the fact that there are a number of scenes
that are very disturbing and difficult to watch. This effect is achieved
without producing a work that is particularly graphic. In my opinion
this, in itself, is significant accomplishment.
As usual, Franke Potente is strange and beautiful. Her role as Simone,
(Sissi), an introvert who lives and works in the confines of a mental
hospital was bit unusual, based on what I've seen of her other work.
Never the less she played the part exquisitely. Chronologically, this
seems to be the role that brought her significant notoriety in the eyes
of American Filmmakers. Whether or not this was a positive effect is a
debatable issue.
The chain of events are brilliantly tied together. Two antisocial people
are linked together and go through the difficult early stages of forming
a bond based on their own personal tragedies. There was considerable
irony in the fact that Potente's character helps her emotionally unsound
love interest seek asylum in the mental institution, a place from which
she is trying desperately to escape.
If you're prone to give up on a movie based on the contents of the first
fifteen minutes then this may not be the film for you. Patience, in this
case, is truly a virtue.
The Big Lebowski (1998)
"Literally A Laugh a Minute Comedy" (Not a Spoiler)
Were it not for some of the Woody Allen's classic slapstick films, I
would have little reservation in saying that "The Big Lebowski" stood
alone atop the list as my all time favorite pure comedy. Over a period
of years I've probably seen this movie ten times and every time I watch
it produces multiple belly laughs.
In my opinion the Coen Brothers, who wrote and directed this piece, are
the most versatile filmmakers of our time. Some how they manage to
incorporate an ambiance of surrealism into all of their work, comedic or
not. Nowhere is this effect more Blatantly utilized than in "The Big
Lebowski". A good example is Sam Elliott's narration and brief
appearance, which are totally out of place but completely effective.
Then there's John Turtturo's Cameo as Jesus Quintana, a Hispanic, purple
clad, pedophile, bowling fanatic which left me howling.
I would never have thought that Jeff Bridges could conform so perfectly
to the leading role of Jeff Lebowski, or "The Dude", as he insist on
being called. His sparkling adaptation of a dry witted, mostly laid
back, unemployed pot smoking hippie who rarely takes anything seriously
and has frequent acid flashbacks, was completely convincing.
With the encouragement of his friend Walter, (John Goodman), The Dude
hatches what should be a relatively simple scheme to replace a damaged
rug. This evolves as the anchor for a complex urban nightmare that is
smart and loudly amusing.
Goodman's portrayal of a high strung, unstable, totally irrational,
conspiracy minded Vietnam Veteran is absolutely hilarious, in my opinion
the finest performance of his career. In fact, his role may be the most
integral component to the success of this film.
Unfortunately, This film didn't receive nearly as much ink as the Coen's
comedy classic, "Raising Arizona", which is unfortunate. Personally I
thought Lebowski was more intelligent and considerably more humorous.
MASH (1970)
"Unfortunately, Not One of My Favorites." (Not a Spoiler)
I have a great deal of respect for Robert Altman, who directed this
piece; I'm a big fan of most of his work. Therefore it's difficult for
me to submit an unfavorable comment in reference to this particular
film, which is thought of by most as one of his finest. Unfortunately, I
find myself in the minority.
I saw it for the first time about midway through the exceptionally long
run of the television series, of which I am a huge fan. I've been told
more than once that my intense dislike of the film stems from having
seen and grown accustomed to the TV show first. This is simply not true,
I've forced myself to watch the movie a number of times and I am still
not impressed.
The most distinct feature that bothers me about the movie is the
casting, which is a bizarre phenomenon considering the fact that I'm a
fan of nearly every single primary cast member. It just seemed as though
most of the principal characters were taken out of their element in
terms of the strengths of their talents.
Take for instance Robert Duvall in the role of Frank Burns. How often,
before or sense has he tried to play a no holds barred nincompoop? I
don't know, but in my opinion this wasn't a successful attempt, in my
opinion he's simply too intelligent. I had the same problem with Sally
Kellerman. I just don't see her as a comedic nymphomaniac nitwit nurse.
Her portrayal of "Hot lips" actually seemed to come across more like
what I perceive to be her true self, sexy and serious.
On the other side of the coin, the remainder of the surgeons from the
Swamp, Donald Sutherland (Hawkeye) in particular, came across as
complete idiots. This I attribute as much to bad writing as improper
casting. Looking back on it, history proves that Sutherland has a gift
for playing eccentric characters. With this in mind he might have been
wonderful in the role of Frank Burns.
Thank goodness they didn't try to make the TV series with Gary Burghoff,
(Radar), talking in anticipation over everything that was being said to
him. I'll say this; if I'd seen the movie first that might have been a
little less irritating, it certainly couldn't have been worse.
If you haven't already seen this movie then certainly don't avoid it
based on a my lack of enthusiasm. There are still enough diehard fans
out there to keep *MASH* on the list as very significant cult classic
movie. For me, that's says enough when deciding
In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
"A Carpenter Masterpiece!" (Not a Spoiler)
In my humble opinion this is John Carpenter's finest work. I had
difficulty finding a great deal of flaw in the making of this film,
particularly after viewing and evaluating it on a realistic level. I
thought the film was better classified as a psychological thriller than
a horror movie. One that happened to be superbly written and very well
directed. Not to mention the cinematography which was better than
average, along with impressive special effects.
Granted, some of the dialogue is wooden, particularly early on. However,
it seemed to evolve and become significantly sharper as the film
progresses. This may very well have been a planned effect to keep the
film in perspective.
The primary focal point is Sam Neill who is terrific in his portrayal of
a talented, ever skeptical freelance insurance investigator. He begins
his newest assignment coupled with the beautiful editor of a missing
horror novelist of cult status. He begins this excursion with no
knowledge of the fact that his life and state of mind will soon be
forever altered along with his perception of fraud and reality.
I'm convinced that most of the individuals who really disliked this
flick were simply unable to follow it. Either it flew right over their
head or they spent too much time at the snack bar, (trust me, any time
at all would have been too much). The plot and story line are
considerably more intricate than most films of this nature. At the same
time it is highly structured, although somewhat chaotic, but completely
purposeful nevertheless.
This selection is understandably not for everyone. If you've seen the
suspenseful sleeper "Session 9" chances are you've already seen "In the
Mouth". The reverse is considerably less likely. If you found either one
to be worthwhile viewing experience then you should make it a point to
see the other.
Dirty Pretty Things (2002)
Frears and cast at they're finest! (Not A Spoiler)
I thought that Dirty Pretty Things was a wonderful film. It possessed a number of the elements that I look for in my favorite flicks. Along with being masterfully written and directed, it was also superbly cast. Chiwetel Ejifor, (Okwe), is brilliant in his role as a humble unassuming illegal immigrant, and more. In his native land he worked for the government as a respected surgeon. He seems to have come to terms with his new life, which includes several demeaning jobs in a less than favorable environment. That is until his past and the future begin to haunt him.
The cast and crew did a phenomenal job with the difficult task of combining the darkest elements imaginable with those of romance and compassion. Meanwhile, there are some really nice surprises. The performances of all of the actors, in both leading and supporting roles are, at the very least, commendable.
My question is, "who does Audrey Tautou have to sleep with to get an Academy Award nomination for best actress in a leading role?" Here, she is brilliant in her portrayal of a poor Turkish Muslim immigrant living in a London ghetto. I want to believe, based on her previous work, (prior to viewing this film I wasn't even sure she could speak English), that this particular role presented her with quite a challenge. It's a proven fact that versatility is one primary key to the heart of the academy. In particular, the ability to successfully portray the role of a character that is mentally challenged, or is of a culture other than that of their native land, is generally acknowledged, if not rewarded.
If there was, in fact, an oversight here I hope that it has been rectified and that her future work will receive adequate acclaim. Speaking of recognition deficiencies, when is someone going to sufficiently pursue the talents of the lovely Sophie Okenedo? Aside from being exceptionally beautiful, I thought she was terrific in her small supporting role as streetwise English prostitute.
Read a basic plot outline for Dirty Pretty Things, If it sounds like your cup of tea then watch and enjoy. Be careful though, too much detailed information from amateur sources prior to viewing can be
harmful. Needless to say, this tends to taint your own interpretation of the film, and potentially ruin what would otherwise be couch time well spent...
No Man's Land (2001)
"It May Change Your Life As Well" (Not a Spoiler)
I was promptly compelled to see "No Man's Land" after it won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film in 2002. Under normal circumstances and, without further recommendation, this is not a factor that would drive me with a great deal of urgency. In this case however, "Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain", (Amélie), possibly the most highly acclaimed foreign language film of our time, happened to be among the others nominated for the award.
In the eyes of amateur moviegoers, such as myself, "Amélie" was a shoe in for this honor. The chances of another film winning in this category on this particular year were about as good as they were in 1999 when La Vita è bella, (Life is Beautiful), won the same award.
Needless to say, after hearing the announcement I was amazed even disturbed, but mostly I was curious. I rented the film without reading anything about it; I was skeptical to say the least. When the movie was over I was completely stunned.
Keep in mind the fact that these two pieces are from opposite ends of the cinematic spectrum. Amélie's tag line is "She'll change your life".
"No Man's Land" may change your life as well, and the outcome may be similar, the method of transformation, however, will be distinctly different.
The most popular misconception about this film seems to revolve around its primary subject matter. This is not a movie about the war in Bosnia.
Yes, it's is centered around the conflict between the Bosnians and the Serbs, but is that the main topic? The actors don't debate any bureaucratic issues; there is no specific discussion of right or wrong from a political standpoint. In fact, when you're finished watching this film you won't know anymore about the core of this controversy than you did before it started. This is simply an intense dramatic look at humanity and our instinctive obsession to stay alive under any and all circumstances. It's about human beings learning to practice civilized behavior in a very uncivilized situation.
It eloquently depicts an extreme scenario and the extraordinary conduct of three individuals from two rival factions. The same story could've been told, no less effectively, about anyone, anywhere at anytime, provided the subjects were sworn enemies and were prepared to fight one another to the death. It could have revolved around two contemporary urban street gangs or two armies from the middle ages. The only major requirement, in terms of change, would be the environment in which they were trapped.
In closing, "Amélie" vs. "No Man's Land"? At the very worst it's a toss up. Need I say more?
Rear Window (1954)
"Close the Curtain... Please!" (Spoiler)
The writing for "Rear Window" is little more than an insult to the intelligence of modern day man. Understand that, based on the chronology of my all time favorite films I do have the ability to watch a piece from this era realistically, giving all the necessary consideration to when it was made.
First of all, most of the eventual suspicions acted upon by the cast are thin at best. The ones they're built on, (the basis for Stewart's initial disturbance) are completely unwarranted. There simply isn't enough evidence to ignite the investigation.
The culprit, (Raymond Burr), is suspected of killing and dismembering his wife. The viewing audience is expected to believe that he meticulously disposes of the body with the exception of her head, which, if I'm not mistaken, he buries in the flowerbed outside his own apartment building. Come on, this guy's not portrayed as a serial killer so don't give me that "subliminal need to be caught" crap!
When the neighbors little dog becomes curious and begins digging in the garden he promptly becomes the films second casualty. Instead of properly disposing of the tiny carcass it is left lying on the walkway beside the flowerbed, sending its owner and the rest of the complex into a state of panic. Was he nearly caught in the Act? I don't know, give me at least a slight indication! I could go on and on. The nighttime voyeurism from Stewart's window with the room brightly lit, etc
More disturbing than anything else was the dialogue. I don't believe that people communicated in this manner in the fifties, or anytime in the twentieth century for that matter. The conversations between Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly are like a psychotic production of Shakespeare meets The Farmer in the Dell. Oddly enough the one refreshingly realistic role was that of Thelma Ritter, who plays Jimmy Stewart's home healthcare worker.
Rear Window is worth watching, if for no other reason than to witness Hitchcock's phenomenal camera work. I am a big fan of Alfred Hitchcock. Unfortunately, three of his most popular films, (Psycho excluded), are three of my all time least favorite. In fact, the nicest thing that I can say about this movie is that it wasn't nearly as bad as "Vertigo".
A foot note. It might surprise you to know that I've seen this film many times. You see; I have insomnia and there is a classic movie channel that plays it late at night on a semi-regular basis. For me the viewing experience comparable to a shot of Nyquil and three Zanax.
Dirty Pretty Things (2002)
Frears and cast at they're finest! (Not A Spoiler)
I thought that Dirty Pretty Things was a wonderful film. It possessed a number of the elements that I look for in my favorite flicks. Along with being masterfully written and directed, it was also superbly cast. Chiwetel Ejifor, (Okwe), is brilliant in his role as a humble unassuming illegal immigrant, and more. In his native land he worked for the government as a respected surgeon. He seems to have come to terms with his new life, which includes several demeaning jobs in a less than favorable environment. That is until his past and the future begin to haunt him.
The cast and crew did a phenomenal job with the difficult task of combining the darkest elements imaginable with those of romance and compassion. Meanwhile, there are some really nice surprises. The performances of all of the actors, in both leading and supporting roles are, at the very least, commendable.
My question is, "who does Audrey Tautou have to sleep with to get an Academy Award nomination for best actress in a leading role?" Here, she is brilliant in her portrayal of a poor Turkish Muslim immigrant living in a London ghetto. I want to believe, based on her previous work, (prior to viewing this film I wasn't even sure she could speak English), that this particular role presented her with quite a challenge. It's a proven fact that versatility is one primary key to the heart of the academy. In particular, the ability to successfully portray the role of a character that is mentally challenged, or is of a culture other than that of their native land, is generally acknowledged, if not rewarded.
If there was, in fact, an oversight here I hope that it has been rectified and that her future work will receive adequate acclaim. Speaking of recognition deficiencies, when is someone going to sufficiently pursue the talents of the lovely Sophie Okenedo? Aside from being exceptionally beautiful, I thought she was terrific in her small supporting role as streetwise English prostitute.
Read a basic plot outline for Dirty Pretty Things, If it sounds like your cup of tea then watch and enjoy. Be careful though, too much detailed information from amateur sources prior to viewing can be
harmful. Needless to say, this tends to taint your own interpretation of the film, and potentially ruin what would otherwise be couch time well spent...